Search results

Cost-benefit (C/B) analysis helps to determine the economic feasibility of business software investments. Research literature and published practices do not recognize substantial software maintenance costs in C/B analysis. Current analyses emphasize the benefits of an initial investment but do not consider the recurring benefits of each enhancement during the software lifecycle. Such analyses could lead to incorrect investment decisions and lost business opportunities. This article aims to review current research on software lifecycle costs and develop a theoretically sound C/B analysis.

This article reviews current C/B analyses and discusses their shortcomings in treating the significant recurring maintenance costs. It analyzes the findings of various studies on software maintenance and synthesizes these findings to identify the nature of various maintenance costs and their benefits. Based on the synthesis, it theorizes various cost and benefit elements for inclusion in a revised C/B analysis.

This article identifies each recurring maintenance cost relevant to C/B analysis. It also identifies recurring benefits from each enhancement that hitherto have been omitted. Finally, this article discusses how these costs and benefits should be treated in the revised C/Bs analysis.

This is a conceptual paper proposing a new C/B analysis and requires an empirical validation.

This article provides a revision of the C/B analysis that is long overdue. It will help to justify a software investment correctly, rank software projects that compete for limited funds and help create a sound software project portfolio. Since 20% of software products may incur 80% of software investment, this analysis will help to make correct software investments and avoid lost business opportunities. This article also describes a practical method to use the revised C/B analysis.

This article provides a revision of the C/B analysis that is long overdue. It will help to justify a software investment correctly, rank software projects that compete for limited funds and help create a sound software project portfolio. Since 20% of software products may incur 80% of software investment, this analysis will help to make correct software investments and avoid lost business opportunities. This article also describes a practical method to use the revised C/B analysis.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) calls for far-reaching changes to the way economic activity will occur in EU digital markets. Before its remedies are imposed, it is critical to assess their impacts on individual markets, the digital sector, and the overall European economy. The European Commission (EC) released an Impact Assessment in support of the DMA that purports to evaluate it using cost/benefit analysis.

An economic evaluation of the DMA should consider its full impacts on dynamic competition. The Impact Assessment neither assesses the DMA's impact on dynamic competition in the digital economy nor evaluates the impacts of specific DMA prohibitions and obligations. Instead, it considers benefits in general and largely ignores costs. We study its benefit assessments and find they are based on highly inappropriate methodologies and assumptions. A cost/benefit study using inappropriate methodologies and largely ignoring costs cannot provide a sound policy assessment.

Instead of promoting dynamic competition between platforms, the DMA will likely reinforce existing market structures, ossify market boundaries, and stunt European innovation. The DMA is likely to chill R&D by encouraging free riding on the investments of others, which discourages making those investments. Avoiding harm to innovation is critical because innovation delivers large, positive spillover benefits, driving increases in productivity, employment, wages, and prosperity.

The DMA prioritizes static over dynamic competition, with the potential to harm the European economy. Given this, the Impact Assessment does not demonstrate that the DMA will be beneficial overall, and its implementation must be carefully tailored to alleviate or lessen its potential to harm Europe’s economic performance.

The objective of this paper is to propose a methodology to estimate the benefits and costs of stakeholder engagement (SE). Indeed, in the transport sector, it is consolidated that a good decision-making process foresees the involvement of the main stakeholders, but what are the benefits and costs of the SE? How to quantify these impacts and explicitly take them into account in a cost-benefit analysis? In this paper, an attempt to answer these questions is provided.

In this paper, a methodology is proposed to estimate the benefits and costs of SE. Moreover, the proposed methodology is applied to a case study with an attempt to identify direct and indirect cost and benefit drivers within the context.

A range of examples of the monetary costs and benefits of SE is provided through the case study of the high-speed rail corridor connecting Bari and Naples in Italy.

Limits in quantifying all the aspects of engagement.

To be adopted by public administrations when deciding whether carrying out a project.

Social inclusion is a must in any decision-making process concerning big projects affecting the community.

The original value of this paper is to provide a contribution to the current literature on the quantitative representation of the impacts of SE. Indeed, a methodology to quantify and monetize the costs and benefits of SE is proposed.

