renata coelho netto - integrated project

7/26/2019 Renata Coelho Netto - Integrated Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/renata-coelho-netto-integrated-project 1/51

Value Management in construction

projects:

The gap between theory and practice

By

Renata Coelho Netto

BEng (Civil)

Project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of

Masters of Project Management

Queensland University of Technology

Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering

2011



ii

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this project report has not been previously submitted for a

degree or diploma at any other tertiary educational institution. To the best of my knowledge

and belief, the project report contains no material previously published or written by another

person except where due reference is made.

______________________________

Signed

______________________________Date



iii

Abstract

Being able to achieve the best value of its products is what provides a company with a

great source of competitive advantage through cost leadership or differentiation. In a

construction project, however, different stakeholders have different perceptions of what is

valuable, which consists in the biggest challenge in searching for the optimum value. Value

Management is meant to deal with such challenge. It is a structured approach that aims

ultimately at improving the value of a project by identifying its functions and the best means

to provide them.

Through a literature review and a set of interviews with industry professionals, this

paper attempts to identify the gaps between Value Management theory and practice,

uncovering areas of the discipline in need for improvement. It has been suggested that

although the process certainly provides numerous benefits, there is much room for improving

its application in construction projects.

Despite the vast recognition that the most significant benefits of VM result from its

application in early stages of the project, it was discovered that in reality it usually takes place

when part of the design has already been developed. The need for the participation of top

decision makers in the VM study was found to be an issue directly related to a tendency to

shorten the time allocated for the workshop. Personal feelings and interests were found to be a

real and common obstacle to the application of VM. Nevertheless, it is an issue much

overlooked by literature. Further research is necessary to identify possible solutions for this

matter. The integration between VM and Risk Management is considered to be the most

significant area for improvement in the VM discipline. Finally, it is suggested that the bridge

between VM theory and practice is mainly built through the facilitators/consultants, who are

then responsible to convince the client of the value of the process.

At last, a questionnaire based on the literature review and on the interviews is

provided in order to encourage future research on the topic.



iv

Table of Contents

Statement of Original Authorship ............................................................................................................ii

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2 - Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 4Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 4

Interviews ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 3 - Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 8

History and terminology ...................................................................................................................... 8

Value Management and Value Engineering ........................................................................................ 8

Opportunities for VM studies .............................................................................................................. 9

Stages of the study ............................................................................................................................ 10

The team ........................................................................................................................................... 11

The facilitator .................................................................................................................................... 12

Duration of the workshop ................................................................................................................. 12

Function analysis ............................................................................................................................... 13

VM and Risk Management ................................................................................................................ 14

Chapter 4 - Interviews: Findings and Discussions ................................................................................. 15

Timing of the study ............................................................................................................................ 15

Composition of the team .................................................................................................................. 16

Duration of the study ........................................................................................................................ 16

Client’s support ................................................................................................................................. 16

Team member’s reactions ................................................................................................................. 17

VM and Risk Management ................................................................................................................ 18



v

Orientation and diagnostic phase ..................................................................................................... 18

Facilitator’s Skills ............................................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 5 - Questionnaire ..................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 6 - Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 26

Appendix 01 – Reflective Journal .......................................................................................................... 28

Appendix 02 – Student-Supervisor Contact Records ............................................................................ 31

Appendix 03 – Pilot Questionnaires ...................................................................................................... 41

References ............................................................................................................................................. 42



vi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Cost-Influence Curve.. .............................................................................................. 10



vii

List of Abbreviations

VE Value Engineering

VM Value Management

FAST Function Analysis System Technique

IVMA Institute of Value Management Australia



viii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I thank my mother for continuously encouraging me to fulfil my

desire to see what is out there, and for providing me with the means to do it.

I am also incredibly thankful to all the industry professionals I came across during my

research for readily donating me a slot in their busy diaries. They have provided me with

insights that were vital for the development of this work.

Finally, I thank my supervisor, Neville Meyers, for his guidance throughout the whole

process, and for our ever pleasant music sessions with the girl from Ipanema.



1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Achieving the optimum value for money is the underlying goal of any organization.

Any activity performed by a company has the purpose of creating value, be it directly –

physically creating the product, or indirectly – supporting the primary activities (Porter,

1985). Being able to achieve the best value of its products is what provides the company with

a great source of competitive advantage through cost leadership or differentiation (Porter,

1985).

The definition of value, however, is subject to much discussion. Standards Australia

(2007, p.7) defines value for money as the relationship between the value (usefulness, benefits

and importance) of an entity and its total cost. SAVE International (2007, p.8) represents

value as the ratio between function and resources, where function is measured by the

performance requirements of the customer . The HM Treasury (2008, p.35) defines value for

money as “securing the best mix of quality and effectiveness for the least outlay over the

period of use of the goods or services bought”. The point here is that the meaning of value

depends on who is using the term and when they are using it. In a construction project,

different stakeholders have different perceptions of what is valuable, which consists in the

biggest challenge in searching for the optimum value (Green, 1994).

Value Management is meant to deal with such challenge. It is a structured approach

that aims ultimately at improving the value of a project by identifying its functions and the

best means to provide them (Connaughton & Green, 1996). The first step towards achieving

such improvement, however, is creating a shared reality and reaching a consensus among key

stakeholders on what is perceived by them as valuable for that particular project, i.e. the

project objectives (Green, 1994). This means that Value Management initially identifies the

client’s value system and then tries to maximise the value of a project based on that system.

A Value Management study in practice is performed through one or more workshops

involving key stakeholders and a qualified facilitator, who is responsible for planning and

implementing the study. Such workshops happen in key stages of the project, such as the

concept, feasibility or design stages (Kelly, Male & Graham, 2004). Each workshop follows a

pre-determined plan that basically involves an information phase, designed to establish a

common understanding of key aspects of the project and a definition of the objectives to be

achieved; a creative phase involving creative thinking techniques to provide a range of



2

solutions to achieve the agreed objectives; and an evaluation phase, in which the participants

decide on the best solution or best combination of solutions (SAVE International, 2007).

Although Value Management started out as a procedure directed towards achieving

the necessary functions of a product for minimum cost, many authors have pointed to its

advantages in early stages of the project as a communication tool to develop a common

understanding of the problems surrounding the project (Green, 1994; Ellegant, 1992). In order

to differentiate those two approaches, Green (1994) suggests that the traditional method of

cutting costs might be called Value Engineering (VE), as opposed to the later one being called

Value Management (VM). In the words of Connaughton and Green (1996, p. 7), Value

Engineering is “a systematic approach to delivering the required functions at lowest cost

without detriment to quality, performance and reliability”. According to the same authors,

Value Engineering is a subset of Value Management.

