See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248345353

Analysis of construction projects by means of value curves

Article  in  International Journal of Project Management · October 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.003

CITATIONS READS

27 990

2 authors, including:

P. Ballesteros-Pérez
Universitat Politècnica de València
82 PUBLICATIONS   933 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Construction scheduling View project

Miscellaneous View project

All content following this page was uploaded by P. Ballesteros-Pérez on 21 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Analysis of construction projects by means of value curves

P. Ballesteros Pérez a,1, Mª.C. González-Cruz b,*, J.P. Pastor-Ferrando b
a
Depuración de Aguas del Mediterráneo S.L. Cánovas del Castillo Square 1, 5, Postal Code 46005 Valencia, Spain
b
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Camino de Vera, s/n Postal Code 46022 Valencia, Spain

Received 18 April 2008; received in revised form 2 November 2009; accepted 10 November 2009

Abstract

The present work analyzes the expectations and relationships of the three key stakeholders involved in the construction project man-
agement process: the construction Promoter (the company that finances, owns and represents the interests of the client), the project
designers (the company that elaborates the construction project) and the builder (the company that executes the construction project).
In this article we propose an analysis of the project stakeholders’ expectations using the strategy canvas tool (a graphical model that
uses value curves as a way of measuring the evaluation of the key factors involved in the design of the construction project document).
The analysis aims to provide evidence on the phases, characteristics and documents of the construction project design and manage-
ment process better rated by the agents involved in the process. The analysis of the value curves will provide evidence on deficiencies in
the elaboration of the construction project document and will allow us to propose some solutions for certain situations. The work pre-
sented is based on the answers supplied by 111 interviewed people belonging to the three agents mentioned above.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project; Construction; Strategy canvas; Value curve; Stakeholders

1. Introduction
Nowadays the business world is in constant change (Kim
and Mauborgne, 1999). Continual innovation is necessary
because market sectors are also highly dynamic and change-
able (Fernández, 2005; Drucker, 2002). Mention is fre-
quently made of customer focus when designing or
redesigning new products or services in organizations, but
it is also very true that this often does not lead to significant
results or achievements (Leonard and Rayport, 1997;
Huovila and Serén, 1998).
The planning of facilities can be viewed as an integrated
system in which different agents interact with the purpose
of materializing a new facility and obtaining some benefit.
The construction process, usually begins with an interest
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 96 387 98 66x75654; fax: +34 96 387
98 69x79869.
E-mail addresses: pabbalpe@hotmail.com (P.B. Pérez), mcgonzal@d-
pi.upv.es (Mª.C. González-Cruz).
1
Tel.: +34 96 352 09 22, mobile: +639 230 917; fax: +34 96 353 12 25.
for the Promoter and always exist the element that will
serve as link and guide among the different agents involved:
the construction project.
The construction project can be considered as a tool for
the design of new facilities. For years the construction pro-
ject process has been evolving to reach its present configu-
ration not only in terms of the documents layout but also
the related procedural methods.
One of the aims of this paper is to define the common
characteristics of present-day construction projects in Span-
ish practice. For this end we have studied which aspects are
better valued by the different agents involved in the process.
The stakeholders selected for the present study are: Public
administration or Private Promoters (depending on the
financial source), project designers and builders.
These stakeholders have been chosen as the most repre-
sentative, but the conclusions of this article are also applicable
to companies which have direct contact with the execution
of the construction projects, e.g. of technical assistance
and project management companies. The findings only are
applicable to companies directly related to construction

