Alaqad, M; Gidado, K and Piroozfar, P (2015) Integrating value, risk and environmental management at the strategic definition stage. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK.
Abstract
Over the years, researchers and practitioners have argued that the integration of value Management (VM) and Risk Management (RM) in construction projects would help avoid duplication of work and deliver better value for money thereby leading to better project outcomes. Others have integrated the VM and Environmental Management (EM) to achieve the same goals. In the UK, research has shown that the lack of awareness of the environmental issues and the timing of implementing the various Project Management Systems (PMS) during the course of a construction project are the main constraints to better integration of these systems. This paper will argue that the integration of VM, RM and EM would provide better efficiencies and suggest how it could be achieved. Using desk study, the paper investigates the issues and problems surrounding the integration of PMS. It also identifies the aspects of VM, RM, and EM that could be integrated in projects using published literature. The findings at this stage form an initial frame of reference as a basis upon which a model will be developed for the complete integration of VM, RM and EM in construction projects at the early stage.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | value management; risk management; environmental management; systems integration |
| Index terms: | project outcome, risk management, value-for-money, construction project, value management, project management, environmental management, efficiency, integration, environmental issue, practitioner |
| Subjects: | production management, organizational analysis, performance management, management, environmental issues, practitioner, risk assessment, sustainability assessment, project management theory and practice, project completion, evaluation |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Organizational Design, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, 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