The benefits of Value Management can be seen not just as cost savings, but also in

terms of stakeholder satisfaction and quality of the final product (Connaughton & Green,

1996). Researches and case studies have proven the method effective. The IPA (Independent

Project Analysis, Inc) (as cited in VALE, 2006), for example, calculated that on average,

projects presenting a formal VE process have their costs reduced by 5 percent and timeframes

shortened by 9 percent. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (as cited in National

Research Council, 1999) has reported that the process usually results in savings of 3 to 5

percent of project costs. Furthermore, on the construction of a new bridge in southeast

Tasmania, the mayor reported great satisfaction with the outcomes of the VM program even

though the original budget was increased, because as he saw it, the study provided the best

value option (Rotherham, 2002).

In the face of such substantial results, it seems odd that Ellis, Wood and Keel (2005),

after a study regarding the practice of Value Management among UK cost consultants, found

that clients are still reluctant to invest time and money in the process, and that even when they

do, the study is used as a cost-cutting exercise during later stages rather than as a broader

approach early in the project, when it is considered in theory to be most effective. These

findings are supported by other studies, such as the one performed by Palmer, Kelly and Male

(1996), in which the authors conclude that most Value Engineering studies are committed

solely to reducing costs and auditing designs.



3

In order to verify and analyse the identified gap between what researchers advocate

and what professionals effectively perform, the project provides a literature review of the VM

theory and an overview of Value Management as it is practiced in construction projects, based

on interviews with relevant professionals. The two scenarios are then compared, potential

areas of improvement in the Value Management field are identified and recommendations are

provided as to how to bring theory and practice together. The aim is to inform the VM theory

so that it can develop in a way that is convincing and considered viable by the users.

At the end of the report, a questionnaire is provided to encourage future research on

the subject. The questionnaire is meant to encompass the issues identified both in literature

and on the interviews, and is to be administered to a large sample in order to find further areas

for improvement in the discipline.



4

Chapter 2 - Methodology

The work leading to this report followed three distinct but interrelated phases: a

literature review, a set of semi-structured interviews and the development of a questionnaire.

Literature Review

The literature review is an inevitable step to any research process as it provides a

context or background to the topic being investigated, as well as a link with a developing

body of knowledge (Neuman, 2003). In this project, a theoretical review summarizes much of

what is known in the Value Management field, pointing out where researches and prior

studies agree and disagree, identifying the remaining questions, and ultimately establishing

the relevance of the study (Neuman, 2003). In addition, a general historical review of ValueManagement is provided, tracing the development of the subject since its first appearance, in

the early 1940’s.

The documents used for the literature review included mainly books and journal

articles, complemented with government documents and conference proceedings, all assessed

in terms of their relevance and validity.

Interviews

The literature review was followed by a set of interviews with professionals known to

have some kind of experience with Value Management studies. The choice of interviews as

the means for data collection, as well as the sample that was to be assessed, was based on its

appropriateness and applicability within the project’s time, cost and scope constraints. The

data obtained from the interviews is analysed and discussed later in this paper.

The purpose of the research project was to identify and analyse the gaps between

Value Management theory and practice. Part of these gaps could be reasonably predicted

during the literature review, and the goal here was to understand why they exist so that

solutions can be sought. The greatest value of the project, however, lies in the discovery of

new gaps. To this end, and considering the aforementioned project constraints, no other

research method was more appropriate than the flexible, exploratory interviews.

Although interviews are highly prone to subjectivity and bias form the interviewer,

they provide the advantage of allowing greater depth to the data collection (Cohen, Manion,

& Morrison, 2007). During initial stages of an investigation, interviews are especially useful



5

as they enable the researcher to identify areas for more detailed exploration and to generate

hypotheses (Brewerton & Millward, 2001).

The administered interviews had characteristics of semi-structured interviews in that

the interviewer had a list of topics to be covered, but also had the freedom in the sequencing,

wording and time assigned to each subject (Robson, 2002). On the other hand, interviewees

were allowed to speak freely about the topics presented and also add any other topics they

wished, which might be seen as an unstructured interview (Robson, 2002). In fact, the data-

gathering process adopted in this research was based on the concept of depth interviews,

which has the goal of generating themes and narratives (Miller & Crabtree, 1999), allowing

the respondent to say anything they want on the topic of the interview (Robson, 2002). Here,

interviewees were encouraged to talk about their experiences in the Value Management field

and their perceptions of the process through an interview guide consisting of both closed and

open-ended questions, with associated prompts, probes and follow-up questions.

The interviews were audio-taped and partially transcribed to enable the analysis of the

information obtained from the respondents, which consisted of a reasonable amount of

qualitative data. The data analysis followed the methodology of analytic induction, in which

data are scanned to generate categories of phenomena and relationships between them

(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Some of the categories identified could be directly

related to themes found in literature, and some introduced new ideas.

Due to the project constraints, the survey reached a relatively small sample, which

might be considered to compromise the reliability of the study (Cohen et al., 2007). The

study, however, intended to be merely the first step towards the integration of VM theory and

practice. The knowledge acquired during the interviews not only served as the basis for initial

conclusions and recommendations, but also directed the design of a questionnaire, which is to

be used for further research, being administered to a large sample in order to provide more

reliable and accurate conclusions.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire presented at the end of this report was a result of the extensive

literature review, the data collected from the interviews and the observations from the

administration of a pilot questionnaire with industry professionals. It is composed of both

closed and opened questions. The closed questions are more focused and facilitate the



6

analysis and statistical processing of the data (Cohen et al., 2007). As closed questions do not

fully satisfy the exploratory purposes of this research, they were complemented with open-

ended questions when necessary.

Although there is a risk that closed questions might not be exhaustive and that

respondents are not able to explain their thoughts, the sole use of open-ended questions would

lead to an impractical data analysis, as responses would be difficult to code and classify

(Cohen et al., 2007). Ultimately, it was considered that the appropriate balance between

closed and open-ended questions would provide all the information necessary for the purposes

of the research.

As stated by Cohen et al. (2007), the first step towards producing a questionnaire is to

clarify its general purpose, which in this case is “to find areas of improvement concerning the

use of Value Management in construction projects”. The next step would be identifying

subsidiary topics related to the central purpose, followed by the formulation of specific

information requirements relating to these topics (Cohen et al., 2007). The last two steps were

only possible after the literature review, which provided initial points of incongruity in the

VM discipline. Consequently, the questions formulated in the questionnaire, as well as the

possible responses provided, were meant to cover the variables related to the VM process as

found firstly in the literature review, and then complemented by the semi-structured

interviews.

