Measuring value for money on ministry of defence minor new works projects

Simpson, Y and Dye, J (2010) Measuring value for money on ministry of defence minor new works projects. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.

Abstract

For the UK Ministry of Defence, value for money (VFM) provides a key measure essential to proving probity in the expenditure of public money. The research is specifically focused upon Minor New Works (MNWs) in the UK defence estates sector, managed by Defence Estates (DE). Historically, a significant annual expenditure of approximately 10% of estate budget is spent on minor new works. Assessing VFM on minor new works projects presents a major challenge as it is in the nature of small projects to be fragments of existing operations with unique factors and as a result, there are few financial and technical benchmarks that can be reliably used. The research and discussion explores the drivers behind minor new works on the MOD estate and ascertains whether there are ways that VFM can be measured in a uniform and practical manner. There are five key elements in DE’s two-stage MNW VFM method. Although there is an element of qualitative assessment linked to identify and interpreting users' key drivers and cost benchmarking, the approach is dominated by hard measures. Further development of the method should emphasize softer aspects such as stakeholder attitudes and risk sharing.

Item Type: Conference Paper (Paper)
Uncontrolled Keywords: ministry of defence; minor new works; value for money
Index terms: benchmarking, small project, value-for-money
Subjects: evaluation, production management, performance measurement
Topics: Quality Management, Value Management, Project Management
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

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