Enhancing Financial Communication in Quantity Surveying Practice

  • Rolien TerblancheEmail author
  • Obinna Ozumba
  • David Root
Conference paper


The construction industry is becoming increasingly complex, including the aspects that deal with communication. Subsequently, financial reports generated during the project delivery process are also becoming more complex and thus harder to comprehend. The purpose of this study to explore financial communication in quantity surveying practice, with a view to understanding their role, the financial communication emanating from them, guidelines for successful financial communication, and determining a reliable quality test for such financial communication. A systematic literature review was done on financial communication, readability tests for financial communication and financial communication in quantity surveying practice. The main limitation of the study is that it is based on a preliminary literature review. However results indicate certain requirements for accurate readability tests on financial communication including Plain English guidelines and the Gunning Fog Index test for textual components, while also taking standard construction terms into account, where there could be more than three syllables. The readability and legibility model has four main categories for optimisation of a document, each of which has elements that need perfecting in order to create transparent, efficient and effective financial communication. The implication of this research is that in the face of noted problems with financial communication from Quantity Surveyors, there is need to explore the quality of such information, and to determine the existence, if any, and the use of relevant quality assurance systems in their communication.


Readability Financial communication Quantity surveying Cost reports and feasibility studies 


  1. 1.
    Laskin, A.V.: The Handbook of Financial Communication and Investor Relations, 1st edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Day, B.: New direction. RICS Constr. J. September–October 2017, 7 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu, Y., Luo, L., Wang, H., Le, Y., Shi, Q.: Measurement model of project complexity for large-scale projects from task and organization perspective. Int. J. Project Manage. 33(3), 610–622 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    He, Q., Luo, L., Hu, Y., Chan, A.P.: Measuring the complexity of mega construction projects in China—a fuzzy analytic network process analysis. Int. J. Project Manage. 33(3), 549–563 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, A.: Digital revolution. RICS Constr. J. November–December 2017, 7 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gamil, Y., Rahman, I.A.: Identification of causes and effects of poor communication in construction industry: a theoretical review. Emerg. Sci. J. 1(4), 239–247 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xu, Q., Fernando, G.D., Tam, K.: Executive age and the readability of financial reports. Adv. Account. 43, 70–81 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jack, L., Davison, J., Craig, R. (eds.): The Routledge Companion to Accounting Communication. Routledge (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cliff, B.P., Coopers, P.: Financial communication: framework and practices (2018).
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Almasi, R., Gomoi, B.C., Cuc, L.D.: The financial communication and the accounting-audit-valuation trinomial. J. Econ. Bus. Res. 21(2), 153–158 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Desouza, K., Evaristo, R.: Global knowledge management strategies. Eur. Manag. J. 21(1), 62–72 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wold Health Organisation: eHealth: standardized terminology (2006).
  15. 15.
    Walker, S.: Typography & Language in Everyday Life: Prescriptions and Practices. Routledge (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palmieri, R., Perrin, D., Whitehouse, M.: The Pragmatics of Financial Communication. Part 1: From Sources to the Public Sphere (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Whitehouse, M.: Financial Analysts and Their Role in Financial Communication and Investor Relations. Handbook of Financial Communication and Investor Relations, pp. 117–126 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Association of South African Quantity Surveyors.
  19. 19.
    Hochhauser, M.: The informed consent form: document development and evaluation. Drug Inf. J. 34(4), 1309–1317 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DuBay, W.H.: The Principles of Readability (2004).
  21. 21.
    Palotti, J.R.D.M., Zuccon, G., Hanbury, A.: The influence of pre-processing on the estimation of readability of web documents. In: 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1763–1766. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Loughran, T., McDonald, B.: Measuring readability in financial disclosures. J. Finance 69(4), 1643–1671 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loughran, T., McDonald, B.: Plain English, readability, and 10-K filings. University of Notre Dame (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bonsall, S.B., Leone, A.J., Miller, B.P., Rennekamp, K.: A plain English measure of financial reporting readability. J. Acc. Econ. 63(2–3), 329–357 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    United States: Securities and Exchange Commission. Office of Investor Education and Assistance. A plain English handbook: How to create clear SEC disclosure documents. The Office (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Matveeva, N., Moosally, M., Willerton, R.: Plain language in the twenty-first century: introduction to the special issue on plain language. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 60(4), 336–342 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schriver, K.A.: Plain language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 60(4), 343–383 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Campbell, K.S., Amare, N., Kane, E., Manning, A.D., Naidoo, J.S.: Plain-style preferences of US professionals. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 60(4), 401–411 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cheung, I.W.: Plain language to minimize cognitive load: a social justice perspective. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 60(4), 448–457 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Hofstrand, D., Holtz-Clause, M.: What is a Feasibility Study? (2009).
  32. 32.
    Mukherjee, M., Roy, S.: Feasibility studies and important aspect of project management. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Manage. 2(4), 98–100 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hyari, K., Kandil, A.: Validity of feasibility studies for infrastructure construction. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 3(1), 66–77 (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors: Cost Reporting, 1st edn. RICS, London (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sullivan, J.: Little and large. RICS Constr. J. November–December 2017, 18–19 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Construction Economics and ManagementUniversity of WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations