IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijpman/v6y2013i5p523-543.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison between CESMM3 and MCHW as methods of measurement for civil engineering work

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Eadie
  • Phillip Millar
  • Nigel Harte

Abstract

The paper compares the two most popular methods of measurement (MOM) for civil engineering work for the first time. Using structured interviews and a LimeSurvey questionnaire it determines that Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement 3 (CESMM3) was the most widely used MOM for civil engineering work and the preferred option. Four MOMs were identified as being used for civil engineering work: CESMM3, Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Work (MCHW), Standard Method of Measurement 7 (SMM7) and National Roads Authority (NRA). The use of SMM7 for civil engineering work could point to a deficiency in CESMM3 class Z for minor building work. The research highlighted for the first time that CESMM3 is considered more user friendly than MCHW. MCHW is mainly used on government road projects with CESMM3 containing provision within the document for a wider scope of civil engineering works. MCHW was considered more cost effective but the wider use and scope of CESMM3 has resulted in greater working knowledge. The study demonstrates a desire for a single MOM for civil engineering work but practitioners were divided on which one. This paper highlights the necessity for provision of bespoke MCHW training.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Eadie & Phillip Millar & Nigel Harte, 2013. "A comparison between CESMM3 and MCHW as methods of measurement for civil engineering work," International Journal of Procurement Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(5), pages 523-543.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijpman:v:6:y:2013:i:5:p:523-543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=56170
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijpman:v:6:y:2013:i:5:p:523-543. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=255 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.