The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

F
28,1/2 Value management practice by
South African quantity surveyors
Paul Bowen and Keith Cattell
46 Department of Construction Economics and Management,
University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa
Received June 2009 Peter Edwards
Accepted August 2009
School of Property, Construction and Project Management,
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, and
Ian Jay
Department of Construction Economics and Management,
University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the nature and extent of value management (VM) practice by
professional quantity surveyors in South Africa. The survey explores practitioners’ awareness and
understanding of VM and the nature and extent of the use of VM techniques within their organisations.
Design/methodology/approach – A web-based, online questionnaire survey is employed to
establish VM practice by South African registered quantity surveyors. Descriptive statistics are used
to analyse the survey response data.
Findings – The results suggest that, while VM (and more particularly its value engineering
antecedent) is generally known among quantity surveyors in South Africa, it is less widely practiced.
VM is seen predominantly as a cost reduction tool. This misperception, and the lack of awareness of
the potential benefits of VM, must be remedied if quantity surveyors in South Africa are to provide
clients with services that meet world’s best practice standards. Quantity surveyors also need to know
what those standards are.
Practical implications – Refresher courses in contemporary VM theory and practice are
recommended, as well as exploration of the impacts on VM of other techniques such as risk,
quality and environmental management.
Originality/value – The findings are important given the increasing globalization of construction
services, especially given the international ties between designers, quantity surveyors and other built
environment professionals.
Keywords South Africa, Surveying, Best practice
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Value engineering (VE), as a management technique for improving client value in
projects, products, processes and systems, has been recognized for almost 60 years
(Kelly et al., 2004). Value management (VM), as a derivative of VE, has been used in the
Facilities
Vol. 28 No. 1/2, 2010 The authors are indebted to the staff of the SACQSP for e-mailing registered quantity surveyors
pp. 46-63 inviting them to participate in the survey; to John Bilay for his assistance with the logistics of the
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-2772
web-based survey and the processing of the data; and to the quantity surveying firm of Bham
DOI 10.1108/02632771011011396 Tayob Khan Matunda Inc. for participating in the pilot survey.
construction sector for at least 30 years (Kelly and Male, 1988). Despite their longevity, VM practice by
however, little is known about the extent to which these techniques are applied in
practice; nor to how they are used. Published information concerning the effectiveness
South African
of VM/VE is also scanty (see Lin and Shen, 2007) and it is possible that successful QSs
outcomes may be overstated, given that greater enthusiasm attaches to publicizing
good news about project success; leaving failure to be quietly “buried”). The purpose of
the paper is not to add to theories of value management per se; rather, it is to report on 47
an empirical study of the awareness and practice of value management by South
African quantity surveyors; essentially constituting a “temperature-check” of current
practice. In a study concerning the VM practices of quantity surveyors in the UK, Ellis
et al. (2005, p. 484) described VM as “widely accepted as an important tool in the
management of projects”. Given the prominent role of quantity surveyors in cost
management in building procurement in South Africa (Bowen, 1993), it was decided to
explore the extent to which South African quantity surveyors are aware of VM, and the
nature and extent of their practice of VM; in essence, testing the assertion of Ellis et al.
(2005) within a local context.
Recent research at the University of Cape Town has investigated value
management practices among built environment professionals (engineers, architects,
and quantity surveyors) in South Africa. A web-based internet opinion survey
instrument was used to collect primary data, and this paper reports on the survey
findings, with particular reference to professional quantity surveyors (QS). The paper
comprises a brief background review of VM/VE; a section dealing with the survey
design and administration; analysis and interpretation of the survey response data;
and discussion of the findings.

VE/VM background
Value engineering is now seen as a sub-set of value management, despite being almost
twice as old as the latter (Kelly et al., 2002). This paradox is explained from a temporal
perspective, whereby the applicability of VE and VM is considered against the delivery
process for a construction project (see Figure 1), and from a systems perspective.
VE is a “hard systems” approach to cost reduction, carried out during the design
phase (where hard information in terms of technical solutions, drawings,
specifications, etc. already exists). VM, on the other hand, is seen more as a “soft

Figure 1.
Application of VM and VE
in the building
procurement process
F systems” approach to developing a common understanding of the project/design
28,1/2 objectives or design problem(s) and their solutions, normally carried out during the
project inception or early conceptual design stage, but relying on the synergetic
advantage of probing stakeholder perceptions of these more fluid issues, and is thus
applicable throughout almost the entire procurement process (Kelly and Male, 1988;
Green and Liu, 2007). Kelly et al. (2004) provide a comprehensive discussion on the
48 terminology and definitions associated with value engineering and value management,
noting the terminological preferences in different counties such as the USA, the UK,
Japan, and Australia. Issues of nomenclature aside, as Ahuja and Walsh (1983)
suggest, the earlier that VM/VE is applied, the greater the potential benefits that can be
realized (see Figure 2).
VM/VE adopts a systematic approach, using group-based facilitated workshops
incorporating a creative element, as a platform to achieve better value in projects,
components, systems or processes (Male et al., 1998a). The value improvement sought
is on behalf of the project proponent (the client) and is usually framed in terms of
“functional value” i.e. a delivered function that is measurable and expressed in terms
of the cost of delivering that function. While VM/VE tends to focus on functional
value, other forms of value improvement are not thereby excluded;, e.g. improving
project aesthetics to enhance potential selling price or marketability; or reducing
delivery time and thus bringing the project sooner to its operational phase. The use of
VM has also been advocated as a project briefing facilitation tool (Ryd, 2004; Kelly
et al., 2005).
Typically, value criteria for a project client may relate to the project delivery
process (project procurement) in terms of project cost; delivery time; and project
quality (fitness for purpose). Alternatively, the value criteria may comprise
operational factors (key performance indicators) for the project, such as: return on
investment; productivity; safety; environmental compliance; and sustainability (Kelly
et al., 2004). Thus, value improvement for the client might be achieved by project
delivery in less time; project delivery at less cost; project delivery of higher quality; or