The questionnaire was divided in five parts. The first part consists of questions

regarding personal details of the respondent. The second part investigates the respondent’s

level of knowledge of the VM processes, as well as its source (theory or practice). This

section has the main purpose of discovering the number of professionals who do not even

acknowledge the existence of VM. The third part involves questions about the respondent’s

experience and view of Value Management. The fourth part consists of a gap analysis

concerning the respondent’s view on the importance of certain aspects to the success of a VM

application and their level of satisfaction towards those aspects. The gap analysis will

explicitly show the aspects of VM which, in the view of the respondent, need improvement.

Aspects with the highest level of importance and lowest level of satisfaction represent critical

issues in the VM application. The fifth part is optional as it merely invites the respondents to

provide any additional comments they feel should be addressed.



7

The administration of the questionnaire is beyond the scope of this research project,

therefore it is meant to be used for future research. It is to be administered to a sample

consisting of professionals involved in construction projects. Professionals who do not

acknowledge the existence of VM, or who do not use it are not to be excluded from the

sample, as this information is also important for the research.



8

Chapter 3 - Literature Review

History and terminology

In the early 1940’s Lawrence D. Miles was a purchase engineer at General Electric, a

major defence contractor in the United States at the time. Because of World War II, the

manufacturing industry was running at full capacity, therefore experiencing a shortage of raw

materials and components. Looking to overcome this problem, Miles developed a team

approach aimed at finding alternative materials that would perform the same functions as the

original ones. During the exercise he discovered that some of the alternatives produced equal

or better results at a lower cost, which led him to extend the application of the process as an

attempt to improve the value of the final product, and not just as a solution to shortage issues.

He later named this process Value Analysis (SAVE International, 2007).

Since its conception by Lawrence D. Miles, Value Analysis has spread throughout the

globe and across many sectors, gaining new applications, techniques and terminologies. In

1954, the U.S. Navy thought of engineers as the most appropriate professionals to apply the

method to its projects, which is how the term Value Engineering came to be used (Kelly et al.,

2004). In 1959, as a result of the increasing popularity of the methodology, the Society ofAmerican Value Engineers was founded, later becoming SAVE International (SAVE

International, 2007). Along the years, other institutes and professional associations were

created and Value Analysis became the object of numerous published documents and

standards (Kelly et al., 2004).

The term Value Engineering is still the most used in the United States and Japan;

however, during the 1990’s the concept of Value Analysis went from being applied only to

design and production to being focused on the business as a whole, including planning stages.

This shift called for a more comprehensive term and thus the expression Value Management

took place, becoming the preferred term in the United Kingdom and Australia (Kelly et al.,

2004). Further explanation on the differences between Value Engineering and Value

Management is provided in the next section.

Value Management and Value Engineering

Green (1994) draws a distinction between Value Management (VM) and ValueEngineering (VE) on the basis of their underlying assumptions. He argues that although the



9

two terms are often used as synonyms, each of them relates to a different philosophy (Green

1994). Indeed, other researchers have similarly identified the existence of two different

paradigms related to the original Value Analysis. Palmer et al. (1996), for example,

distinguished an Alpha School of Thought and a Beta School of Thought. Ellegant (1992), on

the other hand, differentiated an Old Value Engineering from a Modern Value Engineering.

This section explains the two existing approaches in order to justify the terminology adopted

throughout the remainder of the paper.

Value Engineering, as defined by Connaughton and Green (1996), is a technical

activity that aims to achieve project objectives cost-effectively, and as such, it can only be

applied when such objectives are already clear, i.e. the design and construction phases. Value

Management on the other hand is a broader strategy that can be implemented from earlier

stages of the project as a tool for stakeholders to reach consensus about the project objectives

and how they can be achieved (Green, 1994). Such explanation is in accordance with

Ellegant’s (1992) differentiation between the Old Value Engineering, which concentrates on

cutting costs of system and materials, and the Modern Value Engineering, which focuses on

all aspects of project design, construction and ownership, repairing communication

breakdowns. Ultimately, the systematic approach of traditional Value Engineering is

considered to be a subset of the broader-based Value Management process (Connaughton &Green, 1996).

Value Management is therefore used here as a term that encompasses both approaches.

VM as described in this paper can happen in any stage of the project and has the ultimate

objective of improving value, regardless of the techniques used to achieve such objective. It is

important to clarify, however, that VM differs from everyday cost-management and design

practices in that it is a structured approach performed separately by a multidisciplinary team

(SAVE International, 2007). This is usually done through one or more workshops involving

key stakeholders and held in particular stages of the project (Connaughton & Green, 1996).

The key aspects of a VM study are reviewed in the next sections.

Opportunities for VM studies

VM researchers recognize a number of opportunities throughout the project for the

execution of a VM study. The American standard, for example, lists the following stages:

concept development, preliminary design, final design, procurement and construction (SAVE

International, 2007). It is also largely believed that the earlier the VM study is performed, the



10

greater are its outcomes. Dell’Isola (1997), for example, states that when the process takes

place during later stages, the investment required for implementing changes increases, as does

the resistance to change. SAVE International (2007) reasons that during conceptual stages the

method to deliver the project has not yet been established, and therefore alternatives can be

identified and considered. Connaughton and Green (1996) support the argument with the cost-

influence curve (Figure 1), which shows that along the lifecycle of the project the potential to

influence value decreases, while the cost to do it rapidly increases.

Figure 1: Cost-Influence Curve. Taken from “Value Management in construction: A client’s guide” by J. N. Connaughton

and S. D. Green, 1996, London: CIRIA.

Despite the strong arguments in favour of the early implementation of VM, studies

show that, in practice, most of the workshops are held during the design stage, when there is

an existing solution that can be challenged (Palmer et al., 1996; Ellis et al., 2005).

Stages of the study

Kelly et al. (2004), during an international benchmarking research project around VM

practices in design and construction, identified three generic stages present in any VM study:

the orientation and diagnostic phase, the workshop phase and the implementation phase. The

first stage consists of gathering all information relevant to the study, determining the agendaof the workshop, selecting and inviting the participants of the workshop, preparing and

distributing a brief for the team members, and setting a venue and date for the event

(Standards Australia, 2007). The workshop stage includes an overview of the project

information, an analysis of the functions to be delivered by the project, some kind of creative

thinking exercise, such as brainstorming, to generate ideas, an evaluation and development of

the ideas produced, and a presentation of the results obtained (SAVE International, 2007).

The last stage comprises the activities performed to implement the decisions made in the



11

workshop, as well as follow up measures to monitor their execution (SAVE International,

2007).

According to Kelly et al. (2004), the implementation phase is usually where the Value

Management process fails, which is why this stage needs to be addressed since the orientation

phase and an action plan should be developed after the workshop.

