The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-6099.htm

Enhancing accuracy Cost

estimation:
in construction overhead cost BIM and ABC
synergy
estimation: a novel integration
of activity-based costing and
building information modelling Received 20 July 2023
Revised 8 October 2023
24 November 2023
Mojdeh Naderi, Ahad Nazari and Ali Shafaat Accepted 15 December 2023
Department of Construction, Faculty of Architecture, Shahid Beheshti University,
Tehran, Iran, and
Sepehr Abrishami
Faculty of Technology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

Abstract
Purpose – This study addresses the prevailing complexities and limitations in estimating and managing
construction overhead costs (COCs) in the existing literature, with the purpose of enhancing the accuracy of
cost performance indicators in construction project management.
Design/methodology/approach – An innovative approach is proposed, employing the activity-based
costing (ABC) accounting method combined with building information modelling (BIM) to assign real overhead
costs to project activities. This study, distinguished by its incorporation of a real case study, focuses on an
administrative building with a four-story concrete structure. It establishes an automated method for evaluating
project cost performance through the detailed analysis of earned value management (EVM) cost indicators
derived from ABC results and BIM data.
Findings – The results show that the ABC integration improves the accuracy of cost performance indicators
by over 9%, revealing the project’s true cost index for the first time and demonstrating the substantial value of
the approach in construction engineering and management.
Research limitations/implications – The current study highlights a notable gap in the existing literature,
addressing the challenges in onsite overhead cost estimation and offering a solution that incorporates the state-
of-the-art techniques.
Practical implications – The proposed method has significant implications for project managers and
practitioners, enabling better-informed decisions based on precise cost data, ultimately leading to enhanced
project outcomes.
Originality/value – This research uniquely combines ABC and BIM, presenting a pioneering solution for the
accurate estimation and management of COCs in construction projects, adding significant value to the current
body of knowledge in this field.
Keywords Construction overhead costs (COCs), Building information modelling (BIM), 5D BIM,
Earn value management (EVM), Activity-based costing (ABC), Automated cost control
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Effective cost management, which includes the practices of cost accounting, analysis and
control, holds significant importance in the field of construction project management (Qiu and
Xiao, 2020; Vigneault et al., 2020). Construction overhead costs (COCs) encompass expenses
such as supervision, offices, staff and services and tend to increase as the construction project

Smart and Sustainable Built

Declaration of interests: There are no conflicts of interest to declare. Environment
Data availability statement: Some or all data, models or code that support the findings of this study are © Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-6099
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. DOI 10.1108/SASBE-07-2023-0180
SASBE advances. The efficient management of COCs is crucial in architectural, engineering and
construction (AEC) projects due to their impact on the contractor’s budget (Enshassi et al.,
2008; Janani et al., 2015; Le
sniak and Juszczyk, 2018). To be more viable in the intense
competition within the construction sector, a more efficient cost management system that can
precisely analyse all these costs, especially site overhead costs, is crucial (Globerson, 2017).
There have been frequent reports indicating that building contractors often struggle to
accurately estimate COCs, leading to financial losses and a diminishing their competitive
edge. Hence, it is imperative to develop a precise, systematic and practical engineering
approach to calculating COCs in order to enhance cost control measures during the
construction process (Apanavicien_e and Daug_elien_e, 2011; Janani et al., 2015; Si  skina
et al., 2009).
Recognising the significance of COCs, multiple efforts have been undertaken to exercise
control over these costs (Janani et al., 2015). However, the primary focus of these endeavours
has been on calculating COCs as a consolidated percentage, while neglecting to analyse its
individual components. This oversight primarily stems from a scarcity of available data
(Singla and Sridharan, 2022). In modern construction organisations, the adoption of earned
value management (EVM) and building information modelling (BIM) has proven to be
beneficial for cost control (Davison, 2015). However, these techniques face limitations when it
comes to accurately calculating and controlling overhead costs for individual work packages
within the work breakdown structure (WBS). These limitations stem from two main factors.
Firstly, the existing BIM software packages lack the capability to generate comprehensive
reports on COCs for each work package in a project. Secondly, compared to conventional
EVM applications in project cost control, they require detailed information about the
overhead costs associated with each activity to accurately calculate and control the actual
costs (Aminian et al., 2016).
The traditional costing methods, such as volume-based allocation (VBA), are considered
ineffective in accurately allocating COCs because they distribute these costs proportionally,
potentially distorting the pricing process (Mahesha, 2022). To address this issue, activity-
based costing (ABC) methodology directs its focus towards project activities rather than the
entire process, enabling more precise allocation of overhead costs to activities and mitigating
pricing distortions. By providing a meaningful analytical approach to measure all costs, ABC
offers a solution to the challenges associated with COCs allocation (Elghaish and Abrishami,
2021). Additionally, it enables organisations to track the costs associated with each activity,
specifically those pertaining to COCs (Abraham et al., 2023).
This research addresses a critical gap by proposing the implementation of the ABC
method as a complementary solution. The establishment of connections between various
platforms is crucial for the estimation of COCs. In this regard, the present study introduces a
novel COCs control method that integrates ABC and BIM to achieve precise calculation of the
EVM cost performance index (CPI). The utilisation of project resources throughout the
project lifecycle has been closely monitored to gather accurate insights into the calculation of
overhead costs and identify optimisation points. The proposed method facilitates data
exchange across different platforms throughout cost control process in both pre-
construction and construction stages. By combining the BIM and ABC methods, this
paper demonstrates that project management teams can automate accurate cost
calculations, conduct thorough cost deviation analysis and exercise enhanced control
over COCs.