Figure 2.
The diminishing potential
for achieving cost savings
in building procurement
by enhanced operational function (at same or less cost and at no loss of quality). The VM practice by
application of VE and VM may also be considered successful if the project client is South African
thereby re-assured that existing planned project delivery time, cost, quality and
operational KPIs are realistic and can be achieved, thus reducing project uncertainties QSs
and mitigating associated threat risks. The generation of value is thus susceptible to
multiple criteria.
Kelly (2007) found that the variables (arguably better termed “criteria”) in 49
construction clients’ value systems are the nine, high order, non-correlated
performance variables of capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating expenditure
(OPEX), time (duration of the project), esteem, environment, exchange,
politics/community, flexibility and comfort. “CAPEX” refers to the investment
capital expended on the project necessary for completion and hand-over. “OPEX”
constitutes the running costs accrued after project hand-over, over the operating life
required by the client. The “esteem” factor refers to the prestige and benefits to the
client that stem from the project. “Environment” refers to the anticipated effect that the
project will have on the surrounding eco-system (e.g. carbon imprint). “Exchange” is
the project net worth to the client. “Politics/community” comprises issues relating to
the project’s impact on the surrounding community as well as political considerations.
“Flexibility” refers to the flexibility offered by the project in terms of how easily it may
be configured to meet different requirements. The “comfort” factor relates to the
usability of the project in terms of convenience and comfort.
The workshop approach typically adopted for VM/VE is intended to produce the
brainstorming synergies obtainable from an interventionist assembly of relevant
project stakeholders, and follows a format similar to the standard methodology
proposed by SAVE International, namely: Pre-study (collect user/customer attitudes;
complete data file; determine evaluation factors; scope the study; build data models;
and determine team composition); Value study (information phase; function analysis
phase; creative phase; evaluation phase; development phase; and presentation phase);
and Post-study (complete changes; implement changes; and monitor status).
Only the central value study is essentially workshop-based, since the pre-study and
post-study activities can be undertaken separately under appropriately qualified
guidance (e.g. by the VM/VE facilitator). Indeed, some parts of the value study itself
can be performed outside of the physical workshop environment. Much of the
information phase and functional analysis phase could be carried out as pre-study
activity and included in an “information kit” given to participants prior to the
workshop. Similarly, the development and presentation phases could be removed from
the value study workshop and transferred to the post-study activities. This flexibility
allows the duration of the value study itself to be tailored to suit the exigencies of the
project and its stakeholder participants.
The application of VE/VM is not limited to projects delivered under particular
procurement systems (Kelly et al., 2004). Under “traditional” building procurement
however, whereby design and construction responsibilities are contractually separated
(usually the client’s “design team” and the successful tenderer’s “coalition” of
contractors and sub-contractors) the skills mix among early VM workshop
participants may lack technical and management expertise relating to construction
processes. An absence of contractor expertise may result in over-emphasis in the VM
workshop on building design, and failure to properly consider the practicalities of
F construction. Such failure can be avoided in more integrated procurement system
alternatives, such as “design and build”.
28,1/2 Kelly et al. (2002), commenting on earlier research by Male et al. (1998a, b), note that
barriers to the successful application of VM/VE could arise from workshop conditions
such as: lack of a multi-disciplinary team with an appropriate skills mix; lack of
facilitation skills; failure to maintain a structured approach (e.g. not following the
50 standard methodology); insufficient knowledge about VM among participants; absence
of decision-makers; failure by participants to “own” the workshop outcomes; failure to
undertake appropriate functional analysis; lack of participant/senior management
support for VM; and failure to plan adequately for implementation of outcomes.
Clearly, the team dynamics operating in the VM workshop environment can be an
important factor in the effectiveness of VM as a project management technique (Kelly
et al., 2004).
Considerable research into the application of VM within the construction industry
has been undertaken over the last three decades – for example, the analysis of building
components (Asif et al., 2005); best practice VM (Male et al., 1998a, b); VM as a tool for
project briefing and design process management (Yu et al., 2005); adoption, inhibitors
and success factors (Liu and Shen, 2005); performance measures (Lin and Shen, 2007);
VM and quantity surveying (Ellis et al., 2005); the integration of risk and value
management (Dallas, 2006); group dynamics in VM (Leung et al., 2003); client value
systems (Kelly, 2007); and hard versus soft VM (Green and Liu, 2007).
Some of the issues briefly highlighted here, relating to the nature and use of VM/VE
techniques, were investigated through the design and administration of a web-based
online opinion survey of professional quantity surveyors in South Africa. Targeting
this profession was thought to be appropriate, given its focus on the costs and values
associated with building projects.

Questionnaire design
Following the methodology adopted by Palmer et al. (1996), Fong and Shen (2000),
Fong (2004), and Spaulding et al. (2005), a sectioned questionnaire was employed
utilising a mixture of closed ended, open ended, scaled and matrix questions. The
survey questionnaire consists of four sections. Section A seeks demographic
information such as professional grouping, membership of value management
associations, position within the organisation, age and experience, and characteristics
of the organisation. Section B probes respondents’ familiarity with the concept of VM.
The questions in section C examine the use of VM within the organisation. Factors
explored include usage of VM, the focus of VM activities (cost, or value, or both),
perceived usefulness of VM, and whether VM activities are predominantly handled
internally to the organisation or externally. Section D explores the nature and extent of
VM usage on projects with questions about the reasons for the adoption of VM, extent
of use, factors influencing the employment of VM, the relative importance of client
value-system factors, benefits actually derived from using VM, VM methods
employed, international VM benchmarks or standards, and the measurement of
success (or effectiveness) for VM.

