Ibrahim, A D; Price, A D F and Dainty, A R J (2009) Evaluation of key practices under the local improvement finance trust (lift) initiative for UK healthcare facilities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(5), pp. 504-518. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine whether the UK Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) procurement strategy supports the delivery of facilities for improved primary and social care services that meet local needs while providing value for money. Design/methodology/approach The research employed a qualitative approach (case study), involving semi-structured interviews with senior managers involved in three LIFT schemes. Findings The investigations revealed significant differences in the maturity levels of the schemes evaluated in terms of systems, processes and structures used in the planning and implementation of the schemes. Although there is potential for further improvements, the pattern of progress made generally confirmed an evolving system, with considerable evidence of performance improvement from project-to-project. Research limitations/implications This evaluation involved only three LIFT schemes and thus utmost caution should be taken in generalising the results. In addition, the evaluations were limited to project management perspectives related to the built environment component and did not delve into clinical aspects. Practical implications The paper identified both good practices (that could be transferred across schemes and between projects) and poor practices (that require improvements) from the schemes evaluated. Originality/value Although potential ways for securing further long-term improvements and sustained value for money were highlighted, this paper provides prima facie evidence that the LIFT initiative is delivering the expected economies of scale in providing modern facilities for the provision of integrated primary and social care services.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | national health service; primary care; procurement; United Kingdom; value analysis |
| Index terms: | value-for-money, evidence, social care, methodology, value analysis, United Kingdom, interview, manager, project management, implementation, investigation, built environment, performance improvement, good practice, procurement strategy, qualitative approach, health service, case study, maturity level |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, infrastructure and transport systems, financial analysis, sociology, Geography, evaluation, project management theory and practice, performance measurement, public and environmental health, research methods |
| Topics: | Procurement, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Value Management, Quality Management, Urban Studies |
| 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