Literature review
Generally, COCs refer to expenses that are not directly associated with the physical
construction work but are incurred to support ongoing projects (Plebankiewicz and
Le
sniak, 2013). These expenses consist of site overheads required for project activities and Cost
the project’s proportionate share of home–office costs to operate the construction firm (Chao estimation:
and Liaw, 2019). Optimising and reducing COCs are an important aspect of managing
construction contract costs. However, accurately determining these costs, particularly for
BIM and ABC
construction companies, are challenging and typically relies on historical data estimates. The synergy
dynamic nature of the construction industry poses difficulties for contractors in determining
the optimal level of overhead costs during the bidding stage, which ultimately impacts their
competitiveness (Assaf et al., 2001). Proper identification, allocation and estimation of COCs
based on information from previous projects can mitigate the risk of low-profit margins (Liu
et al., 2023). To minimise risk in competitive bidding, researchers have employed quantitative
models, such as artificial neural networks and regression models (Chao and Kuo, 2018) for
estimating COCs. COCs can be subject to cost overruns due to factors such as change orders.
For instance, if a project is halted by the owner, the contractor’s COCs may increase, leading
to potential compensation claims (Faghihi et al., 2022). Resolving disputes and reaching a fair
agreement on recovering COCs can be challenging. Several studies have explored various
methods for evaluating these damages, including home–office overhead and onsite overhead
costs. Ibbs et al. (2015) examined nine calculation methods for unabsorbed home–office
overhead. Among these, the Eichleay formula has been widely used in calculating COCs
(Davis and Ibbs, 2017; Ibbs et al., 2015; Taam and Singh, 2003). In this regard Iyer and Manan
Bindal (2019) reported and compared 13 formulas for home–office calculations, highlighting
that while courts often rely on the Eichleay formula, alternative formulas may be more
suitable in different circumstances. While a substantial body of research has examined the
topic of home–office compensation, there has been comparatively limited scholarly
investigation into the recovery of site overhead damages. Ibbs and Nguyen (2007) applied
an analytical approach that allocated project-site overhead costs to scheduled activities. This
method helps track site overhead damages in a real-time manner.
Ensuring the successful completion of a project within the specified budget
necessitates efficient management of direct, indirect and overhead costs. Companies
consistently strive to minimise project costs, with COCs playing a crucial role (Globerson,
2017). Effective management of COCs necessitates continuous monitoring and control
over the actual amounts incurred during construction. Researchers such as Chen et al.
(2008), Kren (2014), and Le
sniak and Juszczyk (2018) have utilised mathematical and
parametric models to precisely determine the percentage of COCs. Nevertheless, in
construction projects, overhead costs are handled independently and not directly allocated
to project activities which result in cost distortion when using the percentage method for
overhead costs (Kim and Kim, 2016). ABC proves to be a valuable approach for estimating
and allocating COCs. The subsequent section will provide a detailed explanation of this
method.

Activity-based costing (ABC) for COCs calculation

The assignment of COCs to project activities is crucial for accurately tracking financial
gains and losses, as well as determining the point of profitability. In this regard, the ABC
method emerges as an innovative management accounting practice (Alsayegh, 2020) that
plays a vital role in enhancing cost estimation and analysis within organisations (Maha
Faisal, 2020).
The ABC method offers enhanced accuracy and traceability of cost information by
systematically tracking costs through activities related to cost objectives (Ben-Arieh and
Qian, 2003). This costing approach, which is based on expenses incurred during activity
fulfilment (Huang et al., 2012), utilised a two-stage assignment process to allocate overhead
costs. In the first stage, resource costs are allocated to support activities, followed by the
SASBE assignment of support activity costs to specific activities in the second stage (Kallunki and
Silvola, 2008). By adopting this method, organisations gain improved insights into the causes
of costs, enabling more effective cost control and management This approach also enhances
decision-making processes compared to traditional methods (Kim et al., 2011). Moreover, it
facilitates a better understanding of opportunities for cost reduction and enhances the
accuracy of actual COCs (Duh et al., 2009; Quesado and Silva, 2021). The ABC method also
provides valuable information on resource consumption and precise cost performance
indices, thereby aiding companies in better managing process changes (Back et al., 2000).
Numerous scholars including (Petrov, 2021; Tsai et al., 2014) have conducted studies
exploring the implementation of ABC. These studies shed light on the effectiveness of ABC in
achieving precise resource allocation and cost estimation.
The limitations of standard EVM indices in incorporating COCs result in inaccurate cost
deviation assessment. Aminian et al. (2016) addressed this issue by introducing revised EVM
indices that consider allocated COCs through the ABC technique. However, the successful
implementation of ABC has been hindered by technical factors such as the absence of suitable
software packages, data requirements and interdepartmental cooperation (Ostadi and Zare,
2022). The adoption of BIM in the construction industry has the potential to revolutionise the
process. However, it is important to note that BIM alone may not adequately consider COCs
for individual activities. The ABC method is integrated with a 5D BIM platform to bridge the
gap and ensure comprehensive consideration of all activities (Elghaish and Abrishami, 2020;
Elghaish et al., 2021b). Abrishami et al. (2014) conducted extensive research to facilitate ABC
implementation by leveraging BIM capabilities. For example, they utilised precise and
efficient quantity take-off (QTO) enabled by BIM, in conjunction with the ABC method, to
effectively manage project material costs from the early design stage to project close-out
(Elghaish et al., 2018). The combination of BIM and ABC methods enables project
stakeholders to monitor project costs using an automated EVM system. This system is
accessible on both computers and mobile devices. By utilising this approach, the
mathematical models are developed to ensure the equitable distribution of risk and
rewards among project parties (Elghaish et al., 2021a).
Due to the lack of complete cost data and the volatility of prices, researchers have resorted
to employing prediction models. One such approach involves utilising the ABC analysis
method to identify significant forecast-related elements. Researchers have recognised the
potential benefits of integrating BIM and ABC in the realm of cost management. For example,
Liu et al. (2022) devised a framework for estimating construction costs based on the BIM
models, incorporating the ABC method.
The existing body of literature emphasises the potential of BIM in enabling the integration
of ABC into the EVM cost-controlling system. This integration is significant as ABC offers a
more precise pricing process, effectively aligning the budget and strengthening the overall
control system (Elghaish and Abrishami, 2021).