The team

The composition of the VM team is considered one of the most critical success factors

of a VM study (Shen & Liu, 2003). It is imperative that all key stakeholders participate in the

study as they are the ones who can influence and judge the success of the project

(Connaughton & Green, 1996). Two aspects should be considered in the selection of teammembers: 1) their ability to contribute; and 2) their power to enable or undertake decision

making (Kelly et al., 2004). This means that the team members should be senior

representatives with good knowledge of the project and technical expertise in their areas

(Standards Australia, 2007).

It is possible, however, to include experts external to the project in order to obtain a

different point of view (SAVE International, 2007). In fact, there is a line of specialists,

mostly in North America, who endorse the use of a completely independent, external review

team to analyse the design (Kelly et al., 2004). On the one hand, an external team has no

preconceived ideas or agenda, being able to think objectively about the project. On the other

hand, much time is spent familiarizing the external team with the project (Kelly et al., 2004).

There is also the disadvantage of losing the proactive approach of the VM study, as the

external team is a reactive audit team (Kelly et al., 2004). Furthermore, Connaughton and

Green (1996, p.42) add that the use of an external team might cause a conflict with the

existing design team and that “the external team might feel obliged to identify cost savings to justify their fee”.

The VM workshop is governed by the rules of team dynamics, and as such it is

affected, among other factors, by the size of the team (Kelly et al., 2004). The ideal size of a

VM team is considered to be approximately of twelve members (Connaughton & Green,

2006). However, large projects will most likely require the participation of a much larger

group, in which case it should be divided in smaller clusters in order to allow direct



12

interaction between the participants, as well as reduce team member inhibition (Kelly et al.,

2004).

The facilitator

The facilitator plays a pivotal role in the VM process (Standards Australia, 2007).

Among his responsibilities are the collection of the relevant information, the selection of the

VM team, the facilitation of the workshop and the preparation of a report for the client

(Connaughton & Green, 1996). The importance of the facilitator is reflected in the efforts put

by VM institutions in the training and accreditation of the professionals. SAVE International,

for example, accredits the facilitators based not only on their knowledge of VM fundamentals,

but also on their understanding of function analysis, effective team building and financial

processes (SAVE International, 2008).

Because of the variety of tasks performed by the facilitator, he must demonstrate

competence in a wide range of skills. In terms of managing the VM team, the facilitator

should be an effective communicator and an active listener, he must be able to promote

collaborative behaviour from the team members, and he should be able to overcome

resistance to change (Standards Australia, 2007). As the leader of the VM team, the facilitator

is responsible for providing direction, resolving conflict situations and providing an

environment of openness and frankness (Kelly et al., 2004). He is also in charge of employing

creative thinking techniques, as well as managing the time available for the workshop by

maintaining a clear view of the key issues (Connaughton & Green, 1996).

Duration of the workshop

The duration of a VM workshop varies extensively both in theory and in practice.

Ideally, the choice of the workshop duration should consider the amount of value alignment

required between the participants, the extent to which there is a value programme in place in

the project or organization, the purpose of the workshop and the depth of development

required for the solutions. In reality, market demands tend to reduce the time allocated for the

exercise, making one or two days the most common duration (Kelly et al., 2004).

Kelly et al. (2004) feel that one day can be enough to obtain good results in the

workshop, provided there is a clear set of objectives for the study and that two days is the

optimum duration for complex studies. Connaughton and Green (1996), on the other hand,

state that workshops performed in early stages, when project objectives are still ambiguous,



13

should last between one and two days, while workshops performed during design stages can

take between one and five days, depending on the complexity of the project and amount of

design elements to be considered. SAVE International (2007) considers that the typical

duration of a workshop is five days, yet acknowledging that projects with a concise scope

might require less time, while large and complex projects may need as much as ten to fifteen

days.

Function analysis

Function analysis consists in a tool to assess the project from a functional perspective,

focusing on what the project must do rather than how it is to be done (SAVE International,

2007). Although function analysis is usually employed to analyse the design or its

components in order to find alternative ways to deliver the same functions (Connaughton &

Green, 1996), it can also focus on the project as a whole with the intention of clarifying the

purpose of the project from the owner’s point of view (Dell'Isola, 1997).

The most common type of function analysis is the Function Analysis System

Technique (FAST), in which functions are defined through the use of a verb and a noun, and

classified in basic or secondary (Connaughton & Green, 1996). A basic function embodies the

whole purpose of the project; it cannot be compromised or eliminated, while a secondary

function can be removed without compromising the project (Dell'Isola, 1997). The

classification can also be performed in terms of “highest order needs” and “lowest order

wants” (Kelly et al., 2004). Either way, the purpose is to provide a structure for the following

stage, which is to suggest alternative ways to provide the function (Connaughton & Green,

1996).

The use of function analysis in Value Engineering is somewhat controversial. A

number of authors such as Dell'Isola (1997, p.73), exclaim that function analysis is “the heartof value methodology. This is a view very much shared by SAVE International (2007). In

fact, the organization states that “other value improvement processes also qualify as value

studies as long as they adhere to the Value Standard’s Job Plan and perform Function

Analysis as part of their total processes” (SAVE International, 2007, p. 2). In practice,

however, function analysis does not seem to be assigned as much importance. Dell’Isola

(1997) states that the preparation of a FAST diagram has been omitted from Value

Engineering studies in the construction field because of the repetitiveness of redefining

building functions that seldom vary from project to project. Moreover, Ellis et al. (2005)



14

found that FAST diagrams are seen as difficult to use and can compromise the interest of the

team members. Similarly, Connaughton and Green (1996) draw attention to potential

difficulties related to FAST diagrams, arguing that the time involved in elaborating the

diagram may alienate non-specialist team members. The authors also state that sometimes a

large number of secondary functions can be identified, leading to an excessively complicated

diagram, and that the underlying logic of FAST diagrams is not always applicable to

construction projects, as they were originally developed for use in manufacturing

(Connaughton & Green, 1996).

VM and Risk Management

It has recently been suggested by a number of authors that Value Management and

Risk Management ought to be combined, as the techniques used in those practices are similar,

and their outputs closely linked and inter dependent (Green, 2001). Indeed, the choice

between competing solutions in a Value Management study is largely affected by the risks

they represent (Connaughton & Green, 1996). As significantly stated by Dallas (2008, p.53)

“there is little point in going to great lengths to maximise the value of a project if significant

risks materialise which impair its delivery, thereby destroying value”. Moreover, there are in

fact similarities between the two processes, such as: a preparation stage to gather information

and understand the whole project, the need for stakeholder participation, the use of facilitated

workshops, and the need for an implementation plan (Dallas, 2008).

