This isn't as crazy as it might seem. Any cost estimate given in the very early days is a high-level ballpark estimate. Until the exact route is confirmed and all the surveys are done and the exact spec is confirmed, it's not possible to give an exact price. If the buyer keeps changing his mind about important features (e.g. height of tunnel), the price will keep changing.legend99 said:When the construction spokesman dude was asked how come the figure they gave the government was so wrong and he was asked did they mislead the government his answer was "No, we didn't mislead them, they misunderstood"!!!
RainyDay said:This isn't as crazy as it might seem. Any cost estimate given in the very early days is a high-level ballpark estimate. Until the exact route is confirmed and all the surveys are done and the exact spec is confirmed, it's not possible to give an exact price. If the buyer keeps changing his mind about important features (e.g. height of tunnel), the price will keep changing.
How do you come to this conclusion?Erith said:However, this would lead you to expect a fair share of over-estimates too.
The fact that there were no over-estimates indicates a policy of deliberate under-estimation of cost
There seems to be an assumption here that the cause of the error in the estimates was random. If it was not random, then there is no reason to expect an even spread of the errors.soy said:It was a Dutch guy who studies and compares the management of public projects around the world that suggested this point.
The point being made was, that if the error in estimating cost was down to the inexperience of those charged with coming up with a figure then the law of averages would suggest that there would be over-estimates as well as under-estimates.
The fact that there were no over-estimates indicates a policy of deliberate under-estimation of cost.
RainyDay said:There seems to be an assumption here that the cause of the error in the estimates was random. If it was not random, then there is no reason to expect an even spread of the errors.
So why would you expect an even spread of under-estimates & over-estimates?Erith said:The assumption is that the errors are not random.
RainyDay said:So why would you expect an even spread of under-estimates & over-estimates?
ajapale said:I think it more a case of systematic under estimation of road transport infrastructure than of over spend. The culture in the 70s and 80s and right into the 90's was to reject proposals which were too expensive resulting in systematic under estimation of costs.
ajapale
ajapale said:There was absolutely no insentive to over estimate.
ajapale
RainyDay said:How do you come to this conclusion?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?