Method of data collection

Data were collected from professional quantity surveyors (Pr.QS) registered with the
South African Council for the Quantity Surveying Profession (SACQSP). As the
registration and professional activities of quantity surveyors in South Africa is VM practice by
regulated by the SACQSP, a council established by statute, it is comparatively easy to
canvass the entire population of quantity surveyors. As at July 2008, 1,756 individual
South African
quantity surveyors were registered and licensed to practice in South Africa. QSs
A web-based, online questionnaire survey was utilized for data capture. This method
of data collection facilitated the comparatively easy (and inexpensive) national coverage
of registered quantity surveyors in South Africa. A pilot web-based study was conducted 51
in early June 2008 with the co-operation of a branch office of a national firm of quantity
surveyors. The pilot study demonstrated that all questions were easily understood and
response data were collected successfully onto the system for analysis, so no changes
were made to the final instrument. The full survey was launched on 26 June 2008, and
closed on 18 July 2008. The SACQSP e-mailed all quantity surveyors for who e-mail
addresses were on record (1,448), requesting their participation in the survey, and
providing a link to a URL where the questionnaire could be completed on-line.
Disregarding e-mail bounces (321), the final response rate was 13.5 per cent (n ¼ 152;
N ¼ 1,127); considered adequate for a survey of this nature (Oppenheim, 1992).
An unresolved issue arises with online surveys of this nature: the inability to
determine exact response rates. Since the invitation to participate was issued by e-mail
using the SACQSP listing, there is no guarantee that each invitation message reached
its intended destination, nor that it was actually opened by the recipient. While this is
not considered to be a serious problem for the validity of the survey, it does show that
sample selection for online surveys can present some difficulties. The survey response
rate is therefore indicative and not absolute. Further, it is conceded that the survey
respondents constitute a self-selecting sample that may hold strong views (one way or
the other) about VM and thus have the potential to be not completely representative of
all registered quantity surveyors in South Africa. The response rate and
representativeness issues are not thought sufficiently serious to invalidate the
survey data, and further qualitative research is intended to overcome them by
permitting triangulation of data.
The data were analysed using SPSS (statistical package for the social sciences) Mac
version 16.0 software to produce descriptive statistics. Unless otherwise stated,
percentages given in the analyses below relate to the responses to individual questions.

Data analysis and interpretation

In this section the survey results are described and interpreted. Discussion of the
findings then follows in the next section.

Sample profile
The online survey attracted 152 QS respondents. The majority of these are employed in
the private sector (81 percent) within quantity surveying practices (79 percent). Fewer
are employed in project management (8 percent) and the contracting industry
(5 percent). Membership of value management organisations is minimal, with less than
2 percent of responding QS belonging to the Institute of Value Management (IVM) or
SAVE International. A minority (9 percent) is also registered with the South African
Council for Project and Construction Management. Most respondents are older than
40 years (59 percent) and 58 percent claim to have 16 or more year’s professional
experience. Most respondents (69 percent) are employed in firms of ten or less quantity
surveyors, although 20 percent are with firms employing more than 20 professionals.
F While a majority of respondents (57 percent) reported an annual turnover for their QS
firms (in terms of gross building project value) of up to ZAR200 million, a considerable
28,1/2 minority (25 percent) reported a turnover in excess of ZAR500 million per year. The
survey respondents may generally be described as experienced quantity surveyors in
private practice, with a substantial involvement with building projects in South Africa.

52 Familiarity with and use of value management

Of QS survey respondents 60 per cent claimed to be familiar with VM. Of these
(n ¼ 91), respondents reported various ways in which they had heard about VM,
namely: from an academic institution or from attending a VM course (42 percent); from
within their own organisation (25 percent); via the internet (15 percent); from their
professional institution (13 percent); and “Other” means (5 percent).
On the other hand, actual usage of VM was found to be lower, being reported by 35
percent (n ¼ 52) of respondents. The uses to which VM is put include value optimisation
(16 percent), least cost determination (42 percent), and both of these objectives (42
percent). Reasons for not using VM included: company not familiar with VM (72 percent);
company had another system in place (6 percent); company view that VM is ineffective (2
percent); and “other” (18 percent). “Other” reasons cited were that the firm was too small
to warrant the use of VM, VM principles amounted to common sense, quantity surveyors
undertook such analyses as a matter of course, VM was nothing more than “pretentious
crap”, VM typically falls within standard quality management functions performed by
quantity surveyors, clever design by architects achieves good functionality, and that
most projects are driven by economic imperatives.
Opinions regarding the usefulness of VM varied. The most widespread view (37
percent of QS survey respondents) was that VM was very useful and that it should be
used on most projects. The view that VM was indispensible and should be used on all
projects was held by 22 percent of respondents; while 20 percent thought that VM was
occasionally useful and should be used on a few selected projects. Only 4 percent of QS
respondents thought that VM was not useful at all. Reasons cited by respondents in
support of their opinions were that the use of VM depends on the size of the project; VM
usage is dependent on client requirements and project goals; the nature or type of
project; and that VM is bureaucratic and administratively intensive.
Questioned whether VM activities are predominantly handled internally within the
organisation, externally, or via a combination of both, respondents reported as follows:
internally (57 percent); externally (22 percent); combination of both (21 percent).
Reasons cited for the choice of internal/external VM application included the size of the
project (47 percent), discretion of senior management (28 percent), organisational
policy (20 percent), the availability of in-house expertise (17 percent), and other
(14 percent). “Other” reasons cited included the instructions (preferences) of the client,
the client’s budgetary constraints, the disciplinary nature of the project, and a focus in
the public sector on least cost alternatives.

Nature and use of value management

This section reports on the nature and use of VM within quantity surveying practices.
Given that only 52 of the 152 QS respondents indicated that they employ VM
techniques in practice, the percentages here actually represent the views of a minority
sub-sample. Of those respondents who indicated that VM is used within their
organisations, 51 percent stated that VM is used on most projects. Far fewer (16
percent) reported that VM is used on all projects, while 15 percent reported VM usage VM practice by
in only rare cases. Of those participants who utilize VM, 63 per cent stated that the
adoption of a VM philosophy is part of their firm’s organisational culture.
South African
QSs
Reasons for using VM
Participants were asked why VM is used by their organisations. Reasons cited were that
the technique has become an organisational (‘select box’) internal requirement (16 53
percent) and that it optimises value (67 percent); clarifies the project brief (24 percent);
facilitates the achievement of functionality (41 percent); is effective in reducing costs (62
percent); emanates from requests from clients (26 percent); and results from pressure
from management (3 percent). “Other” views (9 percent) suggested that the use of VM is
dependent on the type of project; is part of normal quantity surveying services; and that
the professional team focus is ordinarily on providing value for money.
Respondents reported that, where VM is used within their organisation, such use is
primarily promoted by the quantity surveyors themselves (57 percent), by senior
management (39 percent), or by project managers (25 percent). Promotion of VM usage
by in-house VM practitioners or by an in-house VM department is not widespread,
being reported by 11 and 5 percent of such respondents, respectively. Reasons cited for
the initial adoption of VM by the organisation, included requests from project sponsors
and clients (53 percent) and keeping abreast of local competition that makes use of the
practice (14 percent). Interestingly, links with international organisations or overseas
parent companies was not a strong influence (8 percent). “Other” reasons (25 percent)
included attempting to satisfy the client, providing a normal quantity surveying
service, providing value for money, and remaining competitive.

Client value system variables (criteria)

Drawing on the work of Kelly (2007), and using Likert-scaled response options,
quantity surveyors in the survey were requested to indicate on a scale of 1 to 5
(1 ¼ completely insignificant; 5 ¼ extremely significant) their opinion as to the
relative importance of different client value system variables (criteria) to project
success. The results are depicted in Table I.
Capital expenditure is perceived to be the most important factor in determining
project success for a construction client, with 90 percent of QS survey respondents
stating that CAPEX is a very important consideration. Project time and exchange are

Value system factor Mean response rating Std error Std dev.

CAPEX 4.38 0.110 0.822

Time 3.86 0.138 1.034
Exchange 3.82 0.158 1.172
OPEX 3.64 0.138 1.025
Flexibility 3.47 0.162 1.200
Esteem 3.44 0.159 1.183
Comfort 3.38 0.157 1.163 Table I.
Community/politics 3.16 0.157 1.167 QS survey respondent
Environment 2.98 0.152 1.130 ranking of high order
performance variables in
Note: n ¼ 55 clients’ value systems
F considered the next most important project variables, followed by operating expenditure.
Flexibility, esteem and comfort may be grouped together as the fourth most important
28,1/2 consideration. Community/politics and impact on the environment are considered the
least important variables. It is worth noting that environmental impacts were largely
considered (75 percent of respondents) to be only moderately significant at best.

54 Client objectives for VM

Value management studies can occur at various stages of a project and can be
undertaken for a variety of reasons. Participants were presented with a list of VM
objectives or goals drawn from the literature (e.g. Kelly, 2007) and asked to indicate
which of those factors had been the focus (objective) of VM studies with which they
had personally been involved. The results are shown in Table II.
According to the QS survey respondents, VM practice within the SA construction
industry focuses primarily on the potential for reducing the capital cost of projects (75
percent of respondents). Other foci include: enhancing project functionality (64
percent), lowering project operating costs (50 percent), and the optimization of value
over the life of the project (50 percent). Effective risk management, enhanced project
worth, and reduced project duration reportedly receive less attention in VM.
Clarification of the brief (29 percent), enhanced project flexibility (20 percent), and
minimizing the environmental impact of the project (20 percent) also appear to be lesser
considerations. A small but noticeable minority of respondents (16 percent) claimed
that no formal goals at all were defined to guide the VM process, the exercise being
done on an informal basis as part of normal quantity surveying practice.