In simple terms, Ellis et al. (2005) interestingly suggest that the integration of the

processes of “adding things in because of risk” and “taking them out because of value” would

eliminate a perpetual cycle of reviewing ideas. Dallas (2008), on the other hand, argues that

an effective Risk Management starts by the full understanding of the project, which can be

achieved through Value Management techniques.

Although the arguments for the integration of VM and Risk Management, Ellis et al.

(2005) found that this view is not unanimous, as many practitioners feel that it might lead to

confusion as to the purposes of the activity, and therefore less effective results. Similarly,

Green (2001) states that although the legitimacy of the integrated approach has been

established, the relationship between the published methodology and what happens in practice

is not as strong as commonly supposed.



15

Chapter 4 - Interviews: Findings and Discussions

The interviews were performed with six professionals known to have an involvement

with Value Management applications. Interviewees A and C provide the point of view of the

client, while Interviewees B, D, E and F represent consultants, meaning that they work with a

range of clients and industries. One of the interviewees was president of the Institute of Value

Management Australia (IVMA). The data obtained from the interviews were grouped by topic

and are discussed over the next sections.

Timing of the study

Most of the interviewees attest for the greater achievements of VM in early stages of

the project, when the potential to influence value is highest (Figure 1). Interviewee E providedan example of a project that consisted in the construction of a railway platform in Sydney to

solve a specific problem. A VM study was performed to evaluate the concept design of the

platform; however it became clear during the study that the original issue could be solved

through a simple change in logistics and timetabling, and the platform was considered not to

be necessary at all, saving millions of dollars to the government. The example proves the

importance of VM long before design stages.

Interviewee F pointed out that, depending on the type of contract, the VM study can be

performed either by the owner of the project, before the contract is awarded, or by the

contractor , after he receives the preliminary design. If the VM study is performed by the

owner early in the project, he will benefit from savings that would otherwise be absorbed as

profit by the contractors if they managed to improve the preliminary design after a price had

been set.

Nevertheless, Interviewees B, D, E and F stated that in reality clients often trigger the

VM process as a response to budget overruns during later stages of the project. According to

Interviewee F, this can be explained by time constraints experienced in most projects and by

an existing mentality of providing solutions as fast as possible rather than discussing about

them. Interviewee D also identified time constraints as preventing the usage of VM

techniques beyond budget overruns, yet he added that clients often do not understand the

potential benefits of early VM. Furthermore, Interviewee E thinks that clients might not even

know that the process can in fact be performed earlier.



16

Although these are all relevant reasons for the late use of VM, it should not go

unnoticed that the idea of the technique being used in initial stages is relatively new, which

means that the current state might be merely a transition between what Ellegant (1992) called

an Old Value Engineering (VE) and a Modern Value Engineering (VM). Thus it seems

possible that in time the situation will be reversed, and early VM will be the rule instead of

the exception.

Composition of the team

Most interviewees pointed to the importance of the participation of key stakeholders

and top decision makers to the success of the study, which is in accordance with the VM

theory. However, difficulties in gathering such high level professionals were often reported as

an issue. Interviewee E believes that this is an obstacle to be overcome by the facilitator, who

needs to be firm in demanding everyone’s participation. Similarly, Interviewee D believes

that the commitment of the team to the VM study depends only on the ability of the project

manager to select the right participants.

Duration of the study

Directly related to the difficulty in committing top stakeholders is the duration of the

study, which Interviewee C believes has been greatly reduced over time to accommodate the

needs of an increasingly fast paced environment. In the late 1980s he participated in a VM

study that lasted two weeks, while Interviewee D’s studies usually last one or two days and

some of Interviewee B’s workshops only last half a day. Demanding the time of top decision

makers involved in the project is “a big ask”, as stated by Interviewee C.

While Interviewee C thinks shorter workshops can still deliver the benefits,

Interviewee E finds that they are a shortcut and might not satisfy the needs of larger projects.

It seems that if shorter workshops end up not delivering the expected outcomes, the client will

be even less willing to invest time on it in the next project, resulting in a vicious circle.

Client’s support

Interviewee E declared that the client’s demand for faster studies might reflect a

disbelief in the process. According to him, in some cases clients are required by a third party,

such as the government or the tendering organization, to perform the VM study, which results

in a “tick -in-the- box” approach that prevents the success of the project. Furthermore, during a



17

recent study performed by this interviewee, it was discovered that although some agencies

require that a VM study report be attached to a project’s business case, the recipients often do

not read the report or do not carry out the decisions made in the process. The interviewee

concluded that the belief of the client in the power of the VM process is incumbent to the

success of the study.

Interviewee F similarly stated that the success of the VM application is as much

responsibility of the client as it is the consultant’s. According to him, the client has the vital

responsibility of providing the correct information about the project as well as setting clear

objectives, i.e. the client must be able to explain to the consultant what is expected from the

VM study.

Team member’s reactions

It was a recurring topic in most interviews that personal feelings or interests might be

an obstacle to the success of the VM study. Many interviewees reported cases in which

participants of the study refused to accept or implement an idea because of personal reasons

such as a designer feeling offended by proposed changes to his original design, or senior

engineers rejecting suggestions from younger professionals. Interviewee C reported a case in

which a psychologist had to be called into the study to manage the personalities of the team

members. Interviewee E reported that the use of an external design team in the VM workshop

is a sensitive matter and therefore it is more effective to use the original design team to

critique their own design.

In response to this issue, Interviewees C and D emphasized the importance of

objectively categorizing the aspects of the project in discussion, i.e. assigning actual numbers

to each of them. Interviewee D recognized the difficulty of estimating actual costs to each

solution early in the project, yet he finds that as a minimum the options must be weighted inorder to avoid the influence of personal interests in the decision-making.

This subject, although extremely influent in the success of the VM study, is not largely

addressed in literature. In fact, Standards Australia (2007, p.16) does state that “a VM study is

likely to be more successful when group members accept that the study’s overall interests are

more important than sectional interests or personal concerns”, however there is no

recommendation as to how to promote such situation.



18

VM and Risk Management

Interviewee F placed great emphasis in the linkage between VM and Risk

Management, pronouncing that the two processes are extremely intertwined. On this subject

he explained the influence of professional indemnity in the Value Management process.

According to him, there are situations in which it is not possible to undertake a solution

recommended by the VM report because it is in conflict with the designer’s insurance. Indeed,

Hurd (2011), specialist in architect/engineer professional liability, attests that professional

liability claims can proceed from Value Engineering efforts by the designer to reduce costs.

According to the professional, the solution to this issue involves effective communication

between the parties involved, thorough and credible documentation of the decisions and

changes made in the process, as well as risk allocation through contracting (Hurd, 2011).