Methodology
In this research, a viable solution has been proposed and its practical applicability has
been investigated through a real-life case study. The aim is to consider COCs in EVM
calculations and accurately calculate the CPI. This will help identify actual deviations and
optimisation points. The results of a thorough literature review have aided in the
development of a conceptual framework that allows for automated data exchange among
three systems: BIM, ABC and EVM. In order to validate the framework, it was
implemented and tested in a case study involving the construction of an administrative
office. The relevant project data were collected by tracking the activities of project staff on-
site for a period of one month.
Framework development Cost
This study proposes an automated framework, as depicted in Figure 1 that aims to enhance estimation:
cost control in construction projects. As shown in Figure 1, the framework introduces a
precise methodology for estimating the total actual project cost, leading to a more accurate
BIM and ABC
CPI called CPI(Modified). The CPI (Modified) is derived from the total actual construction direct synergy
and overhead costs of the project, as represented by Equation (1).
X n
CTðABCÞ ¼ ðActual Direct Cost i þ Actual Overhead Cost i Þ
i¼1

CPI ðModifiedÞ ¼ EV CTðABCÞ
EV ¼ Earned Value (1)
CTðABCÞ ¼ Total Project Actual costs
i ¼ activity i

In the pre-construction stage, the process begins with developing project WBS and planned
Value calculations based on bid information stage. The WBS is a crucial input for project
management processes, such as scheduling, cost estimating and resource allocation. PV is a
significant metric used to assess the progress of a project by measuring the value of the work
planned to be completed at a specific point in time. PV calculations are utilised in order to
establish a project baseline. The utilisation of BIM has emerged as a highly effective approach

Figure 1.
Automated cost control
framework of the
case study
SASBE for automating the QTO process in construction projects (Nassar, 2012). BIM enables the
generation of comprehensive and accurate cost estimates, leading to significant reductions in
both time and expenses (Plebankiewicz et al., 2015). The project budget is determined by
adding up the PV for each project activity (activity(i)), which is calculated using the QTO
process and the BIM 3D model, as shown in Equation (2).
Xn
PVðBIM Þ ¼ ððUnit Costi * Qi Þ þ Overhead Costi ÞÞ (2)
i¼1

During the bidding phase, contractors often include a consolidated rate of COCs, which they
have obtained from their past experiences, along with direct costs (Alavipour and Arditi,
2018). In the PV calculation phase, the overhead cost for each activity is determined by
multiplying its weight with the overhead coefficient that was applied during the tendering
process. The weight of each activity is determined based on the project’s cost breakdown
structure (CBS).
During the construction phase, both direct and indirect costs are integrated to determine
the actual project costs. The accurate determination of actual costs for project activities
requires a significant endeavour in calculating the completed work, which entails gathering
real work quantities from the project site using the project status data. Therefore, to ascertain
precise quantities, the creation of a 3D BIM model up to LOD350 becomes indispensable in
determining specific element costs during the buyout phase (Wood et al., 2014). Equation (3) is
employed to estimate the actual costs associated with these activities.
Xn
 
Actual Costi ¼ Actual Unit Cost i * Quantityið5D BIM Þ þ Actual COCsiðABCÞ (3)
i¼1

Formula (3) demonstrates a method to accurately calculate the real costs of each activity. It
entails determining the direct costs by multiplying the actual quantity of work performed
with the corresponding unit cost. These direct costs are obtained from the 5D BIM model.
Furthermore, the actual overhead costs for each activity are included in the 5D BIM model
following the implementation of the ABC system.
This data is then utilised by the cost control system to calculate new EVM metrics based
on Equation (1). Throughout these stages, BIM and ABC capabilities are employed to
compute planning and actual costs, with a seamless integration approach for project data.
The proposed framework introduces a significant advancement by incorporating a
method to estimate COCs linked to individual work packages. This allows the EVM
indicators to accurately represent the costs of each project activity. The integration of this
automated cost control system enables a thorough analysis of actual expenditure deviations,
providing valuable insights into the reasons behind these variations and identifying areas for
optimisation.

Case study
This study validated the framework by selecting an administrative construction project as a
case study. In order to choose an appropriate case study, certain criteria were considered. The
two main factors that were taken into account were generalisability and the significant
proportion of COCs in relation to other project expenses. “Generalisability” refers to the extent
to which the findings of the study can be applied to other similar situations or contexts. The
selection of a case study based on these criteria ensured that the study would provide
valuable insights and applicable recommendations for similar construction projects. This
case study focuses on a cast-in-place concrete construction project in Iran, a country where
construction projects are typically labour-intensive due to the availability of skilled labour Cost
and traditional construction methods. The project was executed under a design-bid-build estimation:
contract and involved the construction of an administrative building with a four-story
concrete structure and a total floor area of approximately 2,087 square metres. The
BIM and ABC
construction duration was 22 months, and based on the bidding phase, 15% of the initial synergy
contract amount was allocated for overhead costs, highlighting their significance. It is worth
noting that this percentage does not encompass contractor benefits, as profit is not factored
into the components of the cost structure. The project experienced numerous change orders
and associated claims, resulting in a significant increase in its value compared to the original
contract.
The research primarily focuses on a single project; however, the methodology used can be
applied to all projects within a company. This means that the method is applicable to all
projects, allowing the company to monitor resource utilisation across all sites using
information obtained from the project sites. It can identify areas for improvement and, if
needed, eliminate non-value-added support activities.