Prefabricated products are continually entering the building construction market; yet, the decision to use prefabricated products in a construction project is based mostly on personal preferences and the evaluation of direct costs. Researchers and practitioners have debated appropriate measurement systems for evaluating the impacts of prefabricated products and for comparing them with conventional on-site construction practices. The more advanced, cost–benefit approach to evaluating prefabricated products often inspires controversy because it may generate inaccurate results when converting non-monetary effects into costs. As prefabrication may affect multiple organisations and product subsystems, the method used to decide on production methods should consider multiple direct and indirect impacts, including nonmonetary ones. Thus, this study aims to develop a multi-criteria method to evaluate both the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabrication solutions to facilitate decision-making on whether to use prefabricated products.

Drawing upon a literature review, this research suggests a multi-criteria method that combines the choosing-by-advantage approach with a cost–benefit analysis. The method was presented for validation in focus group discussions and tested in a case involving a prefabricated bathroom.

The analysis indicates that the method helps a project’s stakeholders communicate about the relative merits of prefabrication and conventional construction while facilitating the final decision of whether to use prefabrication.

This research contributes a method of evaluating the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabricated products. The research underlines the need to evaluate the diverse benefits and sacrifices that stakeholder face when considering production methods in construction.

Recent earthquake-induced liquefaction events and associated losses have increased researchers’ interest into liquefaction risk reduction interventions. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there was no scholarly literature related to an economic appraisal of these risk reduction interventions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the issues in applying cost–benefit analysis (CBA) principles to the evaluation of technical mitigations to reduce earthquake-induced liquefaction risk.

CBA has been substantially used for risk mitigation option appraisal for a number of hazard threats. Previous literature in the form of systematic reviews, individual research and case studies, together with liquefaction risk and loss modelling literature, was used to develop a theoretical model of CBA for earthquake-induced liquefaction mitigation interventions. The model was tested using a scenario in a two-day workshop.

Because liquefaction risk reduction techniques are relatively new, there is limited damage modelling and cost data available for use within CBAs. As such end users need to make significant assumptions when linking the results of technical investigations of damage to built-asset performance and probabilistic loss modelling resulting in many potential interventions being not cost-effective for low-impact disasters. This study questions whether a probabilistic approach should really be applied to localised rapid onset events like liquefaction, arguing that a deterministic approach for localised knowledge and context would be a better base for the cost-effectiveness mitigation interventions.

This paper makes an original contribution to literature through a critical review of CBA approaches applied to disaster mitigation interventions. Further, this paper identifies challenges and limitations of applying probabilistic based CBA models to localised rapid onset disaster events where human losses are minimal and historic data is sparse; challenging researchers to develop new deterministic based approaches that use localised knowledge and context to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mitigation interventions.

Perceived benefits of building information modelling (BIM) have been discussed for some time, but cost–benefit benchmarking has been inconsistent. The purpose of this paper is to investigate BIM feasibility and evaluate investment worth to elucidate and develop the current understanding of BIM merit. The aim of the study is to propose a research agenda towards a more holistic perspective of BIM use incorporating quantifying investment return.

An in-depth examination of research patterns has been conducted to identify challenges in the assessment of the investment value and return on investment (ROI) for BIM in the construction industry. A total of 75 research articles were considered for the final literature review. An evaluation of the literature is conducted using a combination of bibliometric analysis and systematic reviews.

This study, which analysed 75 articles, unveils key findings in quantifying BIM benefits, primarily through ROI calculation. Two major research gaps are identified: the absence of a standardized BIM ROI method and insufficient exploration of intangible benefits. Research focus varies across phases, emphasizing design and construction integration and exploring post-construction phases. The study categorizes quantifiable factors, including productivity, changes and rework reduction, requests for information reduction, schedule efficiency, safety, environmental sustainability and operations and facility management. These findings offer vital insights for researchers and practitioners, enhancing understanding of ’BIM’s financial benefits and signalling areas for further exploration in construction.

The ’study’s outcomes offer the latest insights for researchers and practitioners to create effective approaches for quantifying ’BIM’s financial benefits. Additionally, the proposed research agenda aims to improve the current limited understanding of BIM feasibility and investment worth evaluation. Results of the study could assist practitioners in overcoming limitations associated with BIM investment and economic evaluations in the construction industry.

This study aimed to bridge the gap between the financial measurement of process improvement ideas and Lean Six Sigma measurements. It was required to increase employee engagement in process improvement initiatives.

Through both a practical and theoretical application of the Design for Lean Six Sigma methodology, the researcher was able to design a process and a benefit measuring methodology that was acceptable by finance and aligns with the benefits expected from the elimination of the Lean wastes.