Outcomes of VM
The use of VM is claimed, inter alia, to result in cost savings, improvements in
functionality, or a combination of both. When questioned about cost savings that are
considered to typically flow from the use of VM on projects, a majority of respondents
(55 percent) reported savings of up to 10 percent of project cost. A further 24 and 18

VM study objective Percentage response Rank

Reduced project capital costs 75 1

Enhanced project functionality 64 2
Clarification of the brief and/or effective brief 29 8
management
Enhanced project worth 45 6
Optimisation of value over the life of the project 50 3
Minimisation of environmental impact 20 11
Enhanced project usability in terms of convenience 23 10
and comfort
Greater flexibility offered by the project 20 11
Effective risk management 48 5
Shorter project duration 43 7
Table II. Realisation of project execution efficiencies 27 9
Ranking of QS survey Reduced project operating costs 50 3
respondent responses for Other 2 13
client objectives / goals
defined for VM studies Note: n ¼ 56
percent of respondents reported project cost savings of up to 15 and 20 percent, VM practice by
respectively. A few respondents (4 percent; n ¼ 2) claimed that project cost savings in
excess of 25 percent were typical. Similar views were expressed regarding
South African
improvements in functionality and quality typically associated with the use of VM. QSs
More specifically, 51 percent of QS survey respondents reported functional/quality
improvements of up to 10 percent, while a further 26 percent of respondents indicated
that improvements of up to 25 percent were typical. Further, 15 percent of respondents 55
(n ¼ 7) claimed that improvements in functionality in excess of 20 percent were
typical outcomes of VM.
Respondents were questioned regarding desired outcomes expected to flow from
VM studies on projects. A range of VM outcome options were provided, namely, a VM
action plan; workshop report; project development model; cost analysis of the project;
analysis of project functionality; a formal presentation to the project client/sponsor;
and “other”. The results are shown in Table III. In responding to this question, the
quantity surveyors displayed a clear preference for cost-based outcomes, favouring a
detailed cost analysis (85 per cent) above all other options. Indeed, fewer than 40
percent of respondent quantity surveyors chose any of the other outcomes. Survey
participants did not report any “Other” outcomes flowing from the VM process.

Team dynamics in VM
Survey participants were presented with a number of factors relating to team
dynamics (e.g. team size, definition of roles, external versus internal VM team) in VM
and asked to rate their importance in terms of influencing the success of the VM
exercise (1 ¼ completely insignificant; 5 ¼ extremely significant). The results are
depicted in Table IV.
QS survey respondents rated team leadership and degree of team cohesion foremost
(joint first ranking) in their potential to influence the effectiveness of a VM study.
Factors also deemed to be influential include the composition of the team, group goal
setting, and the clear definition of roles and responsibilities. The issue of whether the
VM team is external or internal to the project was seen as by respondents being the
least influential.

VM techniques and tools

To assess the VM techniques employed in practice in the SA construction industry,
respondents were presented with a list of typical VM methods and asked to indicate
whether or not they make use of them. Provision was also made for the use of “Other”
techniques. The results are given in Table V. The most widely adopted VM methods

Output/outcome Percentage response Rank

VM Action plan 30 3
Workshop report 15 6
Project development model 24 5
Cost analysis 85 1 Table III.
Analysis of project functionality 26 4 Ranking of QS survey
Formal presentation to project client/sponsor 39 2 respondent responses for
desired outcomes from
Note: n ¼ 54 the VM process
F are reported to be the value engineering audit (32 percent), the contractor’s change
proposal (24 percent), the job plan (20 percent), and the orientation meeting (15 percent).
28,1/2 The remaining techniques enjoy minimal support (, 10 percent). Participants
providing information under “Other” (11 percent) reported the use of traditional costing
techniques, utilizing risk and opportunities schedules, applying quantity surveying
“experience”, workshops held between the developer and the project manager, effective
56 project co-ordination, and the careful management of design.
The usage of VM tools varies considerably among respondents (see Table VI). Of
those who answered this question (n ¼ 50), a clear preference exists for tools
associated with quantity surveying practice, namely, value analysis (52 percent), life
cycle costing (46 percent), and time, cost and quality management (32 percent). With
the exception of FAST (18 percent), the remainder of the tools are reportedly used by
less than 5 percent of the respondents. Under “Other”, participants reported using
evaluation techniques to compare income and expenditure, informal techniques to
examine functional and value considerations, and traditional QS estimating/costing
techniques.
The use of VM is promoted as a vehicle of clarifying the project brief (Kelly et al.,
1993; Yu et al., 2005). Survey participants were asked to indicate the VM methods used
for brief clarification and the extent to which such methods are used. Of those who
answered this question (n ¼ 51), 51 percent indicated that that VM methods for
briefing purposes are used on most if not all projects. A third of the respondents

Team dynamics factor Mean response rating Std. error Std. dev Ranking

Team size 2.75 0.155 1.125 7

Definition of roles and responsibilities 3.69 0.137 1.006 5
Team composition 3.96 0.135 0.990 3
Team leadership 4.02 0.128 0.930 1
Team cohesion 4.02 0.130 0.939 1
Table IV. Group goal-setting 3.87 0.145 1.065 4
QS survey respondent External environmental factors 2.83 0.142 1.042 6
rating of team dynamic Choice of external versus internal VM team 2.48 0.159 1.146 8
factors in influencing the
outcome of VM studies Note: n ¼ 54

VM method Percentage usage

Job plan 20
Charette method 0
40-Hour workshop 4
Value engineering audit 32
Contractor’s change proposal 24
Shortened study 6
Concurrent study 7
Table V. Orientation meeting 15
QS survey respondent “Other” 11
responses for usage of
VM methods Note: n ¼ 54
 VM practice by
VM tool Percentage usage
South African
Functional analysis systems technique (FAST) 18 QSs
Simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) 2
Kano model 0
Lever of value 0
Quality function deployment technique 4 57
REDReSS 0
Spatial adjacency programming 2
Time, cost and quality triangle 32
Value analysis 52
Life cycle costing 46 Table VI.
“Other” 10 QS survey respondent
responses for usage of
Note: n ¼ 50 VM tools

claimed such usage for briefing at most occasionally. When questioned about which
VM methods are used for briefing purposes, the responses (n ¼ 37) indicated that the
value engineering audit (43 percent) and job plan (32 percent) are the most widely used
techniques. It is noteworthy that the methods typically associated with project briefing
(orientation meeting and the Charette) enjoy limited support; being cited by 14 and 0
percent, respectively.

