Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Value Management Practice by South African Quantity Surveyors
Value Management Practice by South African Quantity Surveyors
Value Management Practice by South African Quantity Surveyors
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.
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.
Value system factor Mean response rating Std error Std dev.
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
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 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
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.
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.
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