The project found that benefit measurement methodology is not understood by most employees, which leads to a lack of engagement in working on improvements. The result of the study was a model for employees to identify and quantify these benefits. This has resulted in a model for cost-benefit analysis aligning financial costs with non-value add waste costs and cost of poor-quality costs resulting in increased process improvement ideas and activity.

While this study was limited to one company, applying this methodology could benefit any company experiencing the same difficulties.

This is one of the first studies to try and cost the benefits of LSS projects both from an organisational and generic viewpoint.

This study aims to combine information about sea level rise (SLR), the probability distribution of storm surge, a flood damage function and the value of property by elevation along the coast of selected cities to measure expected flood damage. The selected six cities all have nearby long-term tidal stations that can be used to estimate the probability distribution of floods. The model is calibrated to each city. The study then compares the cost of building higher seawalls today along the coast versus the benefit of each wall (the reduction in expected flood damage).

The combination of coastal storms and SLR has led to extensive flood damage across American cities. This study creates a simple generic model that evaluates whether seawalls would be effective at addressing this flooding problem. The paper develops an approach that readily measures the expected flood benefits and costs of alternative coastal seawalls. The approach takes account of near term SLR and the probability distribution of storm surge. The model finds seawalls are effective only in cities where many buildings are in the 25-year flood plain.

Cities with many buildings built on land below 2 m in elevation (the 25-year flood plain) have high expected flood damage from storms and SLR. Cities which already have many buildings in this flood plain would benefit from seawalls. Assuming seawalls are built above the high tide line, the optimal wall height that maximizes net benefits is between 0.9 to 1.2 m. These relatively low seawalls block 70%–83% of expected flood damage in these cities. Fair flood insurance is the least cost strategy for handling the remaining damages that overtop the optimal seawalls.

The analysis evaluates whether or not to build a seawall the length of each city at high tide lines. However, the analysis also finds several long stretches of coast in two cities where a wall is not warranted because there are few vulnerable buildings. Future analyses should consider seawalls in more spatially detailed sections of each city. Each section could then be analyzed independently. Whether or not more complex hydrodynamic models are needed to evaluate coastal resilience planning should also be explored. Alternative solutions such as planned retreat and nature-based solutions should be compared with seawalls in future studies as well.

Cities should be careful to avoid development in the 25-year flood plain because of high expected flood damage. Cities that have low elevation areas subject to frequent flooding should consider seawalls to reduce frequent flooding. Because they are very costly and have low expected benefits, high walls that can stop a one-hundred-year storm are generally not worth building.

The analysis reveals that the most important factor determining the vulnerability of cities along the eastern coastline of the USA is the number of buildings built below 2 m in elevation (the 25-year flood plain). Cities should use zoning to discourage further development in the 25-year flood plain. Cities which already have many buildings in this flood plain would benefit from city-wide seawalls. Assuming these walls are built at mean high-high tide, the optimal height of current seawalls should be relatively modest – averaging about 0.9–1.2 m above ground. Using fair insurance for the remaining risk is less expensive than building taller walls. In particular, the cost of seawalls that protect against a major hurricane surge are over three times the expected benefit and should not be built. As decades pass and observed sea level progresses, seawalls and the boundary of the 25-year flood plain should be reevaluated.

This paper develops a coastal flood model that combines SLR and the probability distribution of storm surges with the value of property by elevation to estimate the expected damage from storm surge. The model is relatively easy to calibrate making it a practical tool to guide city flood planning. The authors illustrate what insights such a model gives about coastal resilience to flooding across six cities along the Eastern US coastline.

On its way to develop a smart grid in Indonesia, one key enabler in the early stage of implementation is advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). Thus, Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN), an electrical energy utility company owned by the government of the Republic of Indonesia as the only electricity utility company servicing customers from upstream to downstream in Indonesia, has started AMI program at some main cities. With AMI, real-time energy consumption profile, energy meter status and condition, and customer power quality can be acquired. Subsequently, these data collected by AMI can be used for further smart grid implementation by such IT systems and big data analysis. Instead of its function for smart grid backbone, AMI also significantly support smart energy on the city as a part of smart city initiatives. Nevertheless, its implementation requires more investment than the conventional metering system. This investment needs to be evaluated to define whether AMI is feasible and viable or not. This chapter is intended to observe the feasibility of AMI implementation in Indonesia using cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Two schemes were used as study objects, one scheme in which the communication infrastructure was managed by PLN itself, and the other one in which the communication infrastructure was managed by a third party. From the analysis, it appears that both schemes are proven to be feasible.