nd th

2 International/ 8 Construction Specialty Conference

e e
2 conférence internationale / 8 conférence spécialisée sur le génie de la construction

St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador / St. John’s, Terre-Neuve et Labrador

May 27-30, 2009 / 27-30 mai 2009

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

1 2 3
Yaqiong Liu ,Tarek Zayed and Shujing Li
1, 3
Graduate student of Concordia University
2
Associate Professor, Department of Building, Civil, and Environmental Engineering, Concordia
University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1M8

Abstract: Construction projects are complex and risky. According to the literature, even profitable
construction companies can fail due to poor cash flow. In order to survive in this rapidly changing
environment, effective cash flow management is essential. Many unforeseen factors affect a construction
project’s cash flow. The objective of the research presented in this paper is to examine the impact of
these factors on contractor cash flow during the construction process. A model has been established by
integrating analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and simulation to examine the impact of various factors on
cash flow. Results show that cash outflow varied approximately from 12.9% to 20.4% with a mean value
of 16.7% considering the effects of all factors on the basis of 30% total cost variation. By analyzing the
results of the developed model, contractors will recognize which factors contribute the most to contractor
cash flow performance. Professional cash flow management (i.e. prediction) might greatly reduce failures
in the construction business.

1. Introduction

Contractors cannot survive in the competitive construction industry without effective cash flow
management. Studies and investigations have shown that lack of liquidity is a major problem causing
construction project failure (Al-Issa and Zayed, 2007). A model for accurately predicting trends in a
project’s cash flow prior to the construction phase has been as elusive as the Holy Grail. But advance
knowledge of the factors affecting cash flow and an understanding their impact is essential to the
contractor. Financial management has long been recognized as an important management tool.
Throughout the construction process, contractors need to be comparing the actual income and expenses
against the forecasted values. If there are discrepancies between these values, the contractor needs to
adjust the schedule and update the project plan to match the estimated situation as early on as possible.
With good knowledge of cash flow forecasting, the contractor could more efficiently and accurately
manage cash flow during the construction process to prevent extra expenses and avoid project collapse.

Many methodologies have been applied to analyzing cash flow forecasting (Blyth and Kaka, 2006). The
non-mathematical approaches, mostly referred to as project-oriented forecasting models, were greatly
used in traditional research (Khosrowshahi and Kaka, 2007). These forecasting models, which were
established based on historical project data, were used to monitor and modify project process. The
models were used to forecast cost flow in construction projects, and offered a “clear explanation as to the
origin and nature of the resulting forecast” (Khosrowshahi, 1991, 1996, and 1998, and Kaka, 2007).
However, establishing the model consumed much time and money and the model could only be applied
to similar types of the projects, and not with any desirable measure of accuracy. Since construction
projects are usually uncertain, complex and unique, mathematical models, conversely, provide much
simpler and cheaper approaches.

ICS-201-1
Qualitative and quantitative techniques have been used to study the relationship between a set of
independent and dependent variables in cash flow forecasting. The mathematical models intend to
investigate the behavior of the phenomenon (Khosrowshahi 1998). A visual model for a cash flow
forecast was developed by Kaka using a deterministic approach (Kaka 2007). This model has been
established using the mathematical components of several key factors that can be negotiated to generate
priorities. The model generates a forecast by "combining the outcome of data analysis with the
experience and knowledge of the forecaster” (Ibid.).

In forecasting cash flow, there are both factors that can be considered to be fairly concrete, or certain,
and others which are more difficult to estimate. Several factors impacting cash flow have already been
identified and studied and sorted into seven categories: financial, supplier, subcontractor, factors prior
to/during project, and communication throughout the whole project (Al-Issa and Zayed 2007). The
objective of our research is to study the effects of cash flow factors on a contractor’s cash flow
performance and to forecast cash flow more realistically by incorporating these factors.

2. Research Methodology

The methodology of this research passes through various steps, i.e. reviewing literature about cash flow
factors and analysis, establishing a new forecasting model, and predicting the cash flow based on the
newly developed model.