Orientation and diagnostic phase

Interviewee B placed much emphasis on the initial stages of a VM study, when the

information about the project is gathered and distributed to the team members. According to

this professional, one of the most important activities of a workshop is getting all team

members to a shared level of knowledge about the project. He believes that if this activity is

correctly performed, the best solutions to the problems will appear naturally in the next stage

of the workshop. This is a view shared by Interviewee F, who states that the technical

solutions are easy to achieve, as long as there is a complete understanding of the project’s

objectives and constraints by all team members. This practitioner provided the example of a

VM study which provided a solution that turned out to be entirely useless as it was based on a

wrong set of assumptions about the project’s constraints.

Facilitator’s Skills

Interviewees A, B, C and E explicitly attested for the importance of the facilitator to

the success of the study. Nevertheless, Interviewee E finds that there are facilitators who do

not truly understand the concept of Value Management, or who corrupt the process by taking

“shortcuts” that at the end do not provide all the possible benefits. The same Interviewee

states that new facilitators are not being properly mentored by more experienced facilitators

because of a resistance to share intellectual property. The IVMA is attempting to overcome

this issue by demanding that facilitators be reaccredited every three years and evaluating the



19

degree to which they are sharing their knowledge with new facilitators, making this part of the

criteria for the reaccreditation.

It seems that the bridge between VM theory and practice is mainly built through the

facilitators, as they are the ones in direct contact with both sides. However, facilitators are

usually subject to the desire of the client, who will demand shorter workshops or deny the

investment of top management commitment, as they do not understand the importance of

those aspects to the optimum outcome of the process. It would then be up to the facilitator to

be stronger and ensure that the process does not become corrupted. Surrendering to the

client’s demands might appear to be the best choice in the short -term, when the facilitator is

trying to close a deal. However, in the long run, when clients have had enough unsuccessful

experiences with the application of VM to stop using it altogether, facilitators will be the first

ones to suffer. Therefore, it would be the facilitator’s responsibility to convince the client that

the investment will be worthwhile.



20

Chapter 5 - Questionnaire

VALUE MANAGEMENT

QUESTIONNAIRE

This survey is part of a research project which has the purpose of investigating the use

of Value Management in construction projects.

For the purpose of this survey, Value Management is an activity consisting of one ormore workshops involving a team and a facilitator , with the objective of improving the

value of the project. It is not the everyday cost management and design practices performed

by the organization. Value Management is also known as Value Engineering, Value Analysis

or Value Methodology.

Please be assured that the data obtained from this survey will be kept in strict

confidentiality, being used only for research purposes. Individual data will not be made

available to any third party or used in any published material, except as a component in

aggregated statistics.



21

Part 1: Personal Details

What industry, or range of industries, are you currently involved in?

What is your position/professional title?

Part 2: Knowledge of VM

How well do you consider that you know the Value Management process? Please mark onlyone answer.

[ ] Extremely well

[ ] Very well

[ ] Somewhat well

[ ] Not so well

[ ] Not well at all

If you marked “not well at all”, you can stop answering the questionnaire. Please make sure

you return the questionnaire as this information is still important for the research. Thank you

for your collaboration. Otherwise, please continue.

Is your knowledge of VM mostly from theory (books, articles, standards) or practice? Pleasemark only one answer.

[ ] Only theory

[ ] Only practice

[ ] Both theory and practice



22

Part 3: Involvement with VM

How many VM applications have you been involved in? Please mark only one answer.

[ ] None

[ ] 1 – 5[ ] 6 – 15

[ ] 16 or more

In what of the following categories concerning a VM application would you most commonly be? Please mark only one answer.

[ ] Consultant

[ ] Client who requested the study

[ ] Other participant

How worthwhile do you think is the application of a VM study to any project? Please mark

only one answer.

[ ] It’s never worth it

[ ] It’s only worth it under certain conditions

[ ] It’s always worth it

Please briefly explain the answer provided above.

From your experience, what is the most frequent situation regarding the use of VM in

construction projects? Please rank the responses by marking each box with a number from 1

to 3, 1 being the most frequent and 3 being the least frequent.

[ ]VM is triggered only as a response to problems in the project, such as budget or

schedule overruns.

[ ]VM is triggered only because it is mandated by a third party (government, tendering

organization, organizational policy, etc).

[ ]VM is willingly triggered by the organization/project team itself to improve the

value of the project, regardless of the reasons mentioned above.



23

In what stage is VM most frequently applied? Please rank the responses by marking each box

with a number from 1 to 5, 1 being the most frequent and 5 being the least frequent.

[ ] Pre-Design

[ ] Schematic design

[ ] Detailed design[ ] Construction

[ ] Post-construction

In what stage do you think VM is most beneficial to the project? Please rank the responses by

marking each box with a number from 1 to 5, 1 being the most beneficial and 5 being the least

beneficial.

[ ] Pre-Design

[ ] Schematic design

[ ] Detailed design

[ ] Construction

[ ] Post-construction

Please briefly describe the biggest benefits of VM.

Please briefly describe the biggest challenges of VM.



24

Part 4: Gap Analysis

From your real-life experience concerning Value Management, please rate the following

aspects in terms of:

1) Their importance to the success of a VM application.

2)

Your satisfaction with how they most commonly happen.

Aspect of the VM application Importance(1 – 5)

Satisfaction(1 – 5)

Skills of the VM facilitator

Time assigned to VM workshop

Client’s support to VM application

Client’s active participation in VM application

Clear project objectives

Team member’s power to make decisions in the project

Team member’s technical expertise

Participation of all key stakeholders in VM workshop

Gathering of relevant information before VM workshop

Implementation of the decisions made in the VM workshop

Use of function analysis in the VM applicationLevel of team member’s acceptance towards the changes

promoted by the VM application

Sharing of information about the project in the beginning of the

VM workshop

Commitment of team members to the VM application

Integration of VM and Risk Management

Clear definition of Value for Money prior to the VM workshop



25

Part 5: Additional Comments (Optional)

Please feel free to provide any additional comments regarding the content of this survey or

any other contents you feel should also be addressed.

Thank you for your cooperation!



26

Chapter 6 - Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper has explored the gap between Value Management theory and practice. It

has been suggested that although the process certainly provides numerous benefits, there is

much room for improving its application in construction projects. Initial issues were identified

during the literature review, and then complemented with information gathered during

interviews with industry professionals.

Firstly, it was detected that despite the vast recognition that the most significant

benefits of VM result from its application in early stages of the project, in reality it usually

takes place when part of the design has already been developed. It seems that, although this

issue might be aggravated by an existing mentality of prioritizing execution over planning, it

might be only part of a transition stage, and that time could be the solution.

The need for the participation of top decision makers in the VM study was found to

be an issue directly related to a tendency to shorten the time allocated for the workshop.