0263-7863/$36.00 Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.003
720 P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731
projects because stakeholders from sub-sectors of the con-
struction industry, such as material and equipment suppli-
ers, have different expectations to the stakeholders above.
The tool that we have used is the strategy canvas (Kim
and Mauborgne, 2004), first developed by Chan Kim and
Renée Mauborgne in 1997 (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997)
and successfully applied to the design and re-design of
products and services.
2. Background
The construction project management involves numerous
participants: end users, Promoters, construction companies,
project designers, government/public bodies as well as a
large number of sub-contractors, suppliers and other entities.
The end product, whether civil engineering works or
buildings, is a complex combination of innumerable par-
ties, each with its own particular technology and human
resources. It is described solely by the construction project
through its designs, plans, technical specifications, etc.
The construction sector is complex. It is difficult to put
into one of the three main economic categories (primary,
secondary and tertiary). One fairly widespread opinion con-
siders it to be in an intermediate situation, half way between
industrial and service activities. But the construction activ-
ity presents further substantial doses of difficulty, configur-
ing a set of features that define the work to be carried out,
contractual relationships, and organization. Seen as a pro-
cess, it has two characteristics of production: it takes place
by commission or under request, and it is intermittent. The
peculiarities of construction as a productive activity are that
this industry is characterized by the production of heteroge-
neous and diverse goods, which are made in different places
and under different circumstances, with processes not ame-
nable to mechanization, and working on most occasions
under request, hence not being able to extend the scope of
its activity (SEOPAN, 2003; Merchán, 2000).
The market, moreover, is dominated by the demand for
each specific project, and the different bidders must com-
pete with each other to obtain the adjudication of the pro-
ject. In most cases, the contract is awarded to the lowest
bidder. Consequently the price of the product is formalized
prior to the production process. This prior determination
of the price has two consequences (Merchán, 2000):
 It forces the entrepreneur to narrow his profit margins;
even at a time of depression when he must present exces-
sively low prices in order to ensure that he remains in the
market, at the expense of zero or near-zero surpluses.
 The final price of the product usually presents substan-
tial variations from that agreed, especially at a time of
inflation.
In many countries, construction is one of the most
dynamic economic activities. This is the case of Spain,
where construction has experienced a dramatic growth in
the last years (SEOPAN, 2003). Additionally, more than
90% of the investment in civil works corresponds to public
administrations and affiliate companies.
A fundamental role in the development of this activity is
played by project engineers (Pellicer et al., 2004). Some
characteristics inherent to the construction project have
significant impact on the work to be done by these organi-
zations. As an illustration we can mention (Austin et al.,
1996):
 The needs of the client (Promoter, end users) are not
usually sufficiently defined and considered.
 The technical specifications or conditions established are
not documented and cannot, therefore, present clear
subsequent traceability.
 Some essential specifications (cost) are excluded from
the iterative process without paying attention to the
implications for the end product or its exploitation.
 The design process is not planned. It is difficult to find
procedural approaches that can be applicable to a wide
range of cases.
 The selection of the technical solutions chosen from among
the possible alternatives is not managed systematically.
 Javier Rui-Wamba assures that (Rui-Wamba, 1999).
 The traditional paths do not lead to the future.
 Working methods must change drastically.
 Current methods must not only be improved, but
transformed.
It is common to propose qualitative intervening actions
to improve project quality standards (Serpell and Fer-
nando, 1998), and to carry out analyzes of the causes
why projects generally end up extending their time frame
and increasing their cost (Shing-Tao, 2002). Nevertheless,
It is strange, to study project risks and uncertainties (de
la Cruz et al., 2006). This article aims to analyze the weak-
nesses in the Spanish construction projects occurring as a
consequence of the national economic situation, and to
propose feasible improvement actions.
Some affirmations commonly shared in the world of
construction projects have been well-read in the bibliogra-
phy (Merchán, 2000):
 Those who participate in the construction process
are not sufficiently aware that such a process is a chain
of contracts between different stakeholders. At any time,
the client has the power to demand the quality required.
Not taking this into account generates many problems.
 The importance of the technical studies prior to project
planning is undervalued. Much attention is paid to
bureaucratic and administrative aspects to the detriment
of technical aspects.
 Excessively tight deadlines are set for technical studies.
 All too often, the party commissioning the project con-
siders it to be a mere administrative formality in order to
obtain the construction license. This ignorance of what a
project really is, implies that quality is not demanded of
it, and it is not considered important.
 P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731
 The internal control of the project as well as its external
supervision, are non-existent in a large number of cases.
 Absence in the project of specifications about use and
service life.
 In tendering and adjudication, excessive weight is given
to delivery times and economic aspects, to the detriment
of quality and technical aspects.
 There is no effective system for the selection of construc-
tion firms.
 The user has very little protection against problems
deriving from poor project quality.
 Construction regulations are over-abundant and com-
plex, as well as incomplete.
 The public administration is slow to regulate the
establishment of failure prevention systems, i.e. effective
regulations for the control of the project and its imple-
mentation, together with a system of guarantees to the
user.
 The new regulations continue to be based on schemes of
technical organization that, on many occasions, have
become obsolete.
3. Considerations
For the present study we have designed a question-
naire that has been answered by experts of Spanish public
and private organizations. Although the study has been
conducted for the case study of Spain, the analysis tools
used can be applicable to any country, organization,
region or economic sector that manages construction
projects.
The three key stakeholders involved in the construction
project process are: public administration or Private Pro-
moters (analyzed as a single agent representing the end user
(MacMillan, 2006)), the Engineering project designers, and
the builders. The other participants generally are subordi-
nate to one of the main stakeholders (Chinyio et al.,
1998) and for the sake of simplicity have not been consid-
ered in this analysis.
The “project document” is considered as the main link
between the stockholders involved in the construction pro-
ject management process (Kathleen and Harmon, 2003).
Hence, the construction project process has been divided
(from project conception to project execution) into phases
that are evaluated using a set of critical success factors for
building projects (Chan et al., 2004; Parfitt and Sanvido,
1993).
This can be justified by the fact that about 30% of the
project failures occur between the stages of project design
and project execution (Puddicombe, 1997). This affirma-
tion along with the fact that project designers and contrac-
tors are traditionally seen as “adversaries” (James and
Robinson, 2003) support the idea that the “project docu-
ment” should be considered as a cooperation tool that
helps to meet the common interest of all stakeholders
involved in the process and to avoid time delays and eco-
nomic losses (Tommy et al., 2006).
721
4. Description of the strategy canvas tool
The authors of the strategy canvas or value curves, W.
Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, describe the tool as fol-
lows (Kim and Mauborgne, 2004):
The value curve is the basic component of the strategy
canvas and constitutes a graphical representation of the rel-
ative performance of a firm in terms of the competitiveness
variables of its industry [. . .].
A strategy canvas serves to see the future in the present.
To achieve this, the firms must understand how to interpret
value curves. The value curves of an industry contain a
huge amount of strategic knowledge about the current
and future situation of a firm.
This technique has started to be used in recent years in
the field of marketing (Kim and Mauborgne, 1999) and
in innovation (especially value innovation (Kim and Mau-
borgne, 1997, 2002; Drucker, 2001)) and is useful for focus-
ing efforts on the key factors most valued by clients in the
process of designing new products (Leonard and Rayport,
