The reliability of currency and purchasing power parity conversion for international project cost benchmarking

被引:10
作者
Langston, Craig [1 ]
机构
[1] Bond Univ, Fac Soc & Design, Gold Coast, Australia
关键词
Performance measurement; Data envelopment analysis; Purchasing power; International construction; Coefficient of variation; Cost conversion;
D O I
10.1108/BIJ-08-2013-0085
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Purpose - Project cost is normally a key performance indicator for all projects, and therefore features prominently in benchmarking exercises aimed at identifying best practice. However, projects in different locations first require all costs to be expressed in equivalent units. Failing to do this leads to erroneous and unreliable results. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - Applying international construction as the focus for the study, cost data from 23 cities worldwide are compared using a range of methods including currency conversion and purchasing power parity (PPP). Coefficient of variation (CoV) forms the test for identifying the method with the lowest volatility. Findings - It is found that purchasing power is the preferable theoretical base for international cost conversion, and currency conversion (frequently used by practitioners) is not recommended. The citiBLOC PPP method has the lowest CoV across the data set and therefore more closely reflects the Law of One Price that underpins the concept of PPP. Originality/value - This research highlights the importance of a valid cost conversion methodology to properly understand the comparative performance of projects. Its application to benchmarking is demonstrated using the data envelopment analysis method.
引用
收藏
页码:61 / 77
页数:17
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
Abbott M., 2002, AUSTR EC REV, V35, P244, DOI DOI 10.1111/1467-8462.00241
[2]   Future criteria for success of building projects in Malaysia [J].
Al-Tmeemy, Samiaah M. Hassen M. ;
Abdul-Rahman, Hamzah ;
Harun, Zakaria .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 2011, 29 (03) :337-348
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2012, AUSTRALIAN
[4]  
Atkinson R., 1999, INT J PROJ MANAG, V17, P337, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6, 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6]
[5]   SOME FURTHER EVIDENCE ON THE LAW OF ONE PRICE - THE LAW OF ONE PRICE STILL HOLDS [J].
BAFFES, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1991, 73 (04) :1264-1273
[6]  
BCA (Business Council of Australia), 2012, PIP DREAM SEC AUSTR
[7]   MALMQUIST INDEXES OF PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH DURING THE DEREGULATION OF NORWEGIAN BANKING, 1980-89 [J].
BERG, SA ;
FORSUND, FR ;
JANSEN, ES .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1992, 94 :S211-S228
[8]  
Best R., 2013, P 27 IPMA WORLD C DU
[9]  
Best R., 2008, THESIS
[10]   International Comparisons of Cost and Productivity in Construction: A Bad Example [J].
Best, Rick .
CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING, 2012, 12 (03) :82-88