Steps to reach the results

The modified CPI(Modified) is estimated in accordance with Equation (1), using the total actual
costs extracted from the ABC/BIM integrated method. By leveraging the established
effectiveness of ABC in allocating distinct costs, the direct costs and COCs for each project
activity are determined based on the ABC sheet, which represents the overall costs of each
activity. The implementation process of the case study is divided into three primary stages:
(1) Calculation of cumulative plan value (project budget) using the BIM platform
(2) Calculation of actual costs using integrated data exchange between ABC and BIM
(3) Calculation of the modified CPI
Cumulative PV: Creating a 5D BIM model in Navisworks 2020 involves integrating 3D
geometry with time and cost data. The 5D BIM model provides a visual representation of the
project in terms of 3D geometry, project schedule (4D) and project cost estimation (5D) as
illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. After generating a detailed 3D model using Revit 2020 software,
the next crucial step is to calculate the budgeted cost of work scheduled for each project
activity.

Figure 2.
Creating 3D BIM model
of the case study in
Revit software
SASBE

Figure 3.
Creating 4D BIM model
in Navisworks
software

This necessitates a QTO process to be conducted within Navisworks. Navisworks plays a

pivotal role by extracting and computing geometric dimensions from model components, as
represented in Figure 4.
This dynamic functionality empowers the system to precisely determine the project’s
budget, commonly referred to as the plan value, using Equation (2). Subsequently, a
comprehensive set of quantities is meticulously compiled into a spreadsheet, and the results
are presented in Figure 5.

Cumulative AC
The precise estimation of project costs requires a thorough evaluation of both direct costs and
the COCs linked to each project activity. Calculating actual direct costs begins by extracting
quantities of performed work (actual work performed). Quantities from the 3D BIM model are
subsequently multiplied by the specified unit prices derived from contractual agreements. To
effectively incorporate COCs into the BIM 5D model, their determination relies on the utilisation
of the ABC methodology. This methodology involves the following essential procedural steps:
(1) Allocate resource costs to support activities.
(2) Allocate support activities costs to project activities.

Figure 4.
Interaction between
Revit and Navisworks
to develop 5D models
The support activities within the project are intricately linked to resource consumption. In Cost
order to discern and delineate these support activities, a thorough interview was conducted estimation:
with the key workforces. Table 1 presents a comprehensive overview of the diverse
responsibilities undertaken by project personnel, categorised according to the specific types
BIM and ABC
of support activities in which they are involved. synergy
Furthermore, a mobile-friendly daily timesheet has been implemented to gather data on
the utilisation of project resources across various project activities. Project personnel input
data into this timesheet throughout the day. This process serves two primary purposes:
firstly, it ensures the availability of timesheets for individuals and secondly, it facilitates the
accurate collection of received data. To address potential concerns, a briefing session was
conducted for task forces with two primary objectives: firstly, to assure them that completing
the timesheets would not impact their performance evaluation; secondly, to provide efficient
guidance on how to minimise the time required for filling them out. Table 2 displays a sample

10 100
8 80
Plan Value (%)

6 60
4 40
2 20
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Time(Month)
Figure 5.
Project budget S-curve
Source(s): Figure created by the author
Estimation/Requesting material
Supervising field activities
Cost analysis/reporting

Coordinating delivery
material management

General coordination

Reviewing drawings
Payment/requesting

Handling deliveries
safety management

Change order issue

Responsibility matrix
progress control
scheduling

Paperwork
Inspection

reporting
Site visit

Meeting

Executive supervisor

Technical office supervisor

Project control supervisor

Quality control expert

Project control expert

Technical office expert Table 1.

A descriptive analysis
Executive expert of project personnel
roles in relation to
Source(s): Table created by the author support activities
SASBE of the executive supervisor’s timesheet. This table presents the timesheet for April 20th,
highlighting the executive supervisor’s approximately 1 h spent on supervision activities, 1 h
and 45 min on general coordination, 45 min on quality issues and 30 min on site-visit field
activities. Similar categorisation and summarisation procedures were employed for daily
timesheets of all case study practitioners.
In this comprehensive case study, meticulous information has been gathered from six key
members of the project. Due to the extensive nature of the data and tables, detailed
descriptions of the implementation process are exclusively presented as a sample, utilising
data from the executive supervisor.
As depicted in Table 3, the supportive activities undertaken by the executive supervisor
over the 30-day data gathering process are outlined. The primary emphasis of Tables 2 and 3
is on executive supervision. Table 2 specifically examines the duration of supportive
activities carried out on a particular day, with data collected over a 30-day period. The results
of these activities are succinctly summarised in Table 3. In the event that Table 2 is completed
for each individual over the course of 30 days, a total of 180 tables would be generated. The
culmination of these 180 tables is presented in a comprehensive summary found in Table 5.
The data collected in this study were categorised into two main patterns. First, resource
costs were allocated to support activities by determining the time dedicated by each project
member to each support activity, which constituted the initial stage of allocation. Second,
support activity costs were allocated to project activities by analysing the hours consumed by
each project activity, forming the subsequent stage of allocation.
The focus of the case study is on the human resource costs as the cost objects, while other
cost objects such as utilities and general expenditures have been equitably apportioned to
human resource costs. The allocation of human resource costs to support activities is
accomplished using Equation (4):

Duration Type of support activity Activity description Finish time Start time WBS ID

30 min Site visit Excavation site visit 8:30 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 67
Table 2.
Offline time sheet for 1h Supervision Site levelling supervision 9:30 a.m. 8:30 a.m. 68
executive supervisor – 45 min Inspection Monitoring facade execution 10:15 a.m. 9:30 a.m. 38
20 April 2020 – 8:00 1:45 h General coordination Site contractors coordination 12 p.m. 10:15 a.m. 67
a.m.–12:00 p.m. Source(s): Table created by the authors

Support activities Total/hr Percentage (%)