Shorter workshops might not deliver the expected outcomes, causing the client to be less

willing to invest top management’s time in future applications, resulting in a vicious circle.

Personal feelings and interests were found to be a real and common obstacle to the

application of VM. Nevertheless, it is an issue much overlooked by literature. Further

research is necessary to identify possible solutions for this matter.

The integration between VM and Risk Management is considered to be the most

significant area for improvement in the VM discipline. This is certainly already being done by

researchers, and the practitioners undertaking the new approach can attest for its value.

Finally, it was suggested that the bridge between VM theory and practice is mainly

built through the facilitators/consultants. It is in the best interest of such professionals not to

succumb to client’s demands if it means corrupting the process, otherwise Value Management

will eventually cease to be used. It does not go unnoticed that the facilitator might not have

enough independence to determine every aspect of the study, however it would be his

responsibility to convince the client that the investment will be worthwhile.

Based on the literature review and on the interviews, a questionnaire was developed

which is suggested to be used for further research on the topic. It will assist the researcher in



27

uncovering areas of the VM discipline in need for development, as well as possible solutions

to the existing issues related to its practical application in construction projects.



28

Appendix 01 – Reflective Journal

This section consists of a reflective diary of the research process and associated

thoughts and experiences. It is a critical assessment of the researcher’s difficulties and

reflections regarding her own work.

04/03/2011

Based on the idea that I wanted the project to be related to the design phase of construction I

decided to explore the concept of Value Management, thus starting to search for the relevant

literature in order to better delineate the topic.

10/03/2011

On this date I met with my supervisor, Neville Meyers, to talk about the chosen topic. I am

going to explore the function of the facilitator in VM activities. The link between theory and

practice will probably be made through interviews with professionals in order to understand

the extent to which VM techniques are used in engineering companies and what are the

necessary characteristics of a VM facilitator.

20/03/2011

Today I developed a detailed schedule for the project. The baseline schedule allows me at

least two weeks at the end of the project to allow for time slippages and a review of the paper

by myself and/or the supervisor.

24/03/2011

Today I started reading about research methods. It seems that questionnaires are the only

possible method, seeing that all the others (interviews, observations) require time and

resources of which I do not dispose. Nevertheless, some kind of interview with at least one

VM specialist might be required to produce a better questionnaire.

31/03/2011

Neville suggested that I perform 6 or 7 semi-structured interviews before developing the

questionnaire, then some more interviews to check the relevance of the questionnaire.

However, he pointed out that the administration of the questionnaire might be out of the scope

of the unit. I still haven’t decided what to do about this matter as I think the questionnaire



29

would be central to the research. However I’m taking this into consideration. I might base the

conclusions of the paper only on the interviews instead of the questionnaire, which I think

would probably affect the reliability of the results as the sample would be much smaller. This

might be the only solution if I don’t want the paper to seem “unfinished.”

05/04/2011

As I read about Value Management, it becomes clear that there are two schools of thought,

which can simplistically be named VM and VE. It also appears that the facilitator would need

different attributes depending on the approach taken. In the paper and the questionnaire, I

might have to distinguish between the ideal facilitator for VM and the ideal facilitator for VE.

21/04/2011

Today I got a feedback from my proposal, which was very weak. I decided to change the

focus of my project to make it more relevant. Instead of just focusing on the facilitator, I will

analyse the gap between VM theory and practice.

05/05/2011

I have now interviewed five professionals, who have all been giving me very interesting

views of VM. The interviews are making me more and more interested on the topic.

12/05/2011

The interviews have been extremely interesting. I have seen in practice almost everything I

had read in theory, which is very exciting. I also uncovered some new issues, which is

extremely valuable to the research. I just wish I could have interviewed more professionals

with the client point of view, as I have interviewed mostly consultants. Anyway, the

questionnaire that is going to be developed will capture all points of view.

17/05/2011

I have been thinking about how much I have to write for the literature review. I am covering

all topics I feel relevant for the research, but sometimes it feels to much of a repetition of

previous work by other researchers. I know the literature review provides the foundation for

the rest of the work, the problem is how to find out when it is enough and I do not need to talk

about it any further.



30

20/05/2011

Thinking back about the interviews, I feel like I could have been more insistent on some

matters in order to obtain deeper responses. I should have found a better balance between

letting the interviewee talk about what he wanted and getting him to talk about what I wanted.

Now that I hear the recordings I wish I had requested further explanation on some of their

responses.

24/05/2011

I am having difficulty trying to elaborate the questionnaire, but I started by thinking about

who it was going to be sent to, i.e. the sample. I decided that it should be sent out to all

professionals involved with construction projects, regardless of their knowledge of VM because that way I can investigate the percentage that does not even know about VM, and

therefore that would have to be one of the questions. From the rest of the sample, the ones

who know about VM, I needed to investigate how much they know about the VM theory.

Then I tried to capture all the variables found in literature and on the interviews, which I talk

about throughout the report. I still have many questions about the wording of some questions,

as well as the use of rating scales versus one answer only, or closed versus open-ended

questions, but I am sure Neville will be able to help me with those issues.

26/05/2011

Neville made some valuable recommendations about the pilot questionnaire, now I need to

finalise it and send to the practitioners to comment on.

30/05/2011

Today I sent out the pilot questionnaire to six VM practitioners. Their responses and

comments will help me produce the final version of the questionnaire. I realise that I gave

them a short time frame to answer the questionnaire, which was a result of my poor time

management. The report, however, is almost finalised as I only need to finish talking about

the methodology and write the conclusion.



31

Appendix 02 – Student-Supervisor Contact Records

The following documents are records of all meetings between the student and the

supervisor, including their dates, the topics addressed and further action to be performed.



32

Student-Supervisor Contact Record

Student: Renata Coelho Netto (n7612508)

Supervisor: Neville MeyersDate of Contact: 10/03/2011

Time: 16:15

Method: Meeting

Status Review/Discussion:

Met with Neville for the first time. I explained the topic and the focus of the project, which

will be the necessary characteristics of a Value Management facilitator.

The link between theory and practice will probably be made through interviews with

industry professionals.

We talked about some of the initial characteristics that I have already identified during the

literature review, such as leadership and communication skills.

Further Action: By whom: By when:

E-mail industry professionals to see if they have any VM experience.

Perform further literature review.

Finish project proposal.

Neville M.

Renata N.

Renata N.

n.d.

n.d

01/04/2011

Signed:

Supervisor Student

01



33




Time: 11:30

Method: Meeting


Neville gave me a feedback on my proposal, which was really bad. According to him, the

proposal was light and didn’t have enough references. The aims and significance didn’t

seem very appealing.

