However, where we have a very large number of extremely different cases of effect and there seems to be only one factor in all of them, we can use a 8.12 method actually closer. The various proceedings cover at least a wide range of all possible combinations of potentially relevant factors and their negations. Therefore, it is likely that no condition that is not covered by the formula (A or…) is necessary, and therefore, if there is a necessary and sufficient condition, (A or … ) is so, and therefore A itself is a sufficient condition of the phenomenon. The common method as an indirect method of difference no longer works as soon as we allow both conjunctions and disjunctions; but a dual method of agreement comes into force with this eighth type of acceptance. In 8.12, as in 6.12, if there are possible causes except A, the set of 2n positive instances with A that are present in each, but with the other possible causes present and absent in all possible combinations, show that (A or…) is necessary and sufficient, and therefore that A is sufficient. Similarly, in 8.14, as in 5.14, the corresponding set of 2n negative instances shows that (A…) is necessary and sufficient and therefore A is necessary. If we add these two remarks together, we could conclude that the A is both necessary and sufficient. Unlike the four previous inductive methods, the method of accompanying variation does not involve the elimination of any circumstances. The change in size of one factor causes another factor to change in size. We should expect that we can accompany the analog of variations in both the agreement method and the difference method, i.e. ways of arguing about a cause-and-effect relationship between P and, say, A, observation of cases where P remains constant, while A remains constant, but all other potentially relevant factors vary , and observation of cases in which P varies, while A varies, but all other potentially relevant factors remain constant.
And in fact, there are methods of both types, but those of the second species, the analogs of the method of difference, are more important. Philosopher John Stuart Mill has developed a series of five methods (or canons) that analyze and interpret our observations in order to draw conclusions about the cause-and-effect relationships they have. is involved in smaller projects, such as . B.dem construction of car parks. It appears that the size of the project strongly influences the choice of deployment method. However, current literature and case studies in this study document successful projects of different sizes with methods for implementing DBB, CMR or DB projects. One possible exception appears to be the DBOM, which has been considered primarily for larger transit projects. Given that each of the three main delivery methods (DBB, CMR and DB) can be applied to projects of all sizes, it seems clear that the size of the project needs to be taken into account, in combination with other issues such as timing, agency staff and risk management, in order to determine an appropriate preparation method for the project. Problem 2: Costs This problem covers several aspects of project cost, such as possibility. B to address budgetary constraints, an early and accurate estimate of costs and consistent control of project costs. Project presentation methods are evaluated below in terms of cost control and cost estimates.
DBB This delivery method can offer a cost advantage because it includes competition in the market, which increases the likelihood that it will obtain low bids as part of a project offer. In addition, a complete project prior to project allocation increases safety with respect to cost estimates, as the owner has the engineer`s estimate and several estimates provided by the bidders.