1997; Huovila and Serén, 1998; Garsden, 1994). The pur-
pose of the curves is to highlight the parameters that are
most valued by clients in the future product, and to com-
pare them with those of existing products. From the fitness
between the two curves emerge opportunities for improve-
ment and innovation.
In the present study, we use the strategy canvas tool to
compare how different clients (the three stakeholders under
analysis) value the same product (the “project document”).
The application of the tool for this purpose requires no
modifications of the strategy canvas technique or value
curves.
Regarding the application of the strategy canvas tool to
a sector different from that of industry or services, its use
has no constraints as a construction project can be consid-
ered as an element of comparable attributes or features
(items to value) that has to be attained for certain end users
or clients, who will demand product adaptation to their
expectations and needs.
In case of having to modify the expectations of the
stakeholders, or the products or services related to the
curves, the strategic canvas tool must be applied with the
tools described by Kim and Mauborgne: the four actions
framework , the eliminate-reduce-raise-create grid and the
initial litmus test for BOS: focus, divergence, compelling
tagline (Kim and Mauborgne, 2004).
5. Description of the experiment
5.1. Structure of the value items
In order to apply the strategy canvas to the “construc-
tion project document” the quality parameters of the pro-
ject were identified for further valuation and comparison.
The items to be valued coincide with a sequence of phases
that reflect critical success factors in the management of
construction projects (Chan et al., 2004; Parfitt and
722 P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731
Sanvido, 1993). Each item represents a unitary element of
valuation and comparison.
The “construction project document” process was
divided into five phases: study of alternatives, pre-definition,
definition, control of project execution and completion, and
each of these project phases were divided into different items
chronologically in order as mentioned above. A detailed
description of each item is given in Annex1, which was deliv-
ered to the professionals answering the questionnaire.
Even taking into account that it is not a complete check-
list, we consider that, in general, an “ideal” project would
be sufficiently defined. It is evident that the greater the
definition of the items, the lower the probability of defects
in the project (Chang and Chiu, 2005).
5.2. The questionnaire
After the definition of the items, we designed a question-
naire that was sent to 321 specific professionals chosen to
Spanish public and private entities related to construction.
The questionnaire was sent of personalized form by three
means of communication: fax, e-mail and by mail. One hun-
dred and eleven professionals answered the questionnaire.
The average time that they used was 30 min. In the results
there was sufficient representation from the three key groups.
The profile of the professionals who answered the
questionnaire was as follows:
 Thirty four representatives of projects consulting. They
were project managers, consulting managers, technical
specialists, and project technicians in general.
 Forty two representatives of Building companies. They
were: owners, general managers, responsible for public
administration contracting, specialists in studies of con-
struction, supervisors of construction, chiefs responsible
for production.
 Thirty five representatives of private companies and
public administration. They were: chief operating offi-
cers, construction managers, chief engineers, and project
engineers (in public administration companies). On the
side of private companies: responsible for area, strategic
development directors and investors.
The instructions indicated that the expert had to answer
the questionnaire exclusively on behalf of the interests of
the entity he/she was currently working for. The expert
should avoid any bias against the interests of other agents
in case he/she had had some prior professional contact
with them. Additionally, the scoring scale of the items
(1–5 points) organized into groups as shown in Table 1,
was clearly explained in the instructions.
The questionnaire can be seen in Annex 1.
5.3. Results and graphical representation
The data obtained from the 111 questionnaires were
then processed for each of the three stakeholders, and the
Table 1
Scoring scale of the items.
Range Importance Consideration Quality Need Depth
of item (%)
values
1 0–20 Never None Never Negligible
2 20–40 Exceptional Minimum Rarely Superficial
3 40–60 Regular Medium Regularly Medium
4 60–80 Habitual High Habitual High
5 80–100 Always Maximum Essential Complete
resulting values of the items in each group were averaged.
The standard deviations were calculated for the items in
each group.
In order to complete a statistical basic analysis on the
answers of three stakeholders, four ANOVAs was carried
out for each of 35 items, distributed in five phases, which
will be described later on. The first ANOVA studied the
average of the answers of the three stakeholders simulta-
neously, whereas the other three remaining ANOVAs,
compared the average of the answers of the three stake-
holders, in pairs.
The last step consisted of the graphical representation of
the three value curves (one curve for each stakeholder).
Finally, the curves were analyzed and some conclusions
were drawn from the results.
According to ANOVAs, those average answers of items
of every Stakeholder that had high probability of not dif-
fering from the average of the answers of another Stake-
holder, have been represented by a black solid color in
the nodes of the value curves.
6. Graphic analysis of the strategy canvas
The results obtained from the different valuations permit
the graphical representation of the strategy canvas and the
value curves for each of the five stages of the construction
project process (Table 2).
Chan and Mauborgne (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997,
2004) describe how to interpret strategy canvas for different
industrial products with the same client. The present paper
analyzes the resulting graphics, taking into consideration
that in our case study there is a single product (project)
and different clients (stakeholders). Next is a brief descrip-
tion of the interpretation of the graphics:
Comparison of the valuations (curve peaks) for each
item enables us to identify those project aspects more liable
to remain unattended or unsolved. Remember that in most
cases the financing for the project comes from the Pro-
moter, and thus his interests prevail over the rest. However,
the project designer and the builder also have negotiating
power as they are necessary agents to successfully execute
the construction project.
As shown in Fig. 1, in the Phase 1 of the construction
project management process, it is evident that the Pro-
moter and the project designer show common interests.
Table 2
Score of the value items according to the questionnaire data (N: number of interviewed subjects; l: arithmetic mean value of the answers; r: standard deviation of the answers).
No. Phases/items Project consultancy Construction firm Promoter/admin.
N l r N l r N l r
1 Study of alternatives
I Multidimensional study of reality 34 2.80 0.66 42 1.81 0.40 35 3.97 0.90
II Drafting of conditions 34 4.13 0.63 42 2.62 0.62 35 4.77 0.41
III Complete definition of the problem or need 34 4.05 0.34 42 2.84 0.74 35 4.55 0.65
IV Assumption of simplifying hypotheses 34 3.74 0.88 42 1.98 0.38 35 2.62 0.59
V Sketches of viable and possibly optimal alternatives 34 4.15 0.43 42 3.72 1.02 35 4.01 0.60
VI Analysis and comparison of alternatives 34 3.94 0.48 42 3.05 0.67 35 4.12 0.78
VII Reasoned choice of the most suitable alternative 34 4.18 0.47 42 2.54 0.86 35 4.08 0.38
2 Pre-definition
I Definition of environment (multi-theme cartography) 34 2.68 0.78 42 3.87 0.59 35 3.58 0.84
II General vision (of the whole need-conditions-solution set) 34 4.74 0.39 42 4.22 0.75 35 4.44 0.43
III Justificatory calculations 34 4.57 0.41 42 2.89 0.94 35 3.87 0.61
IV Traceability of the sequence of calculations 34 2.87 0.54 42 1.84 0.78 35 2.02 0.74
V Summary and conclusions of results of the calculations 34 3.90 0.78 42 4.07 0.51 35 3.79 0.34
3 Definition
I Functionality and limits of functionality 34 3.77 0.87 42 3.89 1.08 35 4.81 0.55
II Conditions of obsolescence 34 1.76 0.33 42 1.94 0.45 35 3.97 0.59
III Geometrics (plans) 34 3.23 0.66 42 4.88 0.27 35 2.00 0.47
IV Detailed engineering 34 2.12 0.68 42 4.75 0.48 35 1.52 0.53
V Legal and contractual aspects 34 3.94 0.58 42 4.60 0.54 35 4.95 0.32
VI Integrating focus 34 3.54 0.47 42 4.58 0.69 35 3.78 0.59
VII Budgetary (works, running and maint) 34 3.98 0.66 42 4.50 0.41 35 4.31 0.53
VIII Optional future expansion 34 1.83 0.62 42 3.42 0.68 35 3.87 0.97
4 Control of execution
I Definition of technical specif. 34 3.89 0.54 42 4.64 0.42 35 3.87 0.84
II Construction methodology 34 2.74 0.54 42 4.34 0.57 35 2.02 0.41
III Study of interferences 34 3.34 0.65 42 4.65 0.31 35 4.33 0.74
IV Studies of coordination with other works 34 1.53 0.45 42 3.85 0.62 35 2.13 1.03
V Management of waste generated 34 3.39 0.43 42 4.12 0.52 35 4.32 0.38
VI Organization of the works 34 1.04 0.19 42 4.79 0.34 35 1.87 0.56
VII Protocoliz hazardous and specia. tasks 34 3.15 0.42 42 4.32 0.41 35 3.10 0.58
P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731

