DEMITONResearch / Rework statistics / No published New Zealand figure for the cost of scope and change after work was committed
No published New Zealand figure for the cost of scope and change after work was committed
This figure is outside your filter. Clear the filter.
No published New Zealand figure for the cost of scope and change after work was committed: no defensible figure has been published (Massey University (Asadi, Wilkinson, Rotimi), 2023; New Zealand; low confidence).
What it is. None: New Zealand sources rank change as a cause of rework or cost growth but give no cost, and the one national benchmarking dataset has no New Zealand overrun data.
Sample. Search terms: New Zealand construction variations change orders cost percent of contract value; NZS 3910 rework variation survey; design change cost New Zealand infrastructure; Auditor-General Treasury variations contract value New Zealand; Transmission Gully cost scope change. A frequency or ranking exists but is not a cost: New Zealand estimators name frequent design changes among the three most critical cost factors (Atapattu 2023, abstract only), and Asadi 2023 (80 completed responses) scores changes first among the rework causes the standard contract addresses (Table 3, mean 3.83 of 5), a rating of contract coverage. The Asadi paper quotes rework of up to 25% of contract value from earlier international work.
What it is not. Recorded as none on purpose: no New Zealand source read measures the cost of client or design change, abortive work or change orders that caused rework. Variation values for Australia exist in the corpus but do not apply to New Zealand.
Where it came from
- Massey University (Asadi, Wilkinson, Rotimi) (2023), Mixed-Method Approach to Evaluate Rework Provisions within New Zealand Construction Contracts · free copyAbstract; Introduction (rework cost paragraph); Method (81 respondents); Table 3 (causes of rework addressed by the contract) · source record
Considered and set aside
- Atapattu, Domingo & Sutrisna: Estimators name frequent design changes among the three most critical cost factors on New Zealand transport projects; a perception ranking with no cost magnitude in the abstract, full text unavailable.
- New Zealand Infrastructure Commission / Te Waihanga: Says added scope and design requirements raise infrastructure unit costs and that overrun analysis is outside its scope; no figure.
- Oxford Global Projects, for Te Waihanga: Overrun reference classes are international; the report states New Zealand estimated-versus-actual data were lacking, and it does not attribute overruns to scope change.
- New Zealand Infrastructure Commission / Te Waihanga: Summary names estimate accuracy, governance, consenting and external events; it does not quantify or separate scope or design change.
- SCIRT Learning Legacy: Describes the Christchurch rebuild as having an evolving scope; reports the $2.2 billion programme total, no change or rework cost.
- BRANZ (Roman Jaques): Architects and quantity surveyors rate avoiding variations on site as a way to cut waste; 38 respondents, opinions only, no cost.
- BRANZ (Roman Jaques): Repeats that buildable design avoiding variations reduces waste; 84 respondents, opinions only, no cost.
- NZ Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), for BRANZ: Prices defects found during construction as a whole; client or end-user change is not separated and is outside the defect definition.