Green, S D (1996) SMART value management: a group decision support methodology for building design. PhD thesis, University of Reading, UK.
Abstract
A revised theoretical framework for value management is developed based on the principles of group decision support (GDS). In contrast to the currently dominant paradigm of value management, the concept of GDS is based on an underlying ontological position of social constructivism. The existing positivist paradigm is only applicable to well-defined technical problems which can be specified in advance. GDS differs in that it recognises that the multi-perspective problems which often characterise the early stages of building design defy any attempt at pre-definition. The articulation of the GDS paradigm has important implications for building economics. It is asserted that building economists have traditionally failed to provide multi-faceted clients with effective decision support due to their reluctance to leave the sanctuary of the rational high ground. SMART value management is proposed as a GDS methodology for rational intervention in building design. The methodology is primarily perceived as an aid to the briefing process rather than a technique of cost reduction. It is based on a series of decision conferences timed to coincide with the decision pinch-points which punctuate the building design process. SMART value management represents a decisive break with the American tradition of value engineering by rejecting both the optimising paradigm of operational research and the associated rhetoric of 'function analysis'. The methodology is justified with reference to the established typology of social science. Its feasibility depends upon the extent to which it is commensurable with the implicit metaphors which the project stakeholders use to understand the client organisation. The practical application of the methodology is evaluated by means of a case study approach conducted in accordance with the principles of naturalistic inquiry. Additional evidence is cited to support the claim that SMART value management is generalisable beyond the specific domain of the case study.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Bennett, J |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | briefing; building design; building economics; case study; client; decision support; design process; function analysis; operational research; project stakeholder; social science; stakeholders; value engineering; value management |
| Index terms: | evidence, project stakeholder, building economics, methodology, briefing, cost reduction, decision support, design process, client organization, value engineering, value management, social science, paradigm, case study, building design, operational research, function analysis, conference |
| Subjects: | economics, research methods, education and knowledge transfer, theoretical framing, management, decision analysis, sociology, cost management, client relations, research dissemination and communication, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, scope management, design methods, value management, architectural design, data science |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Site Management, Value Management, Design Practice |
| 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