VIII Quality control plan 34 4.07 0.55 42 4.17 0.48 35 3.23 0.66
IX Calculation of indirect costs 34 1.74 0.65 42 4.97 0.16 35 4.01 0.54
X Forecast of evolution of certifications 34 1.87 0.74 42 4.54 0.52 35 4.78 0.31
5 Closure
I Sequence of the construction project 34 2.34 0.35 42 1.24 0.48 35 2.15 0.70
II Development of the testing period (simulation of different scenarios) 34 2.87 0.65 42 4.07 0.80 35 3.84 0.62
III Verification of the initial hypotheses 34 3.88 0.57 42 3.07 0.48 35 3.88 0.53
IV Project As-built 34 2.26 0.76 42 2.07 0.78 35 3.04 0.45
V Lesson learnt 34 2.01 0.64 42 2.25 0.27 35 1.57 0.57
723
724 Greater P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731
Importance
Lesser

Phase 1: Study of Alternatives

Project Consultancy Construction firm Promoter / Administration

Multidimensional Drafting of Complete Definition Assumption of Sketches of Viable Analysis and Reasoned choice of
Study of Reality Conditions of the Problem or Simplifying and possibly optimal Comparison of the most suitable
Need Hypotheses Alternatives Alternatives Alternative

I II III IV V VI VII

Fig. 1. Value curves of Phase 1: study of alternatives.

Greater
Importance
Lesser

Phase 2: Pre-Definition
Project Consultancy Construction firm Promoter / Administration

Definition of Environment General Vision (of the whole Justificatory Calculations Traceability of the Sequence Summary and Conclusions of
(Multi-theme Cartography) Need-Conditions-Solution of Calculations Results of the Calculations
set)

I II III IV V

Fig. 2. Value curves of Phase 2: project pre-definition.

By contrast, the construction firm, in general, does not
have great expectations at this stage.
The results indicate that the Promoter is the firm with a
higher level of expectations for the first group of items. At
this stage the problem is analyzed in detail to find suitable
solutions that meet the specific requirements of the client.
The interests of the construction firm increase as the execu-
tion process is fully defined.
In Phase 2 (pre-definition) of the construction project
management process the interests of the three agents are
more similar than in Phase 1 (see Fig. 2). There is more dis-
persion in the valuations of certain items. The Promoter
shows particular interest in the overall definition of the
problem, the problem solutions and the calculation esti-
mates. On the other hand, the construction firm is also
interested in these aspects as well as in the cartographic
definition of the facility site (Item I).
The project designer plays a crucial role at this stage as
he has to make the problem solution provided by the
Promoter converge towards a single solution that the
design firm will have to materialize. It is then logical that
the designer’s valuations are higher than those of the other
agents. In fact he shows great interest in the traceability of
the project calculations (Item IV).
The real fact is that Spanish construction projects lack a
well-defined presentation of the calculations in the project
document, which makes it difficult to trace the procedure
followed in the calculation of certain project elements.
As shown in Fig. 3, in Phase 3, despite the dispersion of
the valuations being lower than in the previous phases,
there are more differences in the interests of the three
agents: the builder is interested in the detailed definition
of what is to be built and therefore highly valuates the
items concerning how the project is defined, the legal and
 P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731 725
Greater
Importance
Lesser

Phase 3: Definition
Project Consultancy Construction firm Promoter / Administration

Functionality and Conditions of Geometrics Detailed Legal and Integrating focus Budgetary Optional Future
Limits of Obsolescence (Plans) Engineering Contractual (Works, Running expansion
Functionality Aspects and Maint.)

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

Fig. 3. Value curves of Phase 3: definition.

Greater
Importance

Project Consultancy
Lesser

Construction firm
Phase 4: Control of Execution
Promoter / Administration

Definition of Construction Study of Studies of Management Organization Protocoliz. Quality Calculation of Forecast of
Technical Methodology Interferences Coordination of Waste of the Works Hazardous Control Plan Indirect Costs Evolution of
Specif. with other generated and Special. Certifications
works Tasks

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Fig. 4. Value curves of Phase 4: control of project execution.

contractual relationship and in particular the economic
aspects and project management costs. The Promoter is
interested in knowing the limits of use of what he is going
to finance (Item I), fully defining the legal-contractual
relationship, budget distribution and future expectations
of the constructed facility. The technical specifications of
the projects are of less importance. The designer must elab-
orate a project document that satisfies the other two agents
and that adequately defines the relationships between
agents and allows for the control of the project over the
builder during project execution. In general, it seems that
the project does not satisfy all the expectations of the Pro-
moter or builder.
In Phase 4 (control of project execution) there is low dis-
persion in the values. In general this phase follows the
trends of the previous phases, as shown in Fig. 4 (see
Tables 3 and 4).
The construction firm highly values the items related to
project execution control. By contrast, the Promoter
neglects these items and shows more interest in the aspects
that either may affect the execution of the projected facility
(Items I and VIII) or may cause unexpected problems that
the firm will have to assume (Items III, V, and VII). The
Promoter also shows interest in the budgetary aspects
(Items IX and X).
The designer has certain inertia as he acts accordingly to
the interests of the Promoter. Many are the aspects to be
defined in the construction project and if there are insuffi-
cient resources for the correct design of the project, it may
happen that the project is poorly defined. Since the project
is financed by the Promoter, his interests will prevail in the
definition of the project and this is the reason why the Value
curve of the designer is similar to that of the Promoter
although it does not completely meet their expectations.
 726
Table 3
ANOVAs 1 and 2 (significance level a = 0.05).
ANOVA 1 (three stakeholder together) Fa, n I, I 1 = 3.10 ANOVA 2 (stakeholders 1 and 2) Fa, n I, I 1 = 3.98
X SSTR SSE I n MSTR MSE f f<F X SSTR SSE I n MSTR MSE f f<F
2.86 89.55 48.47 3 111 44.78 0.45 99.76 0 2.31 18.62 20.93 2 76 18.62 0.28 65.82 0
3.84 95.64 34.57 3 111 47.82 0.32 149.38 0 3.38 43.32 28.86 2 76 43.32 0.39 111.09 0
3.81 60.69 40.63 3 111 30.34 0.38 80.66 0 3.45 27.82 26.27 2 76 27.82 0.35 78.37 0
2.78 59.11 43.31 3 111 29.56 0.40 73.70 0 2.86 58.85 31.48 2 76 58.85 0.43 138.37 0
3.96 3.73 61.00 3 111 1.87 0.56 3.31 0 3.94 3.51 48.76 2 76 3.51 0.66 5.33 0
3.70 25.91 46.69 3 111 12.95 0.43 29.96 0 3.50 15.05 26.01 2 76 15.05 0.35 42.82 0
3.60 66.69 42.52 3 111 33.35 0.39 84.69 0 3.36 51.10 37.61 2 76 51.10 0.51 100.54 0
3.38 28.17 58.34 3 111 14.09 0.54 26.08 0 3.28 26.91 34.35 2 76 26.91 0.46 57.96 0
4.47 5.12 34.37 3 111 2.56 0.32 8.05 0 4.48 5.14 28.08 2 76 5.14 0.38 13.54 0
3.78 54.72 54.43 3 111 27.36 0.50 54.29 0 3.73 53.63 41.77 2 76 53.63 0.56 94.99 0
2.24 21.93 53.19 3 111 10.97 0.49 22.27 0 2.36 20.16 34.57 2 76 20.16 0.47 43.15 0
3.92 1.55 34.67 3 111 0.78 0.32 2.41 1 3.99 0.55 30.74 2 76 0.55 0.42 1.32 1
4.16 23.01 83.09 3 111 11.50 0.77 14.95 0 3.83 0.27 72.80 2 76 0.27 0.98 0.28 1
2.56 107.46 23.73 3 111 53.73 0.22 244.53 0 1.85 0.62 11.90 2 76 0.62 0.16 3.83 1
3.37 162.12 24.87 3 111 81.06 0.23 351.95 0 4.06 51.73 17.36 2 76 51.73 0.23 220.45 0
2.80 232.87 34.26 3 111 116.43 0.32 367.08 0 3.44 131.42 24.71 2 76 131.42 0.33 393.64 0
4.50 18.18 26.54 3 111 9.09 0.25 36.99 0 4.27 8.28 23.06 2 76 8.28 0.31 26.56 0
3.97 23.21 38.65 3 111 11.60 0.36 32.43 0 4.06 20.55 26.81 2 76 20.55 0.36 56.72 0
4.26 5.16 30.82 3 111 2.58 0.29 9.04 0 4.24 5.14 21.27 2 76 5.14 0.29 17.88 0
3.04 79.96 63.63 3 111 39.98 0.59 67.85 0 2.63 48.03 31.64 2 76 48.03 0.43 112.33 0
4.13 15.22 40.85 3 111 7.61 0.38 20.12 0 4.27 10.69 16.86 2 76 10.69 0.23 46.92 0
3.03 110.57 28.66 3 111 55.29 0.27 208.35 0 3.54 48.64 22.94 2 76 48.64 0.31 156.88 0
4.11 34.13 36.50 3 111 17.06 0.34 50.49 0 4.00 32.61 17.88 2 76 32.61 0.24 134.93 0
2.50 113.26 58.51 3 111 56.63 0.54 104.52 0 2.69 102.27 22.44 2 76 102.27 0.30 337.20 0
3.94 16.69 22.10 3 111 8.34 0.20 40.78 0 3.76 10.13 17.19 2 76 10.13 0.23 43.59 0
2.57 303.85 16.59 3 111 151.92 0.15 988.81 0 2.92 267.19 5.93 2 76 267.19 0.08 3333.7 0
3.52 37.67 24.15 3 111 18.83 0.22 84.22 0 3.74 26.01 12.71 2 76 26.01 0.17 151.39 0
3.82 19.44 34.24 3 111 9.72 0.32 30.66 0 4.12 0.19 19.43 2 76 0.19 0.26 0.72 1
P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731

3.57 202.88 24.91 3 111 101.44 0.23 439.87 0 3.36 198.23 14.99 2 76 198.23 0.20 978.43 0
3.73 183.77 32.42 3 111 91.89 0.30 306.05 0 3.21 135.45 29.16 2 76 135.45 0.39 343.77 0
1.91 27.16 30.15 3 111 13.58 0.28 48.64 0 1.79 22.99 13.49 2 76 22.99 0.18 126.12 0
3.59 29.46 53.25 3 111 14.73 0.49 29.88 0 3.47 27.36 40.18 2 76 27.36 0.54 50.39 0
3.61 17.28 29.72 3 111 8.64 0.28 31.39 0 3.48 12.47 20.17 2 76 12.47 0.27 45.74 0
2.46 19.50 50.89 3 111 9.75 0.47 20.70 0 2.17 0.69 44.01 2 76 0.69 0.59 1.15 1
1.94 8.98 27.55 3 111 4.49 0.26 17.60 0 2.13 1.09 16.51 2 76 1.09 0.22 4.91 0
Table 4
ANOVAs 3 and 4 (significance level a = 0.05).
ANOVA 3 (stakeholders 1 and 3) Fa, n I, I 1 = 3.98 ANOVA 4 (stakeholders 2 and 3) Fa, n I, I 1 = 3.98
X SSTR SSE I n MSTR MSE f f<F X SSTR SSE I n MSTR MSE f f<F
3.39 23.61 41.91 2 69 23.61 0.63 37.75 0 2.89 89.81 34.10 2 77 89.81 0.45 197.54 0
4.45 7.07 18.81 2 69 7.07 0.28 25.16 0 3.70 88.98 21.48 2 77 88.98 0.29 310.76 0
4.30 4.31 18.18 2 69 4.31 0.27 15.89 0 3.70 56.29 36.82 2 77 56.29 0.49 114.67 0
3.18 21.64 37.39 2 69 21.64 0.56 38.77 0 2.30 7.88 17.76 2 77 7.88 0.24 33.31 0
4.08 0.34 18.34 2 69 0.34 0.27 1.24 1 3.87 1.62 54.90 2 77 1.62 0.73 2.21 1
4.03 0.56 28.29 2 69 0.56 0.42 1.32 1 3.59 22.04 39.09 2 77 22.04 0.52 42.29 0
4.13 0.17 12.20 2 69 0.17 0.18 0.95 1 3.31 45.65 35.23 2 77 45.65 0.47 97.18 0
3.13 13.97 44.07 2 69 13.97 0.66 21.24 0 3.73 1.62 38.26 2 77 1.62 0.51 3.17 1
4.59 1.55 11.31 2 69 1.55 0.17 9.20 0 4.33 0.93 29.35 2 77 0.93 0.39 2.38 1
4.22 8.45 18.20 2 69 8.45 0.27 31.12 0 3.38 18.49 48.88 2 77 18.49 0.65 28.37 0
2.45 12.46 28.24 2 69 12.46 0.42 29.57 0 1.93 0.62 43.56 2 77 0.62 0.58 1.07 1
3.85 0.21 24.01 2 69 0.21 0.36 0.58 1 3.93 1.51 14.59 2 77 1.51 0.19 7.76 0
4.29 18.66 35.26 2 69 18.66 0.53 35.45 0 4.35 16.29 58.11 2 77 16.29 0.77 21.03 0
2.87 84.25 15.43 2 69 84.25 0.23 365.85 0 2.96 79.33 20.14 2 77 79.33 0.27 295.44 0
2.62 26.10 21.89 2 69 26.10 0.33 79.90 0 3.44 159.67 10.50 2 77 159.67 0.14 1140.5 0
1.82 6.21 24.81 2 69 6.21 0.37 16.77 0 3.14 200.83 19.00 2 77 200.83 0.25 792.89 0
4.45 17.60 14.58 2 69 17.60 0.22 80.85 0 4.78 2.36 15.44 2 77 2.36 0.21 11.46 0
3.66 0.99 19.13 2 69 0.99 0.29 3.48 1 4.18 12.32 31.36 2 77 12.32 0.42 29.47 0
4.15 1.88 23.93 2 69 1.88 0.36 5.26 0 4.41 0.69 16.44 2 77 0.69 0.22 3.17 1
2.85 71.79 44.68 2 69 71.79 0.67 107.66 0 3.65 3.90 50.95 2 77 3.90 0.68 5.74 0
3.88 0.01 33.61 2 69 0.01 0.50 0.01 1 4.26 11.41 31.22 2 77 11.41 0.42 27.42 0
2.38 8.94 15.34 2 69 8.94 0.23 39.06 0 3.18 103.61 19.04 2 77 103.61 0.25 408.21 0
3.84 16.91 32.56 2 69 16.91 0.49 34.79 0 4.49 1.97 22.56 2 77 1.97 0.30 6.55 0
1.83 6.21 42.75 2 69 6.21 0.64 9.73 0 2.99 56.95 51.83 2 77 56.95 0.69 82.41 0
3.86 14.92 11.01 2 69 14.92 0.16 90.78 0 4.22 0.77 16.00 2 77 0.77 0.21 3.61 1
1.46 11.88 11.85 2 69 11.88 0.18 67.17 0 3.33 164.13 15.40 2 77 164.13 0.21 799.25 0
3.13 0.04 17.26 2 69 0.04 0.26 0.17 1 3.71 28.65 18.33 2 77 28.65 0.24 117.23 0
3.65 12.17 24.79 2 69 12.17 0.37 32.89 0 3.70 17.01 24.26 2 77 17.01 0.32 52.59 0
P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731

