Leung, M Y; Wei, X and Ojo, L D (2024) Developing a value-risk management model for construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(1): 04023148, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Value management (VM) and risk management (RM) both involve systematic team decision-making methodologies, but they are often used separately by construction professionals in real practices for different purposes. VM emphases the best project value, while RM is expected to minimize the project risks. The major difference between the two methodologies may lie in the function analysis phase of VM for identifying key functions of projects, and the risk analysis of RM for risk identification. Due to the complementary nature of the techniques involved in both forms of management, the integration of VM and RM has been advocated by scholars for about three decades to optimize the final outcome within limited time and resources. However, little attention has been paid to establishing the complex relationships between value-risk management (VRM) techniques and their outcomes. Therefore, this study aims to find an effective way to integrate VM and RM for enhancing final outcomes. A questionnaire survey was conducted to construction professionals with experience in VM and/or RM. Through various statistical analyses, including factor analysis, correlation, and multiple regression analysis, the findings indicate that (1) information and creativity techniques aided development techniques significantly; (2) presentation techniques are determined by information and function analysis techniques; (3) information techniques, risk analysis techniques, and development techniques enhance team and project performance in VRM workshops; and (4) function analysis techniques, risk analysis techniques, and development techniques can improve overall satisfaction on construction projects. To ensure risk minimization and value maximization in construction projects, VRM workshops should be harnessed and undertaken systematically and logically. Practical recommendations regarding sufficient information and discussion time for VRM participants are given to ensure stakeholders gain the comprehensive understanding of the peculiarity of the project at hand necessary to propel creative ideas and achieve the objectives of the workshop.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision-making; project performance; risk management; satisfaction; teamwork; value management |
| Index terms: | statistical analysis, function analysis, workshop, satisfaction, creativity, teamwork, risk management, factor analysis, project performance, value management, construction professional, survey, risk identification, maximization, minimization, multiple regression analysis, risk analysis, questionnaire, construction project, integration, decision-making, methodology |
| Subjects: | project delivery, data science, data collection methods, construction type, risk assessment, decision analysis, organizational analysis, environmental hazards, innovation and creative processes, statistical analysis, research methods, algorithms, management, professional development, project management theory and practice, financial risk, production management |
| Topics: | Value Management, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Cost Management, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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