VM practice standards and benchmarks

Several value management “good practice” standards or benchmark guides exist.
Examples include the Australian Value Standard AS 4183-2007 (Standards Australia,
2007), the British/European VM Value Standard BS/EN 12973:2000 (British Standards
Institution, 2000), and the SAVE International Value Standard (SAVE International,
2007). Survey participants were presented with ten VM benchmarks/standards and
asked to indicate which (if any) they follow. The survey responses are shown in
Table VII.
Use of international VM benchmark standards is not widespread among the South
African QS survey respondents, with the use of any one standard being reported by
less than 10 percent of the respondents who answered this question. The most “widely”
used standards comprise the ICE (1996) “Creating value from engineering” guide and
the British/European VM Value Standard BS/EN 12973:2000 (British Standards
Institution, 2000) – but each is used by only three respondents. Standards listed under
“Other” were confined to ISO 9000.

VM in risk and quality management

Ellis et al. (2005) point to the integration of VM and risk management (RM) in practice,
reinforcing the findings of Hiley and Paliokostas (2001) that ‘Practice is ahead of theory
in this respect’ (Ellis et al., 2005, p. 491). A majority (55 percent) of the SA QS survey
respondents surveyors reported that VM and RM are integrated and generally
managed together as part of the in-house project management system. The results are
shown in Table VIII.
Survey, participants were also questioned regarding the extent to which VM is
integrated with quality assurance procedures such as TQM or Six Sigma. The results
F
VM benchmark/standard Percentage usage
28,1/2
SAVE International (2007) value standard 3 per cent (n ¼ 1)
HM Treasury central unit on procurement guidance 3 per cent (n ¼ 1)
no. 54 – value management (1996)
HM Treasury central unit on procurement guidance 0 per cent (n ¼ 0)
58 no. 54 – value management (1996)
BRE value management standard (2000) 0 per cent (n ¼ 0)
ICE creating value from engineering (1996) 8 per cent (n ¼ 3)
BSRIA value engineering of building services – 0 per cent (n ¼ 0)
application guide 15/96 (1996)
UK Department of Trade and Industry value 5 per cent (n ¼ 2)
management guide (1997)
Defense estates organization – value planning and 3 per cent (n ¼ 1)
management (1998)
Australian value standard AS 4183: 2007 5 per cent (n ¼ 2)
Table VII. British/European VM value standard BS/EN 8 per cent (n ¼ 3)
QS survey respondent 12973:2000
responses for adoption or “Other” 8 per cent (n ¼ 3)
use of VM
benchmarks/standards Note: n ¼ 39

Extent of integration Percentage response

VM and RM are generally managed together using 55

the same procedures
VM and RM are sometimes managed together using 28
Table VIII. the same procedures
QS survey respondent VM and RM are independently managed using 17
responses for extent to distinctly different procedures
which VM and RM
processes are integrated Note: n ¼ 42

are depicted in Table IX. Such integration is not widespread, with 59 percent reporting
only partial integration at best; while only 16 percent claim complete integration.

Discussion of the results

While the survey respondent demographics (mostly older and well-experienced QS)
match respondents’ awareness of VM, there is a distinct mis-match between this and
their reported usage of VM techniques. Their lack of extensive use explains why few
respondents report membership of VM-practitioner organisations. Since the source of
respondents’ VM knowledge is mainly attributed to VM courses, this could be
reasonably assumed to mean that the source is material covered in professional
qualifying curricula such as undergraduate degree programmes, leading to the
conclusion that, for many South African QSs, their knowledge about VM is largely
historical and intellectual, rather than developed through continuous practical
experience. Bearing in mind the demographics mentioned previously, it could also be
speculated that many South African quantity surveyors’ understanding is based on VE
rather than VM, especially as more respondents (42 percent) saw determination of least
project cost as the primary use rather than project value optimization (16 percent). If VM practice by
awareness of VM is limited in this way, then South African quantity surveyors may be South African
in need of post-qualification career development opportunities, such as short refresher
courses in current VM techniques, facilitator training, and even case study simulation QSs
workshops.
Despite the mis-match indicated previously, nearly 60 per cent of survey
respondents believe that VM is sufficiently useful to warrant its application to at least 59
most of the projects they encounter, depending on the size and nature of the projects
and their clients’ needs and objectives. The majority also believe that their firm is
sufficiently resourced to avoid the need to call in external VM consultants. Given the
argument presented previously, this belief also has to be questioned.
To a large extent, the motivation for applying VM to projects appears to be driven
by clients and by competitors’ practices, rather than any genuinely innate desire on the
part of quantity surveyors to ensure that clients receive value for their money. This
accords with other anecdotal international evidence where, in some public sector and
parastatal organisations, the use of VM/VE workshops is prescribed for building
projects that exceed a threshold value (often about US$2 million). While this suggests
commendable support for the VM process, in practice it can lead to sham processes,
with participants simply “going through the motions” to satisfy departmental policies,
especially if the project budget is already committed and the project will proceed
regardless of the workshop outcomes. A related danger here is that some participants
may also come to the workshop with “hidden agendas”, intent only on manipulating
the VM process to achieve other ends.
Survey respondents felt on safe ground in their understanding of client value
systems when these were perceived to be clearly economic (Table I: the first four
ranked variables are capital expenditure, time; operating costs and “exchange” or
project net worth) but tended to be dismissive of more socially-driven values such as
the community or the environment. This is consonant with older, more traditional
views of VM and VE (again according with the survey demographics and respondents’
knowledge sources), and suggests that the work of more modern authors (e.g. Green,
2003; Kelly, 2007) is not yet receiving the professional attention it deserves among
quantity surveyors.
Where VM has been used by QS survey respondents, it appears to live up to
expectations in terms of client values and their VM objectives. Cost savings and/or
enhanced functionality (in the order of 10 percent and even as much as 25 percent) for
the project are achieved, at least in terms of the propositional outcomes of the VM
workshop. It is less clear to what extent such improvements are actually delivered

