Mootanah, D P (2000) Theory meets practice: Proposal for a dynamic value and risk methodology for project management. Journal of Construction Research, 1(2), pp. 131-138. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
Among the plethora of 'hard' and 'soft' value methodologies, there is little consensus on how uncertainty and risk can be identified and managed. A dynamic approach for managing value and risk is proposed within the context of participatory group decision methodologies and is derived from a conceptual model developed for integrated risk and value management. The methodological interface bridges different features from methodologies such as the 'soft' SMART VM method based on participation and perceptual decision modelling. life-cycle VM methodology, a holistic risk management methodology and the SAVE methodology. The underlying theory supporting the methodology emerged from surveys of current practice and interviews with practitioners, participant-observations of value and risk studies, document analysis of reports of VM studies and a continuous literature review. This multi-methodological research supports the interaction between theory and practice and produces an integrated approach to managing risk and value in project management.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | hard value management; soft value management; methodological interface; multi-methodological research; project management; value management |
| Index terms: | value methodology, methodology, practitioner, literature review, survey, integrated approach, interview, proposal, interaction, modelling, project management, risk management, value management, document analysis |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, project planning, contractual arrangements, practitioner, behavioral psychology, research methods, data science, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, risk assessment, professional development, project management theory and practice, management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Value Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Procurement |
| 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