Supervising field activities 49:36 23.62

Inspection 24:48 11.81
Site visit/progress control 8:27 3.94
Progress control 3:30 1.57
Safety management 12:40 5.91
Monthly material management 16:52 7.87
Handling deliveries 20:40 9.84
General coordination 24:48 11.81
Meeting 12:40 5.91
Table 3. Reviewing drawings 12:40 5.91
Summary of support Change order issue 24:48 11.81
activities done by the Total 210 100
executive supervisor Source(s): Table created by the authors
 X
n
Cost
Support Activity Cost i ¼ ðRtime i 3 msj Þ (4) estimation:
i¼1
BIM and ABC
where R(time) 5 The amount of spent time by resources on support activityi, synergy
msj 5 the monthly salary of resource j.
The cost associated with “supervising field activities” can be determined from the data
presented in Table 4.
Employee salaries are determined through individual interviews to safeguard the
confidentiality of participants’ data, with all numerical values adjusted using a consistent
coefficient.
The distribution of support activities related to the executive supervisor in April is succinctly
summarised in Table 3. The table indicates that the highest time allocation is observed for
supervising field activities, while the lowest allocation is attributed to progress control activity.

Results
The results obtained from the data collected over one month from project personnel for the
calculation of COCs are presented in Tables 5 and 6 Based on this information and
the calculations performed in the case study section, the CPI modified can be compared with the
CPI normal. Table 5 illustrates the first stage of allocation, depicting how and to what extent
project resources are consumed by support activities.
In the second stage of allocation, as depicted in Table 6, support activity costs are allocated
to project activities based on resource consumption. The collected data have been classified
according to the time spent on support activities and the resources consumed.
This stage involves categorising accumulated timesheets by project activities (WBS ID) to
determine the hours consumed by support activities. The table provides a breakdown of each
project activity’s contribution to support activities.
Modified cost performance index: The calculation of CPI encompasses all project costs,
including both direct costs and overhead costs, ensuring a high level of accuracy. The
findings from the case study implementation can be categorised into two groups:
(1) Technical results:
The findings indicate that the implementation of ABC/BIM integration enhances the
precision of cost performance indicators by over 9%. The primary discoveries address the
research gap and improve the accuracy of EVM indicators, as illustrated in Figure 6. When
disregarding COCs, the CPI is 0.54. However, adding COCs, reduced the CPI to 0.49.
A comparison between these two indices reveals that the CPImodified is less than the standard

Supervising field activities

Task force/HR resource consumption(hr) HR salary ($/hr) Cost of activity

1-Executive supervisor 70 h 10 700

2-Quality control expert 21 h 8 168
3-Executive expert 80 h 2.5 200 Table 4.
Total 1,068 Assign the costs of the
Note(s): Supervising field activities resources to support
Source(s): Table created by the authors activities
 Table 5.
SASBE

Summarises the

project based on
project activities
overhead costs of the
Assign the resource to support activities
Support activities 1** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total COCs cost

Cost Mgmt.* Cost analysis/reporting 1.4% – 6.3% – – 13% 13% – 2,638,000

Payment/requesting – – 11.2% – – 6.5% 6.5% – 2,295,000
Quality Mgmt. Supervising field activities – 23.6% – – 24.5% – – 38.3% 5,990,000
Inspection – 11.8% – – 39.1% – – 14.4% 4,690,000
Time Mgmt. Developing/updating plan 28.6% – – 33.3% – – – – 3,150,000
Site visit 11.4% 3.9% 5.4% 6.7% 4.2% – – 4.8% 2,641,500
Progress control 17.1% 1.6% 20% – – – 1.9% 2,142,000
Reporting 5.7% – 0.5% 13.3% – 6.5% 6.5% – 1,787,000
Administrative Paper work 11.1% – 8.1% 20.0% 7.8% 6.5% 6.5% – 3,926,000
HSE Safety mgmt. – 5.9% – – – – – 4.8% 830,000
Procurement Mgmt. Estimation/requesting 6.9% – 9.3% – – 17.4% 17.4% – 3,982,750
Monthly material Mgmt – 7.9% 4.5% – – – – – 1,370,000
Coordinating delivery schedule – – 6.7% – 5.9% 6.5% 6.5% – 2,145,000
Handling deliveries – 9.8% – – – – – 12.0% 1,575,000
General Mgmt. General coordination 5.7% 11.8% 4.7% – 3.9% – – – 2,483,250
Meeting 8.6% 5.9% 5.5% – 14.7% – – 7.2% 3,293,250
Change Mgmt. Reviewing drawings 3.4% 5.9% 8.7% 6.7% – 21.7% 21.7% 9.6% 5,541,500
Change orders – 11.8% 29.1% – – 21.7% 21.7% 7.2% 8,150,000
Note(s): *Mgmt.: Management; **1: Project control supervisor, 2: Executive supervisor, 3: Technical supervisor, 4: Project control expert, 5: QC Supervisor, 6: Technical
Expert 1, 7: Technical Expert 2 and 8: Executive expert
Source(s): Table created by the authors
WBS ID
Cost
HR 9 16 18 19 25 26 29 estimation:
Project control – 471,667 471,667 318,333 338,333 338,333 471,667 BIM and ABC
supervisor
Executive supervisor 285,714 285,714 285,714 485,714 515,714 515,714 472,381
synergy
Technical supervisor 704,357 590,357 590,357 590,357 875,357 884,857 590,357
Project control expert 147,500 182,500 182,500 147,500 211,667 211,667 631,667
Quality control – 345,000 207,192 230,000 27,025 184,000 207,192
supervisor
Technical expert 108,750 – 203,000 261,000 609,000 406,000 –
Technical expert 261,000 72,500 696,000 261,000 609,000 406,000 580,000
Executive expert – 69,000 – 184,000 184,000 345,000 207,000
Total cost 1,507,321 2,016,738 2,636,430 2,477,905 3,370,096 3,291,571 3,160,263
WBS
HR 38 39 67 68 69 70 71
Project control 471,667 471,667 848,333 815,000 693,333 653,333 318,333
supervisor
Executive supervisor 685,714 622,381 1,870,714 694,048 1,880,714 474,048 285,714
Technical supervisor 842,107 842,107 1,302,857 1,046,357 1,986,857 846,857 1,032,107
Project control expert 555,833 421,667 1,293,750 850,417 1,766,250 412,917 147,500
Quality control 115,000 253,000 716,163 671,121 230,000 276,000 –
supervisor
Technical expert 587,250 464,000 1,102,000 580,000 1,392,000 493,000 464,000
Technical expert 587,250 464,000 435,000 522,000 957,000 493,000 348,000
Executive expert 345,000 299,000 1,150,000 276,000 1,403,000 230,000 115,000
Total cost 4,189,821 3,837,821 8,718,817 5,454,942 10,309,155 3,879,155 2,710,655
Note(s): WBS ID: 9: Columns second-floor ceiling, 16: Installation of frames and subframes, 18: Grading of
services and terraces, 19: Foam-concrete flooring, 25: Terrace floor tiling, 26: Installation of corridor floor tiles,
29: Installation of staircase tiles, 38: Installation of ceiling gypsum board, 67: Levelling and compacting, 68: Table 6.
Asphalt and bitumen spraying, 69: Excavation, 70: Pathway paving and 71: Green space Second stage of COCs
Source(s): Table created by the authors assignment