I guess I misunderstood the importance of the proposal. I thought it was supposed to be an

introduction to the topic, I didn’t think it needed a deeper literature review. Anyway, I

started thinking about changing the focus of the project in order to make it more relevant.

Neville told me to start thinking about interview questions and to send him a list of the

references I’m using.

Neville suggested that from now on we should meet every week.


Send Neville a list of the references that are being used.

Develop interview questions.

Perform next meeting.

Renata N.

Renata N.

Both

27/04/2011

27/04/2011

27/04/2011

Signed:

Supervisor Student

02



34




Time: 10:30

Method: Meeting


I sent a new proposal to Neville but he did not have time to read it, however he saw the list

of references and approved it, emphasizing the presence of the Australian Standard in the

list. I talked about the shift in focus: the focus now is in understanding the gap between

theory and practice. The questionnaire developed in the project might consist in a gap

analysis.

About the interview questions, he said I should start with a more generic question just to

make the interviewee talk about whatever he feels relevant. I left a hard copy of the

questions, and he asked me to send him the file in an email.

I told Neville about Ellis et al.’s paper, in which they compare VM’s theory and practice and

he suggested that I look for the authors to try to interview them. He will try to install Skype

in his desktop so that we can interview the author from there.


Send the interview questions by email.

Install Skype.

Locate Robert Ellis and arrange a meeting.


Renata N.

Neville M.

Renata N.

Both

04/05/2011

04/05/2011

04/05/2011

04/05/2011

Signed:

Supervisor Student

03



35




Time: 11:30

Method: Meeting


This was a brief meeting. I told Neville about my scheduled interviews with the president of

IVMA and some other industry professionals.

Neville gave me some recommendations on how to perform the interview. He told me to

make it seem more a conversation than an interview and that I should let the interviewee talk

as much as they want.


Perform next meeting. Both 12/05/2011

Signed:

Supervisor Student

04



36




Time: 11:30

Method: Meeting


This was also a brief meeting. I told Neville about the interviews I have been performing. I

told him that they have been very interesting and have been giving me ideas on what to write

in the project. I also told him that I have been interviewing more professionals with the

consultant perspective, which is good because they have a broad view of many types of

projects and clients; however I still intend to find professionals with the client perspective.

He told me to interview only 2 or 3 more people in order to better manage the time, as I still

have to develop the pilot questionnaire and test its relevance using 2 or 3 professionals.

Before applying the pilot questionnaire I must show it to Neville.


Elaborate pilot questionnaire


Renata

Both

19/05/2011

19/05/2011

Signed:

Supervisor Student

05



37




Time: 11:30

Method: Meeting


I told Neville I feel like part of my project is too much of a repetition of everything that has

already been said before in literature. I know the literature review provides the basis for the

project, I just don’t know to what extent I have to write about all aspects of VM in the paper.

Neville told me sometimes it does feel that way, but I should bring him part of my paper so

that he can analyse it and give an opinion.

I also asked him about the methodology part of the paper and he said I should talk about the

literature review, the semi-structured interviews and the questionnaire.


Elaborate pilot questionnaire.

Bring part of the project for analysis.


Renata

Renata

Both

24/05/2011

24/05/2011

24/05/2011

Signed:

Supervisor Student

06



38




Time: 11:30

Method: Meeting


Neville looked at my pilot questionnaire and provided recommendations. Now I need to

finalise it and send it back to him so that he can take a final look before I pilot it with some

professionals.


Finalise pilot questionnaire.


Renata

Both

27/05/2011

30/05/2011

Signed:

Supervisor Student

07



39




Time: 11:00

Method: Meeting


Neville approved the final questionnaire and we decided to meet one last time on Friday to

discuss the results of the pilot questionnaire.


Send out pilot questionnaire.


Renata

Both

30/05/2011

03/06/2011

Signed:

Supervisor Student

08



40




Time: 10:00

Method: Meeting


We talked about the pilot questionnaires and Neville told me to send it to two more

professionals. I will submit the assignment on Monday.


Submit assignment Renata 06/06/2011

Signed:

Supervisor Student

09



41

Appendix 03 – Pilot Questionnaires

The responded pilot questionnaires are presented next in this section. Although most

responses were consistent and reflected the findings of this report, the gap analysis showed

some discrepancies. While one respondent marked very low for importance, another

respondent marked very high for satisfaction in almost every aspect of the study.



42

References

Brewerton, P. M., & Millward, L. J. (2001). Organizational research methods: A guide for

students and researchers. London: Sage Publications.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Connaughton, J. N., & Green, S. D. (1996). Value management in construction: A client's

guide. Westminster: CIRIA.

Dallas, M. F. (2008). Value and Risk Management: A guide to best practice. Chinchester:

Wiley.

Dell'Isola, A. (1997). Value Engineering: Practical applications for Design, Construction,

Maintenance & Operations. Kingston, MA: R.S. Means.

Ellegant, H. (1992). Modern value engineering for design and construction. In M. P.

Nicholson (Ed.), Architectural Management (pp. 247-255). London: E & FN Spon.

Ellis, R. C., Wood, G. D., & Keel, D. A. (2005). Value management practices of leading UK

cost consultants. Construction Management and Economics , 23, 483-493.

Green, S. D. (1994). Beyond value engineering: SMART value management for building

projects. International Journal of Project Management, 12(1), 49-56.

Green, S. D. (2001). Towards an integrated script for Risk and Value Management. Project

Management , 7 (1), 52-58.

HM Treasury. (2008). Infrastructure procurement: Delivering long-term value. London:

Office of Public Sector Information.

Hurd, A. (2011). Professional liability insurance: 6 critical safeguards for Value Engineering.

Retrieved May 17, 2011 from http://ezinearticles.com/?Professional-Liability-

Insurance:-6-Critical-Safeguards-for-Value-Engineering&id=6060872

Kelly, J., Male, S., & Graham, D. (2004). Value management of construction projects.

Oxford: Blackwell Science.



Miller, W. L., & Crabtree, B. F. (1999). Depth interviewing. In B. F. Crabtree, & W. L. Miller

(Eds.), Doing qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 93-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

National Research Council. (1999). Improving Project Management in the Department of

Energy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Palmer, A., Kelly, J., & Male. S. (1996). Holistic appraisal of value engineering in

construction in United States. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ,

122(4), 324-328.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance:

with a new introduction. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Rotherham, S. (2002). Building bridges. Government News, p.16.

SAVE International. (2007). Value standard and body of knowledge.

SAVE International. (2008). Certification examination study guide.

Shen, Q., & Liu, G. (2003). Critical success factors for Value Management studies in

construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(5), 485-491.

Standards Australia. (2007). Australian standard: Value Management (AS 4183-2007).

VALE. (2006). Value Engineering Guide.

renata coelho netto - integrated project

Documents