2.88 88.89 23.86 2 69 88.89 0.36 249.63 0 4.49 17.74 10.96 2 77 17.74 0.15 121.36 0
3.33 146.07 21.34 2 69 146.07 0.32 458.66 0 4.66 1.11 14.35 2 77 1.11 0.19 5.79 0
2.25 0.62 20.70 2 69 0.62 0.31 2.02 1 1.70 15.94 26.11 2 77 15.94 0.35 45.80 0
3.36 16.23 27.01 2 69 16.23 0.40 40.26 0 3.96 1.02 39.31 2 77 1.02 0.52 1.94 1
3.88 0.00 20.27 2 69 0.00 0.30 0.00 1 3.48 12.63 19.00 2 77 12.63 0.25 49.86 0
2.65 10.49 25.95 2 69 10.49 0.39 27.10 0 2.56 18.11 31.83 2 77 18.11 0.42 42.68 0
1.79 3.34 24.56 2 69 3.34 0.37 9.11 0 1.91 8.90 14.04 2 77 8.90 0.19 47.56 0
727
728 Greater
P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731
Importance
Lesser
Phase 5: Closure
Project Consultancy
Sequence of the Construction Development of the Testing
project Period (Simulation of different
scenarios)
I II
Fig. 5. Value curves of Phase 5: project completion.
In the context of the present study, the construction pro-
jects follow the same pattern: project quality is close to the
Promoter’s interests but the project does not clearly define
all the aspects that the construction firm considers relevant.
Thus, during the execution phase the builder must specify
and fully determine certain aspects that were only superfi-
cially indicated in the project. This fact has two conse-
quences: the construction firm assumes project design
functions not corresponding to it and the control of the
builder’s activities is lower than it should be during project
execution.
In the phase of project completion (Fig. 5) is when the
highest loss of value of the project document occurs. The
Promoter is interested in proving that what has been built
works (Item II) and meets its client’s needs (Item III), and
then it needs fully defined project documents for the correct
exploitation of what has been built (Item IV).
In this last project phase it is important for the construc-
tion firm to test and check the end product, to deliver the
product to the Promoter and to finish the contractual
relationship.
In the project completion phase little importance is usu-
ally given to revision and feedback of the projected prod-
uct, probably due to inadequate management of the
partial delivery times, which results in an overlapping
between the end of a project and the starting of a new
one.
Items I, IV and V related to using feedback for future
projects (Garsden, 1994) are at low levels. The project
should always count with an adequate final phase of pro-
ject completion that included project revisions in order to
improve future results and expectations (Pulaski and Hor-
man, 2005).
In “design and build” contracts, one of the three stake-
holders does not exist (usually the project consultancy) and
his curve of value does not exist in the strategy canvas
either. The curve of the Stakeholder that assumes the func-
tions of the stakeholder that does not exist (generally the
Construction firm Promoter / Administration
Verification of the Initial Project as Built Lesson learnt
Hypotheses
III IV V
construction firm), have, for every item, the most restrictive
expectation (the higher punctuation) of both curves of
value that now he represents: his habitual curve and the
role who has substituted.
7. Discussion
The most important conclusions that can be drawn from
the analysis of the value curves have been discussed above
during the description of the value curves of the different
project phases, with particular attention to Spanish con-
struction projects.
Additionally, we can mention two other relevant obser-
vations. First, the sections and aspects of the construction
project document are defined and specified to meet the
interests of the financing agent rather than to elaborate a
well-balanced project. Great efforts are made to meet the
quality needs of the Promoter whereas the items only rele-
vant for the construction firm are poorly defined in the pro-
ject document.
The consequences of all this is that certain areas of the
project are resolved by the construction firm itself in the
absence of a sufficiently defined project. Paradoxically
enough, although the construction firm allocates more
resources to overcome the lack of information, its benefits
may even be higher since the control of the other two
agents decreases during the phase of project execution.
As a result, the budgetary distribution varies in the detri-
ment of the Promoter.
Secondly, there is no feedback during the project life
cycle in its final phase.
Research in the field of knowledge management indi-
cates that most of the Knowledge existing in this field
resides in the minds of construction experts (Pulaski and
Horman, 2005). The “As-built” project and the effective
use of this experience in a form suitable for sharing with
the members of the project organization and the other par-
ticipants in the process should serve to anticipate future
 P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731
requirements and thus better meet the interests of all the
agents.
The opportunity of change lies precisely in this last
consequence: feedback capabilities. Rather than trying to
reduce the differences in the value curves of the agents,
the project should provide a detailed description of the dif-
Score of the item Importance (%) Frequency
1 0–20 Never
2 20–40 Hardly ever
3 40–60 Regularly
4 60–80 Almost always
5 80–100 Always
ferent aspects of the construction project accordingly to the
specific interests of each stakeholder. In other words, the
project document should represent a higher conceptual step
that incorporates the needs of the three key stakeholders
involved in the process.
In this final phase of the project is when the mistakes
made, the undefined aspects or the deviations from the
agents’ initial interests become more evident; therefore
it is important not to extend something apparently final-
ized and to avoid as much as possible starting a new
project before assimilating the feedback for use in future
works.
Appendix A. Annex 1: questionnaire
A.1. Introduction
The Universidad Politécnica of Valencia is developing a
study on valuation that includes the key stakeholders
involved in the design, planning and execution of construc-
tion projects in Spain. The term “project” includes from
the design and planning of the project document to the exe-
cution of the facilities.
You have received the questionnaire because you belong
to one of the three main agents involved in the construction
project management process, namely an engineer of the
administration (or private Promoter), a Project Engineer,
or an engineer of a construction firm.
The aim of the present questionnaire is that you, on
behalf of the interests and functions of the agent you
represent (administration/Promoter, design firm or con-
struction firm) and ONLY yours, valuate a set of items
(using a scale from 1 to 5) according to the relative impor-
tance of each item in the construction project management
and operation process.
Please indicate whether you have previous experience as
one of the other agents of the process. Try to omit this
experience in your analysis so that your answers ONLY
represent the particular interests of the agent you are cur-
rently working for. This is crucial to avoid biased results
in the subsequent statistical data analysis.
729
A.2. Items
The items are grouped into five groups that represent the
phases of definition, design and operation of the construc-
tion project. Please rate each item from 1 to 5. The scoring
scale corresponds to the following intervals:
Quality Need Detail
None None Negligible
Low Low Low
Moderate Moderate Moderate
High High High
Very high Crucial Very high
Below is a description of the five groups and the items in
roman numerals. Please carefully read the instructions of
the set of items in a group before scoring the item. At the
end you will find an answer sheet to write down your answers.
Here is a detailed description of the meaning of the
items. Although the checklist of items could be more com-
prehensive, we consider that it suffices to correctly define
an ideal construction project.
A.2.1. Group 1: study of alternatives
Item I. Multidimensional analysis of reality. It involves
the technical, economic, physical, environmental, social,
legal and political study of reality. As an illustration this
item may include from the State of the Art of technology,
pre-studies in the area, interviews to local people, study of
future demographic changes, and so on. It is a complex and
varied item.
Item II. Constraints. It consists of calibrating the condi-
tioning factors, constraints and opportunities of the multidi-
mensional analysis of reality, and listing them on the project
documents for further consideration during project design.
Item III. Comprehensive definition of the problem or
need. It defines the problem and tries to understand the
problem setting. The object of the project should be re-
defined using the new data.
Item IV. Simplifying hypotheses. After the formulation
of the problem, the initial hypotheses of the real world
are simplified to allow the use of standard analysis tools,
models and techniques.
Item V. Feasible and optimal alternatives. It consists of
performing estimations on the options that allow the mate-
rialization of the construction that best solves the project
needs.
Item VI. Alternative analysis and comparison. It consists
of comparing alternatives previously selected using the
appropriate tool, for example, discrete multicriteria deci-
sion analysis (MCDA). The decision analysis models and
tools should be justified now in the documents.
Item VII. Justified selection of the best alternative. It con-
sists of evaluating the potential alternatives by describing
their advantages and disadvantages.
730 P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731
A.2.2. Group 2: pre-definition
Item I. Definition of the setting (multimathematical car-
tography). It indicates the need for processing the data
about the future construction setting for further use during
project execution. It consists mainly of the mapping of the
site as well as of all non-graphical data collected at earlier
stages.
Item II. General view (of the set need-requirements-solu-
tion). It defines the goal and scope of the project, which
provides a general view of the project or need and the goals
to achieve with the project.
Item III. Calculations. It includes the different calcula-
tion techniques and tools that provide the specific data pre-
sented in the detailed project documents.
Item IV. Traceability of the calculation sequence. It indi-
cates the sequence followed in the calculations of a partic-
ular project, both in the individual calculation documents
and in the general document, which will allow us to under-
