Avoiding Highway Construction Cost Overruns and Associated Claims and Disputes Using Insights from International Project Management Experience and Methodological Advances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avoiding highway infrastructure construction cost overruns and reducing associated claims and disputes continues to be a challenge in many countries. Research is needed in identifying notable project planning and management deficiencies that are likely to cause cost overruns. Literature sources suggest numerous potential causes of cost overrun but clustering of cause variables and relative importance of clusters has not been researched. Research reported here addresses this knowledge gap using predictive models developed with data contributed by several agencies in participating countries and suggests mitigation measures. Following a review of methods and data sources, a methodological framework is advanced that encompasses statistical methods well suited for providing a scientific basis for identifying important clusters of cost overrun variables. A questionnaire study enabled data acquisition from Canadian, United States, Middle East, and Australian sources. Starting from many variables, the principal component-supported factor analysis method identified clusters of cost overrun variables and their relative importance was inferred with developed logistic regression models. Deeper insights in causes of cost overruns obtained from this research suggest mitigation measures that are within reach of managers. The results can potentially enhance infrastructure planning and management practice including reduction of claims and disputes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".