No abstract

No abstract

International comparisons of construction industry performance are notoriously difficult. A recent comparative study, extensive in scope and using an innovative approach, is reviewed and questions raised regarding various aspects of the methodology adopted, the validity of the conclusions drawn and manner in which outcomes were reported. Particular areas of concern include the unequivocal statement of conclusions that are based on a small sample, and the use of data from that sample that are, in fact, no more than estimates of project performance. Attention is drawn to the limitations of the research reported and the reliability of the methods used, and the data gathered is examined.International construction, industry comparisons, purchasing power parity, construction research,

The building that houses the Mirvac School of Sustainable Development at Bond University is the first educational building to achieve a six Green Star rating from the Green Building Council of Australia. It has won numerous awards since opening in August 2008 including being judged the RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) Sustainable Building of 2009. After more than two years in use a post-occupancy evaluation study was carried out to assess the performance of the building from the viewpoint of the users; both resident staff and transient students. Results for factors such as lighting, thermal comfort, noise and air quality were compared to benchmarks established by the Usable Buildings Trust. The evaluation also assessed the occupants' perceptions of the building's impact on their own productivity. Users generally find the building provides a comfortable work environment although a number of areas of performance were noted as posing some concerns. These included intrusive noise in some parts of the building and some issues with glare in daylit teaching spaces. Such concerns were found to be in accord with the results of previous studies and they highlight some recurrent problems in "green" buildings designed to maximise the use of natural ventilation and natural light. These design challenges and how occupant satisfaction is to be measured and benchmarked are also discussed in the context of this comparative building study.

For many reasons comparing construction productivity between countries is a difficult task. One key problem is that of converting construction costs to a common currency. This problem can be overcome relatively simply by using a basket of construction materials and labour, termed a BLOC (Basket of Locally Obtained Commodities), as a unit of construction cost. Average BLOC costs in each location are calculated from data obtained from a number of sources (quantity surveyors, estimators). Typical building costs obtained from published construction cost data are expressed in BLOC equivalents. Lower BLOC equivalents represent higher productivity as other inputs (largely materials) are constant. The method provides a relatively simple and direct method for comparing productivity between different locations.

No abstract

In a report published in June 2012 the Business Council of Australia (BCA) reported that it costs considerably more to build a variety of types of infrastructure in Australia than it does in the US. Airports (90 per cent more costly) and hospitals (62 per cent) were quoted as the worst cases with other projects ranging from 26 to 43 per cent more. They used these figures to conclude that Australia is a high cost, low productivity environment for building infrastructure projects. These claims were based on cost/m 2 figures published by a major international construction consultancy. The method used by the BCA is flawed in two ways: one is the in the use of costs that are recognised as giving only the broadest of indications of probable costs and the second is the use of exchange rates to convert Australian construction costs to US dollars. Careful analysis of the methodology used, supported by a series of other comparisons based on other data sources and other conversion factors (purchasing power parities or PPPs), suggests that in real terms it probably costs no more to build in Australia than it does in the US and that it may well be cheaper to build in Australia than it is in the US.

No abstract