stand certain conclusions.
Item V. Summary and conclusions of the calculations. It
reflects how the physical reality of the projected work will
be in relation to the calculations performed.
A.2.3. Group 3: definition
Item I. Functionality and functionality limits. For the
selected solution, indicate how it fits to the pre-established
functionality requirements and in which situations it is no
longer useful or it is not clear that it will work (out-of-
range values, non-considered scenarios, and so on).
Item II. Obsolescence conditions. It provides an estima-
tion of the maturity date of the product as well as a descrip-
tion of the situations in which the project object would be
out of service because it is no longer profitable or for any
other reason. This item is fairly vague because it works
with hypotheses difficult to anticipate.
Item III. Geometry (planes). It comprises the detailed
geometrical description of the works.
Item IV. Detail engineering. It includes highly specialized
studies necessary for the correct operation of the project.
Item V. Legal and contractual factors (of the construc-
tion project). They define the procedural approach
involved in the construction project management process
and the contractual relationships between the Promoter
and the builder.
Item VI. Integrated approach. All aspects of the project
are presented in a comprehensive manner. When a facility
is built, each of the elements involved in the process is
affected by different conditioning factors that must be con-
sidered jointly. An illustration of a non-comprehensive
approach is to describe preventive or environmental factors
in separate documents.
Item VII. Budgetary factors (execution, exploitation and
maintenance). The correct distribution of the budget
involves a high control over the execution of the works
and also a good description of what is to be built. The bud-
get should be at least distributed as required by the builder
for supplier bidding. Additionally, the budget should con-
sider not only the execution of the works but also the esti-
mation of the maintenance and service life costs of the
constructed facilities. The correct distribution of the budget
facilitates control over the construction firm.
Item VIII. Future optional project extensions. It consists
of a document that at least briefly presents optional actions
that would improve the construction in the future or during
project execution. This involves substantial savings in the
future.
A.2.4. Group 4: control of project execution
Item I. Definition of the technical specifications. Prior to
project execution the quality requirement of the different
components should be indicated, specifying the maximum
and minimum operational values.
Item II. Building approach. It includes the way of execut-
ing the construction works in terms of the materials and
human resources available. It should be defined in a way
that any builder with knowledge on the basic building tech-
niques could be capable of executing the project only with
the help of the project documents.
Item III. Study of interferences. It studies the interfer-
ences in the services affected by the works, e.g. traffic diver-
sions, current operation, environmental resources managed
by public and private organizations, and so on. Any aspect
affected by the construction of the works should be indi-
cated in the project documents.
Item IV. Studies of project coordination effectiveness. It
might be interesting to coordinate different construction
projects to optimize resources. It is not necessary that the
projects be similar in nature although they should allow
for interaction so that all agents involved in the construc-
tion process obtain benefits.
Item V. Waste disposal. Planning the way to dispose of
the waste generated during the construction works.
Item VI. Work planning. It involves planning and
describing the works and resources, risks, tolerances, etc.
It should include permit and expropriation management
procedures, minimization and correction of interferences,
power and space resources necessary for the execution of
the construction works, etc.
Item VII. Protocol of hazardous and specialized works.
Hazardous works or complex works requiring special
attention should follow a protocol to minimize failures or
accidents.
Item VIII. Quality control plan. Detailed planning of all
aspects related to the quality of the works.
Item IX. Estimation of indirect costs. At this stage the
level of knowledge of the project should allow the estima-
tion of the indirect costs of construction. The current
method is to use cost percentages that are justified later
during the execution of the works, but previous managerial
experience could serve to provide more accurate estimates.
Item X. Anticipation of the evolution of the certifications.
As a consequence of an adequate and detailed planning of
the costs for budget distribution, not only for the Promoter
but also for the construction firm.
 P.B. Pérez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731
A.2.5. Group 5: project completion
Item I. Construction project plan. It is equivalent to pro-
ject traceability during the phase of project construction. It
is convenient to write down the steps followed to design the
project because this would allow a deeper knowledge of the
project itself and thus solve future problems caused by
errors or omissions and even favour future systematic pro-
ject design. This Item should also include the modifications
taking place during the execution of the works.
Item II. Project testing and checking (simulation of
different settings). The procedure to check whether the con-
structed facilities meet the technical specifications indicated
in the project. When something is tested to check whether it
works adequately it is not enough to check that it works
under certain optimal conditions but that it works when
the conditions are less favourable and the estimated param-
eters reach the limit values.
Item III. Verification of the initial hypotheses. It is related
to the previous item. Checking that the initial hypotheses
are correct or close to the real world is necessary; otherwise
the modelling process could be erroneous and then the
behaviour of the modelled element might not be what
expected.
Item IV. “As-built” project. The “As-built” project has
modifications, changes, adjustments and negative experi-
ences during the execution process.
Item V. Feedback capabilities. Any feedback resulting
from a Project should be documented so that all agents
involved in the process may learn from it. To check what
failed and what worked correctly can be considered valu-
able information in the future.
References
Austin, S., Baldwin, A., Newton, A., 1996. A data flow model to plan and
manage the building design process. Journal of Engineering Design 7
(1), 3–25.
Chan, P.C., Scott, D., Chan, A., 2004. Factors affecting the success of a
construction project. Journal of Construction and Engineering and
Management (ASCE) 130 (1), 153–155.
Chang, A., Chiu, S., 2005. Nature of engineering consulting projects.
Journal of Management in Engineering (ASCE) 21 (4), 179–188.
Chinyio, E.A., Olomolaiye, P.O., Corbett, P., 1998. An evaluation of the
project needs of UK building clients. International Journal of Project
Management 16 (6), 385–391.
de la Cruz, M.P., del Caño, A., de la Cruz, E., 2006. Downside risks in
construction projects developed by the civil service. the case of spain.
Journal of Construction and Engineering and Management (ASCE)
132 (8), 844–852.
View publication stats
731
Drucker, P., 2001. Essential Drucker. Butterworth-Heinemann, United
Kingdom, 275 pp.
Drucker, P., 2002. The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review
80 (8), 95–101.
Fernández, A., 2005. Creatividad e Innovación en empresas y organizac-
iones. Ediciones Dı́as de Santos, Madrid, 280 pp.
Garsden, B.R., 1994. Postconstruction evaluation. Journal of Construc-
tion and Engineering and Management (ASCE) 121 (1), 37–42.
Huovila, P., Serén, K.J., 1998. Customer-oriented design methods for
construction projects. Journal of Engineering Design 9 (3), 225–238.
James, D., Robinson, L., 2003. Clients versus contractor perspectives on
project success criteria. International Journal of Project Management
23 (8), 622–629.
Kathleen, M., Harmon, M.J., 2003. Conflicts between owner and
contractors: proposed intervention process. Journal of Management
in Engineering (ASCE) 19 (3), 121–125.
Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 1997. Value innovation: the strategic logic of
high growth. Harvard Business Review 75 (1), 102–112.
Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 1999. Creating a new market space. Harvard
Business Review 77 (1), 83–93.
Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 2002. Charting your company’s future.
Harvard Business Review 80 (6), 76–83.
Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 2004. Blue-Ocean Strategy: How to Create
Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant. Har-
vard Business School Publishing Corporation, USA, 288 pp.
Leonard, D., Rayport, J.F., 1997. Spark innovation through empathic
design. Harvard Business Review 75 (6), 102–114.
MacMillan, S., 2006. Added value of good design. Building Research and
Information 34 (3), 257–271.
Merchán, F., 2000. Manual para la Dirección integrada de Proyectos y
Obras. CIE Dossat 2000, Madrid, 432 pp.
Parfitt, M.K., Sanvido, V.E., 1993. Checklist of critical success factors for
building projects. Journal of Management in Engineering (ASCE) 9
(3), 243–249.
Pellicer, E., Sanz, A., Catalá, J., 2004. El proceso Proyecto-Construcción.
Aplicación a la Ingenierı́a Civil. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia,
Valencia, 488 pp.
Puddicombe, M.S., 1997. Designers and contractors: impediments to
integration. Journal of Construction and Engineering and Manage-
ment (ASCE) 123 (3), 245–252.
Pulaski, M.H., Horman, M.J., 2005. Organizing constructability knowl-
edge for design. Journal of Construction and Engineering and
Management (ASCE) 131 (1), 911–919.
Rui-Wamba, J., 1999. Las Empresas Consultoras. Revista OP. 48, 12–16.
SEOPAN, 2003. Construcción Informe Anual 2002. Ancop, Madrid, 376
pp.
Serpell, A., Fernando, L., 1998. Construction process improvement
methodology for construction projects. International Journal of
Project Management 16 (4), 215–221.
Shing-Tao, A., 2002. Reasons for cost and schedule increase for
engineering design projects. Journal of Management in Engineering
(ASCE) 18 (1), 29–36.
Tommy, Y., Fung, I., Tung, K., 2006. Construction delays in Hong Kong
civil engineering projects. Journal of Construction and Engineering
and Management (ASCE) 132 (7), 636–649.