VM benchmark/standard Percentage usage

Completely integrated 16
Predominantly integrated 25
Partially integrated 27 Table IX.
Not generally integrated (only in rare cases) 23 QS survey respondent
Not integrated; managed as distinctly different 9 responses for extent to
processes which VM and quality
assurance processes are
Note: n ¼ 44 integrated
F through implementation, and only further, longer-term case study research will reveal
this. This doubt arises from QS survey respondents’ overwhelming emphasis on cost
28,1/2 analyses as the preferred immediate objective of VM, when a VM
action/implementation plan might deliver more certain outcomes.
Generally speaking, QS survey respondents’ views about team dynamics in VM
workshops accord with the findings of Kelly et al. (2002), with a heavy emphasis on
60 leadership and cohesion (sharing a common purpose), as well as ensuring effective
team composition (skills mix).
The suspicion that South African quantity surveyors may be basing their
understanding (and practice) on older VE techniques, is reinforced by the survey
responses about types of workshops and tools used in VM (Tables V and VI), where
preferences are revealed for “value engineering audits” and “value analysis” and “life
cycle costing”. Modern value management is less concerned with such post-decision
analytical approaches than with proactively trying to establish clear and common
understandings of objectives and the value-drivers for project decision-making. Lack
of awareness of contemporary approaches to VM was also evident in QS survey
respondents’ confusion about VM techniques suitable for eliciting and clarifying the
project brief.
The paucity of responses to the survey question about benchmarking and standards
of VM performance (see Table VII) suggests that this aspect has received scant
attention from South African quantity surveyors. Several explanations are possible,
namely, clients do not expect it; South African quantity surveyors see no need for it; the
actual level of VM usage in South Africa is insufficient to warrant it; or other
management techniques are used as a surrogate.
The first explanation is unlikely, since if clients initiate VM studies it would be
prudent for them to enquire how well they are carried out (unless the anecdotal
evidence about sham practices, referred to previously, is given substantial credence).
The second does not seem to accord with survey respondents’ perceived
understanding of VM, although minority responses to some questions suggest that
South African quantity surveyors do seem to have an untested confidence in the
sufficiency and efficiency of their services.
Whatever the level of usage of VM, as a professional service to clients it deserves
benchmarking against international application.
The last explanation seems the most plausible. Developments in other areas of
project management are likely to impact significantly on the need for value engineering
and value management. For example, advances in quality management (QM) are
impacting on professional as well as industrial processes and professional
practitioners in the built environment are increasingly called on to verify the quality
standards of their services. This is reflected in the QS survey respondent findings in
Tables VIII and IX.
Two further points can be made here. First, the need to benchmark professional
performance has led to developments in information and communication technology
(ICT), particularly in the fields of computer-aided design (CAD) and virtual reality
(VR). These techniques now allow design alternatives and design appraisal to be
explored repeatedly and almost simultaneously (i.e. the design can be evaluated and
re-evaluated as it changes). Virtual reality for construction (VRC) allows the
construction process to be rapidly modelled in the same way. In a sense, these
developments permit the almost continuous application of VE processes.
 Second, recent proposals (Bowen et al., 2009) advocate the use of VM techniques for VM practice by
improving the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment. This would place
pressure on the urgency of benchmarking such use.
South African
The impacts of all these developments should lessen the need for VE interventions QSs
in the later design stage. Instead, they should reinforce the desirability of
VM-interventions in the early conceptual stages of projects.
In practice this might mean that the formal value engineering workshop may have a 61
limited “shelf-life” in the construction industry. On the other hand, we might expect an
increasing use of short value management workshops to establish/confirm common
understanding of project objectives, and to explore alternative ways of achieving them,
in the earliest stages of the project lifecycle.

Conclusions
The findings of a web-based, online questionnaire survey into the nature and extent of
VM practice by professional quantity surveyors in South Africa are presented,
analysed and discussed. The survey explored practitioners’ awareness and
understanding of VM, and the nature and extent of the use of VM techniques within
their organisations. A primary aim of the study was to test, within a South African
context, Ellis et al.’s (2005, p. 484) assertion that VM is “widely accepted as an
important tool in the management of projects”.
The use of VM among South African quantity surveyors does not reach their
reported levels of awareness of this management technique. Indeed, their awareness
also appears to relate more to older understandings of value engineering, rather than to
more contemporary developments of VM and its application. In essence, the survey
demonstrates that the concept of VM is not widely understood and applied by quantity
surveyors in South Africa. Relatively few respondents had actual experience of VM
studies. VM may have evolved to become an established service in countries like the
UK, the USA, and Japan, but this does not appear to be the case with South African
quantity surveyors.
To bring about a closer alignment between contemporary VM theory and the
application of VM in practice, refresher courses for QS professionals are recommended,
including facilitator training and simulation workshops.
VM itself is also susceptible to further development, especially in the light of current
progress in IT and virtual reality. Greater alignment between VM and the modern
requirements of risk, quality and environmental management should be explored and
exploited.
Future papers will report on comparisons between the survey findings for
professional quantity surveyors and those for other professional disciplines in the built
environment. Further research will focus on more in-depth comparison of the theory
and practice of VM through case study investigation[1].