CPInormal, signifying a notable increase in cost deviation. This discrepancy underscores a

deviation from the anticipated cost performance, indicating that the project’s actual costs are
higher than what would be expected based on the CPInormal. This can pose challenges in
controlling and monitoring actual cost deviations throughout the cost control process. In
addressing this discrepancy, it is crucial to integrate COCs during both the PV calculation
and the AC calculations for project activities. This necessitates allocating COCs to project
activities based on past project experiences conducted using the ABC system. This
systematic approach ensures that COCs are factored into EVM, enhancing the overall
comprehension of project cost dynamics.
(2) Management analysis and results:
 Analysing cost data from various cost pools enables managers to identify the
optimum points. For instance, according to Table 5, change issues result in the
highest overhead costs, primarily due to project alterations. This indicates that
the technical office unit dedicates a significant amount of time to reworking
activities. This emphasises the importance of change orders in construction
projects and underscores the significance of avoiding them through early
preparation (Shafaat et al., 2016). Through early preparation, a fair overhead cost
could be estimated in the change order pricing process. Neglecting COCs in the
cost control process can obscure deviations related to changes, making them
difficult to trace
SASBE 1.00
0.90

COst performance Index(CPI)

0.80
0.70
0.54
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.49
0.20
0.10
0.00

Figure 6.
Comparison between CPI CPI (Modified)
the two CPI
Source(s): Figure created by the author

 Supporting activities such as change management, quality management and time

management are found to have the highest overhead costs, indicating that
significant technical office resources were consumed in addressing rework and
change orders. Specifically, an average of 205 h per month was allocated to
rework and change orders. Dealing with change orders can be challenging
(Shafaat et al., 2022), Subsequently, in the change order pricing process,
contractors may assert that changes unseen by the owner have led to an increase
in COCs (Hanna et al., 2004). If contractors measure the COCs in different project,
the records might help in controlling projects. In another word, the COCs of the
project could be compared to the COCs of the previous similar projects in order to
control of the allocated overhead resources.
 Based on the comparison of WBS activities, the highest overhead costs were
associated with excavation (ID 5 69), levelling (ID 5 67) and asphalt (ID 5 68)
activities. This information can assist project managers in identifying activities
with significant overhead costs and prioritising resource allocation accordingly.
Furthermore, it enhances estimation precision in the early phases of the project,
facilitating more accurate change pricing later on.

Discussion and conclusion

This research demonstrates that automating data exchange between the BIM and ABC
methods, and integrating this data into EVM, significantly enhances the accuracy of CPI
calculation. The practical application of this framework was verified through a real case
study, comparing project CPIs using two methods. The first, calculated based on the
traditional approach without considering COCs, resulted in a CPI of 0.54. The second method,
CPImodified, estimated through the automated combination of BIM and ABC, including all
actual costs, yielded a CPI of 0.49. The comparison between these two CPI values clearly
indicates that CPImodified is a more reliable indicator of project cost performance than the
traditional method, which fails to accurately account for actual cost deviations.
The inclusion of COCs in project cost performance evaluation offers valuable financial and
managerial insights for decision-making. This process enables project managers to identify
optimisation opportunities, understand actual cost deviations, and determine how and where Cost
project resources are being utilised. Such information is crucial for resource allocation based estimation:
on activity value and priority and aids in identifying and eliminating waste in non-value-
adding activities. With the ABC/BIM combination system, there is a possibility for fair
BIM and ABC
change pricing and decreased disputes among project parties. Contractors can accurately synergy
claim for unforeseen changes by the owner, fostering transparency and reducing potential
conflicts. In conclusion, our research highlights the benefits of automating data exchange
between the BIM and ABC methods and integrating them into EVM for accurate CPI
calculation. The findings shed light on the significant impact of COCs on project cost
performance and emphasise the importance of considering them in cost control processes.
This research contributes to the body of knowledge in construction project management and
provides insights for practitioners to enhance cost performance evaluation and decision-
making in construction projects.

Recommendations
While this study has provided valuable insights into controlling and optimising COCs, it is
essential to acknowledge several limitations. One of the primary limitations is related to data
collection. This research heavily relies on self-reported data from project staff. While some
measures were taken to ensure the accuracy of the data, such as using mobile phones for data
entry, there is always a potential for errors in the entered data. Additionally, due to COVID-19,
data collection was conducted through a small sample of staff, which may not fully represent
the entire human resource pool of the project. On this basis, future research could further
develop an integrated system for data collection involving all project staff and provide
adequate training to project members, fostering effective communication between the technical,
financial and administrative units. This would ensure the accurate recording and diligent
monitoring of COCs, promoting a shared understanding and consistent approach within the
project. It is worth noting that the successful implementation of an integrated cost control
system necessitates the establishment of a comprehensive and integrated financial system that
aligns cost codes (cost pool codes) with the project WBS and its corresponding activities.

References
Abraham, D., Corazzini, L., Fisar, M. and Reggiani, T. (2023), “Coordinating donations via an
intermediary: the destructive effect of a sunk overhead cost”, Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, Vol. 211, pp. 287-304, doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2023.05.006.
Abrishami, S., Goulding, J., Rahimian, F.P., Ganah, A. and Sawhney, A. (2014), “G-BIM framework and
development process for integrated AEC design automation”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 85,
pp. 10-17, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.523.
Alavipour, S.M.R. and Arditi, D. (2018), “Impact of contractor’s optimized financing cost on project bid
price”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 808-818, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijproman.2018.03.001.
Alsayegh, M.F. (2020), “Activity based costing around the world: adoption, implementation, outcomes
and criticism”, Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 251-262, doi: 10.26710/jafee.v6i1.1074.
Aminian, V., Nejad, A., Mortaji, S. and Bagherpour, M. (2016), “A modified earned value management
using activity based costing”, Journal of Project Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 41-54, doi: 10.
26710/jafee.v6i1.1074.
Apanavicien_e, R. and Daug_elien_e, A. (2011), “New classification of construction companies: overhead
costs aspect”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 457-466, doi: 10.
3846/13923730.2011.625629.
SASBE Assaf, S.A., Bubshait, A.A., Atiyah, S. and Al-Shahri, M. (2001), “The management of construction
company overhead costs”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 295-303, doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00011-9.
Back, W.E., Maxwell, D.A. and Isidore, L.J. (2000), “Activity-based costing as a tool for process
improvement evaluations”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 48-58, doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:2(48).
Ben-Arieh, D. and Qian, L. (2003), “Activity-based cost management for design and development
stage”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 169-183, doi: 10.1016/
S0925-5273(02)00323-7.
Chao, L.-C. and Kuo, C.-P. (2018), “Neural-network-centered approach to determining lower limit of
combined rate of overheads and markup”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 144 No. 2, 04017117, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001440.
Chao, L.-C. and Liaw, S.-J. (2019), “Fuzzy logic model for determining minimum overheads-cum-
markup rate”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 145 No. 4, 04019008,
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001632.
Chen, J.H., Yang, L.R., Chen, W. and Chang, C. (2008), “Case-based allocation of onsite supervisory
manpower for construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 8,
pp. 805-814, doi: 10.1080/01446190802014778.
Davis, B.T. and Ibbs, W. (2017), “Guidelines for recovering home office overhead costs with emphasis
on the eichleay formula”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and
Construction, Vol. 9 No. 1, 04516009, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000201.
Davison, J. (2015), “Visualising accounting: an interdisciplinary review and synthesis”, Accounting and
Business Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 121-165, doi: 10.1080/00014788.2014.987203.
Duh, R.R., Lin, T.W., Wang, W.Y. and Huang, C.H. (2009), “The design and implementation of activity-
based costing: a case study of a Taiwanese textile company”, International Journal of Accounting
and Information Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 27-52, doi: 10.1108/18347640910967726.
Elghaish, F. and Abrishami, S. (2020), “Developing a framework to revolutionise the 4D BIM process:
IPD-based solution”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 401-420, doi: 10.1108/CI-11-
2019-0127.
Elghaish, F. and Abrishami, S. (2021), “A centralised cost management system: exploiting EVM and
ABC within IPD”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 549-569, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-11-2019-0623.
Elghaish, F., Abrishami, S., Gaterell, M. and Wise, R. (2018), “Integrating dependent material planning
cycle into building information management: a building information management-based
material management automation framework”, World Academy of Science, Engineering, and
Technology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 253-258, doi: 10.1999/1307-6892/10008928.
Elghaish, F., Abrishami, S., Abu Samra, S., Gaterell, M., Hosseini, M.R. and Wise, R. (2021a), “Cash
flow system development framework within integrated project delivery (IPD) using BIM tools”,
International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 555-570, doi: 10.1080/
15623599.2019.1573477.
Elghaish, F., Abrishami, S., Hosseini, M.R. and Abu-Samra, S. (2021b), “Revolutionising cost structure
for integrated project delivery: a BIM-based solution”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1214-1240, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-04-2019-0222.
Enshassi, A., Rashid Abdul Aziz, A. and El Karriri, A.a. (2008), “Investigating the overhead costs in
construction projects in Palestine”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 35-47, doi: 10.1080/00014788.2014.987203.
Faghihi, V., Peimankar, P., Nazarpour Mohammad, T. and Shafaat, A. (2022), “Effects of contractual
challenges in building information modeling on successful implementation”, Journal of Legal
Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 14 No. 4, 05022003, doi: 10.
1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000554.
Globerson, S. (2017), “Using the earned value approach for controlling overhead cost in construction Cost
projects”, The Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, doi: 10.19255/JMPM01405.
estimation:
Hanna, A.S., Camlic, R., Peterson, P.A. and Lee, M.-J. (2004), “Cumulative effect of project changes for
electrical and mechanical construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