First, the literature review comprises several stages: (1) study previous cash flow forecasting models to
find the advantages and limitations of each, (2) identify and collect the factors and categorize them, and
(3) acquire a comprehensive knowledge of research techniques. Second, design a data collection tool,
e.g. questionnaire, to collect information relative to factors’ impact on cash flow from engineers and
experts in the construction management field. Based on the questionnaire data, it was possible to
determine the weight and effect of every factor of cash flow forecasting using stochastic analysis. The
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique was used to calculate the factors’ weight. Then, a simulation
model was developed to forecast cash flow and draw the overdraft. Finally, the model development
results were analyzed and conclusions drawn.

3. Data Collection

A strong background in cash flow forecasting is an essential requirement for improving the current cash
flow forecasting models. After a comprehensive literature review and several interviews with construction
engineers, forty-three factors were identified as having an impact on cash flow in construction projects.
These factors were categorized to provide additional information regarding their effect on cash flow and
forecast this effect. To this end, data were collected from experts and engineers through a questionnaire
and on-site interviews. The experts were asked to rate the importance of various factors on a scale of 1-9,
where 1 signifies that a factor is "slightly important” and 9 signifies “extremely important”. Two hundred
and thirty-three questionnaires were sent to more than two hundred construction companies in North
America and China by e-mail and fax. A hundred responses were received for a return rate of 43%
(100/233).

4. Model Development

Clearly, there are many factors at play in forecasting cash flow. Forty-three factors were selected to aid in
investigating the performance of project cash flow in seven categories (Al-Issa and Zayed, 2007). Table 1
lists all of these factors and categories. A model based on the stochastic mathematical process-Monte
Carlo simulation combined with AHP was developed to evaluate the impact of these factors and forecast
cash flow. The collected data were categorized and probability distributions were fit for various factors
and their weights. Best fit software was used to generate these probability distributions. The AHP

ICS-201-2
technique has been widely used and applied in multi-criteria decision making, planning and resource
allocation, conflict resolution, and prediction problems (Saaty, 1994). According to Saaty, the analytical
hierarchy process is performed by pair-wise comparisons; in this case, the comparison is between two
distributions (Ibid.). Then, the weights were calculated based on the pair-wise comparisons using
mathematical techniques such as eigen value and eigen vector, mean transformation, or row geometric
mean. In this paper, all of the input values are probability distributions. Consequently, the weights
obtained should be probability distributions as well. However, in order to compare with previous studies,
the most likely weight needs to be concluded from the distribution. Due to space limitations, only the main
categories’ weight comparison is presented in Figure 1. The bar chart in Figure 1 indicates that the
results differ slightly from the previous study that was done by Al-Issa and Zayed (2007).
Table 1. Factors that affect the project cash flow: contractor perspective (Al-Issa and Zayed, 2007)
Category Factors
F1-Change of progress payment F7-Loan repayment(O)
Financial duration (I) F8-Payments of material (before/after arrival)
Management F2-Change of progress payment (O)
conditions(I) F9-Over work measurement(I&O)
F3- Receiving front payment(I) F10-Under work measurement(I&O)
F4-Large retention percent(I) F11-Change of labour and staff wages(O)
F5-Delay in releasing retention(I) F12-Bank interest(O)
F6-Finanical position(O)
Sub-contractor Sub1-Decisions to sub-contract(O) Sub3-Failure of sub-contractor(I&O)
Sub2-Over/under measurement(O) Sub4-Renting vs. buying equipment(O)
Suppliers Sup1-Delay of making payments(O) Sup3-Delay in delivery(I&O)
Sup2-Procurement problems(O) Sup4-Price change(O)
Prior to P1-Poor design(O) P4-Cash flow forecasting(O)
construction P2-Inaccurate bid items(I&O) P5-Competitors(I)
P3-Estimating strategies(O)
During D1-Mistakes in executing the D5-Small project’s duration increase/decrease
Construction work(I&O) (I&O)
D2-Lack of adequate insurance(O) D6-Project delayed(I&O)
D3-Replacement of defective D7-Material and equipment shortages(O)
work(I&O) D8-Lack of skilled labour(O)
D4-Large project’s duration D9-Improper planning and management(I&O)
increase/decrease (I&O)