Note
1. Currency exchange rate as at 27 April 2009: ZA Rands 12.87 ¼ Pound Sterling 1.00; ZA
Rands 8.81 ¼ US$1.00.

References
Ahuja, H.N. and Walsh, M.A. (1983), Successful Cost Engineering, Wiley, New York, NY.
F Asif, M., Muneer, T. and Kubi, J. (2005), “A value engineering analysis of timber windows”,
Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 145-55.
28,1/2
Bowen, P.A. (1993), A Communication-based Approach to Price Modelling and Price Forecasting
in the Design Phase of the Traditional Building Procurement Process in South Africa,
University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, unpublished PhD thesis.
Bowen, P.A., Hill, R., Mabote, R., Cattell, K.S. and Edwards, P.J. (2009), Value Management and
62 Environmental Impact Assessment: a Maseru Case Study, accepted for publication by Acta
Structilia.
British Standards Institution (2000), BS EN 12973: 2000 Value Management, British Standards
Institution, London.
Dallas, M.F. (2006), Value and Risk Management: A Guide to Best Practice, Blackwell, Oxford.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (1997), Value Management: A Quick Guide, DTI,
London.
Ellis, R.C.T., Wood, G.D. and Keel, D.A. (2005), “Value management practices of leading UK cost
consultants”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 483-93.
Fong, P.S-W. (2004), “A critical appraisal of recent advances and future directions in value
management”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 377-88.
Fong, P.S-W. and Shen, Q. (2000), “Is the Hong Kong construction industry ready for value
management?”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 317-26.
Green, S.D. (2003), New Directions in Value Management, Department of Construction
Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Reading, Report.
Green, S.D. and Liu, A.M.M. (2007), “Theory and practice in value management: a reply to Ellis
et al. (2005)”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 649-59.
Hiley, A. and Paliokostas, P.P. (2001), Value Management and Risk Management:
An Examination of the Potential for their Integration and Acceptance as a Combined
Management Tool in the UK Construction Industry, The Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, London, Surveyor Publications.
HM Treasury (1996), Value Management Guidance No. 54, Central Unit on Procurement,
HM Treasury, London.
Kelly, J. (2007), “Making client values explicit in value management workshops”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 435-42.
Kelly, J. and Male, S. (1988), A Study of Value Management and Quantity Surveying Practice,
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Surveyor Publications, London.
Kelly, J., Male, S. and Graham, D. (2004), Value Management of Construction Projects, Blackwell
Science, Oxford.
Kelly, J., Male, S. and MacPherson, S. (1993), Value Management – A Proposed Practice Manual
for the Briefing Process, RICS, London, Research paper no. 34.
Kelly, J., Morledge, R. and Wilkinson, S. (2002), Best Value in Construction, RICS Foundation and
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Kelly, J., Hunter, K., Shen, G. and Yu, A. (2005), “Briefing from a facilities management
perspective”, Facilities, Vol. 23 Nos 7/8, pp. 356-67.
Leung, M., Chu, H. and Xinhong, L. (2003), Participation in Value Management, RICS Education
Trust, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Surveyor Publications, London, Report.
Lin, G. and Shen, Q. (2007), “Measuring the performance of value management studies in
construction: critical review”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. pp2-pp9.
Liu, G. and Shen, Q. (2005), “Value management in China: current state and future prospect”, VM practice by
Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 603-10.
Male, S., Kelly, J., Fernie, S., Grönqvist, M. and Bowles, G. (1998a), The Value Management
South African
Benchmark: A Good Practice Framework for Clients and Practitioners, Thomas Telford, QSs
London.
Male, S., Kelly, J., Fernie, S., Grönqvist, M. and Bowles, G. (1998b), The Value Management
Benchmark: Research Results of an International Benchmarking Study, Thomas Telford, 63
London.
Oppenheim, A.N. (1992), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, Pinter
Publishers, London.
Palmer, A., Kelly, J. and Male, S. (1996), “Holistic appraisal of value engineering in construction
in United States”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 122 No. 4,
pp. 324-8.
Ryd, N. (2004), “The design brief as carrier of information during the construction process”,
Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 231-49.
SAVE International (2007), Value Standard and Body of Knowledge, Society of American Value
Engineers, Dayton, OH, June.
Spaulding, W.M., Bridge, A. and Skitmore, R.M. (2005), “The use of function analysis as the basis
of value management in the Australian construction industry”, Construction Management
and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 723-31.
Standards Australia (2007), Australian Standard: Value Management (AS 4183-2007), Council
of Standards Australia, Sydney.
Yu, A.T.W., Shen, Q., Kelly, J. and Hunter, K. (2005), “Application of value management in
project briefing”, Facilities, Vol. 23 Nos 7/8, pp. 330-42.

Further reading
Building Research Establishment (BRE) (2000), Value from Construction: Getting Started in
Value Management, BRE, Watford.
Building Services and Research Information Association (BSRIA) (1996), Value Engineering of
Building Services, BSRIA, Bracknell, Application Guide 15/96.
Defence Estates Organisation (DEO) (1998), Value Planning and Management, DEO, Sutton
Coalfield, Technical Bulletin 98/26.
Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) (1996), Creating Value In Engineering. Design and Practice
Guide, Thomas Telford, London.

Corresponding author
Paul Bowen can be contacted at: paul.bowen@uct.ac.za

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints