Rutter, D and Gidado, K (2004) Value for money and facilities performance: A systems approach. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
One of the central arguments for procuring capital projects through PFI/PPP is that it provides better value for money (VFM) for the client organisation. The arguments in support of this claim rests largely on assumptions about the difference between the public and private sector methods of delivering services and the willingness and ability to manage risk. Thus VFM has become unavoidably associated with procurement through private contracting, in spite of being introduced prior to the introduction PFI/PPP in the UK. It is argued in this paper, that the development of a robust framework for VFM can best be achieved through systems understanding of a complex set of requirements. This paper develops a conceptual framework, revolving around the so called three Es (Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness) that forms the basis for further research aimed at developing a model for the rigorous application of VFM tests for built facilities
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | value for money; systems analysis; cost effectiveness; cost benefit analysis |
| Index terms: | effectiveness, capital project, value-for-money, conceptual framework, cost benefit analysis, systems analysis, efficiency, cost-effectivenes, client organization, private sector |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, strategic project management, analytical methods, client relations, industry analysis, evaluation, theoretical framing, performance management, economics |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Value Management, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here