Communication C1-Disputes between contractor and C3-Relations with owner(I&O)

skills owner(I&O) C4-Relations with consultant team(O)
C2-Poor communication –contractor
staff(I&O)
Others O1-Weather condition(I&O) O3 Negative change order (Omit work) (I&O)
O2-Positive change order (addition O4-Inability to manage change orders(I&O)
work) (I&O) O5-Number of claims(I&O)
Note: (I), affect cash-in; (O), affect cash-out; (I&O), affect cash-in/cash-out.

In this paper, not only the weights of factors are calculated, but the impacts of these factors are also
integrated into cash flow forecasting. As previously discussed, cash flow includes cash inflow and outflow.
It is necessary to distribute the forty-three factors into three sections: factors affecting cash inflow, factors
affecting cash outflow, and factors affecting both. All the factors are tagged with letter I, O or I&O to
indicate these sections, respectively.
To evaluate the degree to which the factors affect cash flow, several mathematical expressions were
developed:

[1] Ek= ek/9

ICS-201-3
Where, Ek is the effectiveness index of k factor, the value of effectiveness is between 0-1, it can be
obtained from the questionnaire. The ek is a random sample selected from the effectiveness distribution of
this factor. The value 9 is the maximum effect that a single factor can have on the cash flow. For
example, if a factor is rated as 9, its effectiveness is the peak value of 1.

Figure 1. Comparing the newly developed model with Al-Issa and Zayed (2007): main categories’ weights

[2]

Where, W k is a random sample selected from the distribution of factor K’s weight calculated by the
integration of AHP with simulation; P is the amount of cash that is involved in the calculation considering
all the factors’ effect. It is assumed to be from 0% to 50% with a mean percent of 30% applied to the
overall cost. The Cout-m is the estimated expense of the project at the specific time m.

[3]

Where, W l is a random sample selected from the distribution of factor L’s weight calculated by the
integration of AHP with simulation; P is the amount of cash that is involved in the calculation considering
all the factors’ effect; Cin-m is the expense of the project at the specific time m.

[4]

The overdraft at the specific time m could be either positive or negative. It is noted that the new cash flow
forecasting has been defined by parameters W, P, and E. An effectiveness index is generated directly
from the collected data using equation 2. These parameters are all derived from the engineers’ or experts’
opinions and judgement. They are all embedded in the model as probability distributions as shown in
Table 2. The parameters can define the specific characteristics of the cash flow shape. Peak point values,
slop values, expenditure intensity and distortions of the cash flow profile are related to several variables

ICS-201-4
Table 2. Fitted probability distribution for factors’ importance and effect (W*E)
criteria μ σ 95% μ+C μ-C Chi-Sq CV at α = Type
confidence Test 0.25
F1 0.02617 0.00765 0.00021 0.02638 0.02596 43.47 61.665 Lognormal
F2 0.019 0.00752 0.00021 0.01921 0.01879 61.41 61.665 Lognormal
F3 0.01997 0.01368 0.00038 0.02035 0.01959 55.30 61.665 Lognormal
F4 0.01802 0.0079 0.00022 0.01824 0.0178 46.38 61.665 Lognormal
F5 0.01387 0.00844 0.00023 0.0141 0.01364 54.86 61.665 Lognormal
F6 0.02192 0.00767 0.00021 0.02213 0.02171 40.87 61.665 Lognormal
F7 0.01648 0.00721 0.0002 0.01668 0.01628 52.75 61.665 Lognormal
F8 0.01861 0.00799 0.00022 0.01883 0.01839 60.85 61.665 Lognormal
F9 0.01562 0.00904 0.00025 0.01587 0.01537 46.72 61.665 Lognormal
F10 0.01475 0.0088 0.00024 0.01499 0.01451 47.03 61.665 Lognormal
F11 0.01105 0.00761 0.00021 0.01126 0.01084 61.30 61.665 Lognormal
F12 0.0109 0.00846 0.00023 0.01113 0.01067 55.98 61.665 Lognormal
Sub1 0.01427 0.00659 0.00018 0.01445 0.01409 58.14 61.665 Lognormal
Sub2 0.01292 0.00668 0.00019 0.01311 0.01273 59.97 61.665 Lognormal
Sub3 0.0195 0.0096 0.00027 0.01977 0.01923 59.66 61.665 Lognormal
Sub4 0.0133 0.00712 0.0002 0.0135 0.0131 49.81 61.665 Lognormal
Sup1 0.01615 0.00649 0.00018 0.01633 0.01597 39.75 61.665 Lognormal
Sup2 0.01411 0.00734 0.0002 0.01431 0.01391 55.95 61.665 Lognormal
Sup3 0.01798 0.00878 0.00024 0.01822 0.01774 36.84 61.665 Lognormal
Sup4 0.01203 0.00802 0.00022 0.01225 0.01181 56.30 61.665 Lognormal
D1 0.01789 0.00898 0.00025 0.01814 0.01764 51.27 61.665 Lognormal
D2 0.00953 0.00754 0.00021 0.00974 0.00932 56.50 61.665 Lognormal
D3 0.01139 0.00513 0.00014 0.01153 0.01125 57.20 61.665 Lognormal
D4 0.0184 0.00861 0.00024 0.01864 0.01816 56.67 61.665 Lognormal
D5 0.01253 0.00678 0.00019 0.01272 0.01234 39.51 61.665 Lognormal
D6 0.02208 0.00778 0.00022 0.0223 0.02186 38.84 61.665 Lognormal
D7 0.0179 0.00907 0.00025 0.01815 0.01765 49.23 61.665 Lognormal
D8 0.00528 0.00465 0.00013 0.00541 0.00515 61.37 61.665 Lognormal
D9 0.02275 0.00511 0.00014 0.02289 0.02261 46.94 61.665 Lognormal
P1 0.01907 0.00973 0.00027 0.01934 0.0188 52.48 61.665 Lognormal
P2 0.01168 0.00797 0.00022 0.0119 0.01146 52.75 61.665 Lognormal
P3 0.01446 0.00764 0.00021 0.01467 0.01425 49.50 61.665 Lognormal
P4 0.01915 0.008 0.00022 0.01937 0.01893 40.83 61.665 Lognormal
P5 0.01145 0.00741 0.00021 0.01166 0.01124 48.33 61.665 Lognormal
C1 0.01615 0.00635 0.00018 0.01633 0.01597 55.20 61.665 Lognormal
C2 0.01321 0.00681 0.00019 0.0134 0.01302 59.73 61.665 Lognormal
C3 0.01589 0.00739 0.0002 0.01609 0.01569 60.28 61.665 Lognormal
C4 0.00896 0.0053 0.00015 0.00911 0.00881 54.27 61.665 Lognormal
O1 0.01765 0.00974 0.00027 0.01792 0.01738 60.83 61.665 Lognormal
O2 0.0173 0.0097 0.00027 0.01757 0.01703 53.20 61.665 Lognormal
O3 0.0105 0.00751 0.00021 0.01071 0.01029 51.70 61.665 Lognormal
O4 0.02141 0.01072 0.0003 0.02171 0.02111 60.30 61.665 Lognormal
O5 0.02043 0.01134 0.00031 0.02074 0.02012 61.24 61.665 Lognormal

ICS-201-5
(Khosrowshahi and Kaka, 2007). In this paper, the variables’ effect is controlled by W, P, and E. By
manipulating the three parameters, the profile geometry of cash flow can be identified. We used the
original input value of cash in and out to obtain the base cash flow curves as a reference. Then, new cash
flow curves were obtained by applying equations 2, 3 and 4. By using these equations, the factors’ impact
was considered in forecasting the cash flow.
Statistical tests were implemented to choose the best fit probability distribution for each parameter. The
chi-squared statistic is the best known goodness-of-fit statistic. Table 2 presents the result of the chi-
squared test, which indicates that lognormal distribution is the best fit for W*E. It also shows the mean (μ)
and standard deviation (σ) for each factor. The critical values at significant level α =0.25 have been
chosen to compare with the chi-squared test result. Since the significant level value is higher than the chi-
squared statistical results, the lognormal distribution cannot be rejected as the best-fit software selected
the lognormal probability distribution at 0.25 significant level. For instance, if the chi-squared test result is
43.47 for F1, and the critical value at 0.25 significant level is 61.665, obviously the lognormal distribution
is the best fit. The same method has been applied to the rest of the factors. A confidence interval of 95%
was shown in Table 2; it is widely used in the stochastic variables in analyzing the results of the
developed models. For instance, the “F1: Change of progress payment duration” has a 95% confidence
interval upper limit of 0.02638, and lower limit of 0.02596, with an average value as 0.02617; therefore,
the lognormal distribution fit test was acceptable.

Different scenarios have been studied for the factors’ impact. The best case is when none of these factors
occurs. Then, no modifications the original forecast are warranted to. The worst case occurs when all of
the factors exist and happen for a particular project. The other, middle cases occur when several factors
exist while the others do not. Simulation results indicate that if all of the cash inflow factors occur, the
cash inflow will fluctuate from 9.7% to 16.3%, with a change of 12.4% being the most likely, based on the
original value. On the other hand, if all of the cash outflow factors occur, the cash outflow will fluctuate
from 12.9% to 20.4%, with a change of 16.7% being the most likely, based on the original value (30% of
total cost will be involved in variation).

5. Model Implementation to a Case Study

Diagram type software has been programmed to implement the cash flow forecast of any given
construction project. The result can be presented using a cash flow overdraft diagram. The steps are
described as follows:
1. User inputs several parameters which have been defined in the contract, such as the amount of
pre-estimated cost/income per month, interest, up-front payment, etc.
2. Identify and select the factors that might occur in this particular project.
3. Apply the simulation model to the project using the selected factors effect and equations [3], [4],
and [5].
4. Synthesize the series of cash inflow, outflow and overdraft, and the most likely cash flow profile.

Table 3. Project estimated cost and payment

Unit Milestone Cost Payment
(￥)Yuan Received
Month 1 38% completed 2,496,622 0
Month 2 62% completed 1,576,814 2,675,647
Month 3 85% completed 1,511,114 1,689,882
Month 4 95% completed 657,006 1’619’470
Month 5 Complete 328,503 704,118
Month 6 Complete 0 352,059
Data were collected from a building located in Tianjian, China. The estimated cost was 6,570,059 YUAN
(Currency rate CAD to YUAN: 1:5.3 at March 12, 2009)with a 7.1% profit margin. The project lasted five
months. Monthly interest of 0.5% was applied to negative cash flow only. No payment was received up-

ICS-201-6
front. The contractor received the payment from the owner on a monthly basis according to the
percentage of the project that had been completed. Front-end loading was not allowed in this project.
Table 5 gives the details on the financial condition. According to the project manager, the factors that
might occur in this project were: F2, F4, F5, F7, F9, F12, Sb1, Sb4, Sp2, Sp4, D1, D3, D5, P2, P3, P4, C2,
C3, O1 and O2.Each project has a unique profile that is defined in terms of the values of its profile
variables (Kaka, 2007). Similarly, in this paper, the specific factors affecting the project must be specified
before conducting any calculations. Instead of a unique profile, a series of cash flow curves are obtained
where the cash flow profile values fluctuate around the most likely value. The peak and mean values are
presented in the final result. In order to run the developed program, contractors not only need to input the
preliminary forecast data, but also need to select the importance of the various factors specific to their
knowledge and situation. Unlike this case, the contractors must predict the factors that might potentially
affect the project in order to be able to forecast the cash flow profile. Only the selected factors will be
included in the calculation. Equations 3 and 4 have been used to calculate the modified estimated cash
inflow and outflow for each month, respectively.

Figure 2. Cash flow curves and profiles for 500 runs Figure 3. Mean cash flow curves and profile

In order to obtain an accurate value for the cash flow forecast, the iteration number has been set at 500.
Figures 2 and 3 present the 500 cash flow curves and the mean cash flow curve, respectively. These
figures show that the values are close and the deviation from the average is not high. They also have the
same trend of positive and negative slopes. The program calculates the maximum, minimum, and mean
value of each point on the overdraft profile and compares them with actual overdraft data that are
collected from the project. Table 4 also lists the actual price (AP), actual accumulative price (AAP), actual
cost (AC), and actual accumulative cost (AAC), which are collected from the project to calculate the actual
overdraft (AO). Results show that the actual overdraft is among the range of the forecasted overdraft in
which the difference between AO and mean overdraft is approximately 2%. For example, the AO is -
1,546,625 for Yuan at the end of month 2; it is more than the minimum overdraft and less than the
maximum overdraft. The difference between AO and the mean O is 7,765.77 Yuan, which is a 0.5%
variance compared to its original value.

ICS-201-7
 Table 4. The actual overdraft (AO) vs. calculated overdraft (O)
AP AAP AC AAC AO Min O Max O Mean O
M1 0 0 2,692,923 2,692,923 -2,692,923 -2,754,299 -2,495,099 -2,623,982
M2 2,724,964 2,724,964 1,578,666 4,271,589 -1,546,625 -1,738,466 -1,396,188 -1,538,859
M3 1,721,030 4,445,994 1,512,888 5,784,477 -1,338,483 -1,605,491 -1,130,988 -1,363,678
M4 1,649,320 6,095,314 657,777.5 6,442,255 -346,940 -617,915 -87,652.7 -366,518
M5 717,095.8 6,812,410 339,888.7 6,782,143 30,266.61 -219,408 327,784.4 26,239.43
M6 358,547.9 7,170,958 0 6,782,143 388,814.5 134,486.7 697,484.4 390,851.8
Note: AP, actual price; AAP, accumulative actual price; AC, actual cost; AAC, accumulative actual cost;
AO, actual overdraft; Min O, calculated minimum overdraft; Max O, calculated maximum overdraft; Mean
O, calculated mean overdraft.

6. Conclusions

The research presented in this paper focuses on identifying and assessing the effects of several factors
on cash flow forecasting. Based on the factors identified, a stochastic model was developed by
integrating AHP with simulation. Results show that “financial management”, at 27.72%, plays the most
important role in cash flow forecasting. Special caution must be taken in anticipating the following factors'
occurrence in the project: change of progress, payment duration, financial position, project delay,
improper planning and management, inability to manage change orders, and number of claims. These
factors contributed very high percentages on cash flow risk compared with the other factors. This
research may serve as an advance warning sign for the contractor, that mitigation procedures should be
undertaken. Contractors should pay attention to the maximum and minimum overdraft to avoid the worst
case scenarios. It is an advantage to have a prior knowledge of cash flow forecasting and understand the
impact of various cash flow factors. In conclusion, the developed cash flow model can be of benefit in
forecasting cash flow progress.

7. References

Al-Issa, A. and Zayed, T. 2007. Projects cash flow factors-contractor perspective, Construction Research
Congress (CRC) conference, ASCE, Bahamas, May 5-8.

Blyth, K. and Kaka, A. 2006. A novel multiple linear regression model for forecasting S-curves
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 31:82-95

Khosrowshahi, F. and Kaka, A. 2007. A decision support model for construction cash flow management,
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 22: 527–539

Khosrowshahi, F. 1998. A visual approach to the analysis of curve profile: a case in construction industry,
1998 IEEE Conference on Information visualization,,Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California, 29-31:
321 – 326

Khosrowshahi, F. 1996. Value profile analysis of construction projects, Journal of financial management
of property and construction, 1: 55-77.

Khosrowshahi, F. 1991, Simulation of expenditure patterns of construction projects, Construction

Management and Economics, 9: 113-32.

Saaty, T.L. 1994, Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy
Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.

ICS-201-8