No published figure for rework caused by scope or client change in Australia

What it is. None - Australian studies name client and end-user change as a main cause of rework and measure change-order value, but none gives the cost of the work lost.

Sample. Searches: "Love Edwards rework Australian construction design change causes percentage of contract value", "rework client-initiated changes cost percentage contract value Australia questionnaire change orders", "Make-or-break during production change-orders rework contractors margin", "Infrastructure Australia OR Australian Constructors Association cost of rework design changes major projects", "Australia latent conditions variation cost percent of contract value", "Love 2002 influence of project type and procurement method on rework costs", "Off the rails cost performance of infrastructure rail projects scope changes". Infrastructure Australia and Productivity Commission material turned up in searches only and gave no cost of lost work. Frequencies and values that exist but are not a cost of lost work: change-orders averaged 10.6% of original contract value on 67 Australian public infrastructure projects of one contractor (11% of work value 2011 to 2014); in the 98-project sample, where change-order data existed for 67 projects, they were 3.6% of awarded value. Those are the value of additional or altered work the client pays for, not rework.

What it is not. Recorded as none on purpose. A change-order is usually paid work and mostly revenue to the contractor, so its share of contract value is not a loss, and no Australian source read gives the cost of work done and then lost to a change. Every peer-reviewed Australian rework source found comes from one research group and mostly from perception surveys, or from one contractor's records.

Where it came from

• Love, Irani, Smith, Regan & Liu (2017), Cost Performance of Public Infrastructure Projects: The Nemesis and Nirvana of Change-Orders · free copy
  Table 2; accepted manuscript, Change-Orders section · source record

Considered and set aside

• Love, Ika, Ahiaga-Dagbui, Locatelli & Sing: Accepted manuscript opened and searched for change and cause content. 98 projects of one contractor. A footnote records that data on rework arising from change-orders and design omissions was not made available, so it cannot say what change cost in lost work.
• Love & Li: Two Australian projects with rework at 3.15% and 2.40% of contract value. Names client and end-user changes as a main cause but gives no cost for it.
• Love & Sohal: The same two projects, same result: cause named, no cost per cause.
• Love & Sohal: 161 Australian projects. Client-initiated change is a significant regression predictor of total rework cost, with no money figure for it.
• Love & Edwards: Same 161-project survey, same predictors, no share of rework or of contract value attributed to change.
• Love: 161 projects. Reports rework as 52% of cost growth and 26% of its variance, shares of cost growth rather than of contract value, and not split by cause.
• Love, Edwards & Smith: Looks at contract documentation, not change, and finds no significant link with rework.
• Love & Edwards: 161 projects, direct 6.4% and indirect 5.9% of contract value in total; not split by cause.
• Australian Constructors Association and Consult Australia: Says late design changes drive cost and time pressure, with no figure or data source.

rework/scope_change_rework_none_au · AU · F42 ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)