BIM and ABC
Vol. 130 No. 6, pp. 762-771, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:6(762). synergy
Huang, X.X., Newnes, L.B. and Parry, G.C. (2012), “The adaptation of product cost estimation
techniques to estimate the cost of service”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 25 Nos 4-5, pp. 417-431, doi: 10.1080/0951192X.2011.596281.
Ibbs, W. and Nguyen, L.D. (2007), “Alternative for quantifying field-overhead damages”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 133 No. 10, pp. 736-742, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2007)133:10(736).
Ibbs, W., Baker, B. and Burckhardt, F. (2015), “Process model for identifying and computing allowable
home office overhead cost claims”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering
and Construction, Vol. 7 No. 3, 04514007, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000164.
Iyer, K. and Manan Bindal, Y. (2019), “Case study on home office overhead claims”, Journal of Legal
Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 11 No. 3, 05019001, doi: 10.
1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000288.
Janani, R., Rangarajan, P. and Yazhini, S. (2015), “A systematic study on site overhead costs in
construction industry”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4
No. 10, pp. 149-151, doi: 10.1109/EI2.2017.8245457.
Kallunki, J.-P. and Silvola, H. (2008), “The effect of organizational life cycle stage on the use of activity-
based costing”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 62-79, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.
2007.08.002.
Kim, T. and Kim, Y.-W. (2016), “Activity—based costing for process improvements”, Proceedings of
IGLC, Boston, MA, Vol. 3, pp. 53-62, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-04-2021-0362.
Kim, Y.W., Han, S., Shin, S. and Choi, K. (2011), “A case study of activity-based costing in allocating
rebar fabrication costs to projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 449-461, doi: 10.1080/01446193.2011.570354.
Kren, L. (2014), “Tracking value created by efficiency improvements in a traditional overhead cost
management system”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 3-7, doi: 10.1080/
10429247.2014.11431999.
Le
sniak, A. and Juszczyk, M. (2018), “Prediction of site overhead costs with the use of artificial neural
network based model”, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 973-982,
doi: 10.1016/j.acme.2018.01.014.
Liu, H., Cheng, J.C.P., Gan, V.J.L. and Zhou, S. (2022), “A knowledge model-based BIM framework for
automatic code-compliant quantity take-off”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 133, pp. 104024,
doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.104024.
Liu, J., Wang, S., Zhu, Q., Zhao, C., Zhang, G., Zhao, Z. and Lu, X. (2023), “Overhead transmission line
condition assessment based on intention classification and slot filling using optimized BERT
model”, Energy Reports, Vol. 9, pp. 838-846, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.04.357.
Maha Faisal, A. (2020), “Activity based costing around the world: adoption, implementation, outcomes
and criticism”, Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 251-262, doi: 10.26710/jafee.v6i1.1074.
Mahesha, V. (2022), “A comparative study of activity based costing and traditional costing as a
fragment of pricing”, SAARJ Journal on Banking and Insurance Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-9,
doi: 10.5958/2319-1422.2022.00006.6.
Nassar, K. (2012), “Assessing building information modeling estimating techniques using data from
the classroom”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 138
No. 3, pp. 171-180, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000101.
SASBE Ostadi, B. and Zare, R. (2022), “Activity-based costing in the public sector and non-profit
organisations: towards risk-based approach”, International Journal of Productivity and
Quality Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1504/IJPQM.2022.120708.
Petrov, M. (2021), “Tools for complex assessment of projects for construction of priority railway lines
in the Ural-Siberian Macro region”, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 54 No. 2,
pp. 429-435, doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2021.02.092.
Plebankiewicz, E. and Le
sniak, A. (2013), “Overhead costs and profit calculation by Polish
contractors”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 141-161,
doi: 10.3846/20294913.2012.763008.
Plebankiewicz, E., Zima, K. and Skibniewski, M. (2015), “Analysis of the first polish BIM-based cost estimation
application”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 405-414, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.064.
Qiu, Y.L. and Xiao, G.F. (2020), “Research on cost management optimization of financial sharing center based
on RPA”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 166, pp. 115-119, doi: doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.02.031.
Quesado, P. and Silva, R. (2021), “Activity-based costing (ABC) and its implication for open
innovation”, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 41-44, doi: 10.3390/joitmc7010041.
Shafaat, A., Alinizzi, M., Mahfouz, T. and Kandil, A. (2016), “Can contractors predict change orders?
Investigating a historical allegation”, Construction Research Congress 2016, pp. 487-496, doi: 10.
1061/9780784479827.050.
Shafaat, A., Marbouti, F. and Mahfouz, T. (2022), “Early warning system for highway construction
projects using GA-SVM”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 23 No. 14,
pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2056805.
Singla, H.K. and Sridharan, S. (2022), “Factors influencing the level of accuracy and compromise in
overhead estimation for construction projects in India: an exploratory investigation”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 4040-4060,
doi: 10.1108/ECAM-04-2021-0362.
 skina, A., Juodis, A. and Apanaviciene, R. (2009), “Evaluation of the competitiveness of construction
Si
company overhead costs”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 215-224, doi: 10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.215-224.
Taam, T.M. and Singh, A. (2003), “Unabsorbed overhead and the Eichleay formula”, Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 234-245, doi: 10.
1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000017.
Tsai, W.-H., Yang, C.-H., Chang, J.-C. and Lee, H.-L. (2014), “An activity-based costing decision model
for life cycle assessment in green building projects”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 238 No. 2, pp. 607-619, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.024.
Vigneault, M.-A., Boton, C., Chong, H.-Y. and Cooper-Cooke, B. (2020), “An innovative framework of 5D
BIM solutions for construction cost management: a systematic review”, Archives of Computational
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1013-1030, doi: 10.1007/s11831-019-09341-z.
Wood, J., Panuwatwanich, K. and Doh, J.-H. (2014), “Using LOD in structural cost estimation during
building design stage: pilot study”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 543-552, doi: 10.
1016/j.proeng.2014.10.582.

Corresponding author
Sepehr Abrishami can be contacted at: sepehr.abrishami@port.ac.uk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com