Daddow, T and Skitmore, M (2004) Value management in practice: An interview survey. Construction Economics and Building, 4(2), pp. 11-18. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Despite its obvious theoretical benefits, there has been some reservations regarding the practical implementation of Value Management (VM) for construction projects. In particular, these concerns the extra time and costs involved in conducting VM in relation to the actual benefits gained as a consequence of its use. This paper provides the result of an interview survey of the experiences and observations of 17 professionals working in the property and construction industry to establish the extent to which this is an issue. The main conclusion is that the process is working well, with VM being popular among those with experience in its use - which has been extended into the area of consultant selection. However, in contrast with the prescriptive literature, much of the participants' experiences appear to be more concerned with VM's contribution to the identification and management of the risks involved in project delivery than the straight value-for-money aspects. This may be due to the higher levels of uncertainty involved in construction work than in VM's original use in construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | applied; construction; practice; property; survey; value management |
| Index terms: | construction project, interview, value management, construction work, implementation, construction industry, value-for-money, survey, project delivery |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, industry analysis, project delivery, operations management, production management, evaluation, data collection methods, management |
| Topics: | Value Management, Procurement, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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