Introduction
Value Management
Value management can be defined as a structured process, with the participation of key stakeholders, which seeks to maximize the value for money for any particular project subject to resource constraints. It also seeks to enhance service delivery to the clients without compromising on quality and, at the same time, using the lowest possible costs on the total project. The process gives both the internal and external stakeholders the opportunity to dialogue. They come to an agreement as to what constitutes value and in that way enabling the organization to achieve one of its stated objectives of minimizing costs (‘Institute of Value Management’ 2001).
It involves an examination of the functions of the project as a whole and comes up with possible alternatives to achieving them. Out of the possible alternatives, one could select the most efficient way of achieving the desired functions while optimally using the resources available.
Consequently, it helps organizations, corporations, and governments to make savings on cost (Miga solutions 2012). Behind the theory of value, management is the assumption that there is always more than one solution to a given problem and that it is always important to examine all of them in order to come up with the most efficient.
Value management studies utilize workshops, which incorporate all the key stakeholders of the group. They include project teams, technical experts, community representatives, and other stakeholders under the guidance of an independent facilitator. The method further utilizes the various expertise possessed by the participants.
However, it is crucial to draw a difference between value management and value engineering or what is sometimes referred to as the job plan. Value engineering is concerned with achieving a given function at the minimum possible costs. The underlying assumption is that function is an objective measurable parameter waiting to be identified. It further assumed that all possible design options provide the same level of function implying that, their suitability can be assessed on the basis of cost alone (Miga solutions 2012)
On the other hand, value management is concerned with determining what value means to the end-user in a particular context. This is achieved by bringing all the stakeholders together to deliberate and agree on the project’s objectives. These are used to evaluate the design solutions which are generated and ensure that they conform to the pre-determined objectives.
The following are the underlying assumptions of value engineering: that clients are homogenous and are able to identify objectives that are both consistent and transitive, that any design has an innate function which is waiting to be identified, that design problems exist in contexts which are not dynamic.
There are four stages in the value management studies namely: the pre-workshop planning or the orientation and diagnostic stage, workshop, post-workshop, and post-study (Global Value Management 2002). In the pre-workshop stage, the value manager identifies the participants of the workshop, identifies the venue, collects and disseminates important information to the participants, and also prepares the facilitation process to guide the deliberations at the workshops. In the workshop stage, the value manager identifies the scope of the study and the desired outcomes. He informs the participants on criteria to measure the success of the outcome and also helps the participants to come up with multiple suggestions to improve value.
In the post-workshop phase, the value manager prepares a report based on the findings which are generated at the workshop stage. They are submitted to the client to aid him in arriving at the decision. At the post-study stage, the findings are implemented in the project.
Types of Value Management
According to ‘Project Reference Group’ (2009), there are two types of value management namely: strategic value management and compliance value management.
Strategic Value Management
Strategic value management involves a group of participants drawn from different fields and representing the various stakeholders that have an interest in the project. The outcomes of this project are varying quality proposals and solutions. The very important point of this value management takes place before the design brief has been formulated. It guides the rest of the process in terms of objectives (Project Reference Group 2009).
It also aims at critiquing the underlying assumptions of the project and evaluates the impact of each of the alternatives beyond the environment of influence of the project. The greatest benefit of strategic value management is achieved when it is incorporated in the preliminary stages of the study. The length and the duration of the study are determined by the length and complexity of the project under review.
Compliance Value Management
This is undertaken if objectives and the external factors have changed. Some factors which could have changed include customers’ preferences, assumptions underlying the study, alternatives, and the funding.
When these factors are changed, it calls for a revisit to the study to evaluate functions in order to come up with value for money alternatives with a view to maximizing benefits relative to cost. This could be achieved by; considering other options apart from construction e.g. leasing, examining the reasons behind the project and evaluating them in order to check on their relevance, and evaluating the risks with a view of establishing whether it is worthwhile to proceed with the project.
Advantages of Value Management
According to the ‘Total Asset Management’ (2004), value management helps the participants to have a better grasp of the information regarding the needs of the project as well as the functions necessary to fulfill these needs. Also, it also helps the participants to understand the purpose and the objectives of the project under review.
Also, it helps to better define the criteria or the standards that will be used to evaluate value. Value management is also important as it helps in prudent and economical use of resources to avoid unnecessary costs. It is an important tool as it helps in cutting down on the capital requirement of the project at the acquisition stage as well as during the life of the project.
By its nature, value management also helps in improving the overall efficiency of the project because it concentrates on, and amplifies the primary functions. Since value management utilizes a group to achieve its objectives, it helps in providing an environment of mutual understanding. Pursuant to that, it seeks to reduce issues that could cause misunderstandings.
Teamwork also helps to create a sense of ownership regarding the project as well as the solutions suggested. In addition, teams are also very instrumental in coming up with creative new ideas that otherwise would not have been raised. Value management also helps the participants since it broadens their skills and knowledge. When properly carried out, it helps them in reducing the time taken to carry out the project.
Risk Management and Value Management
According to ‘Office of Government Commerce’ (2003), risk management and value management are complementary and thus should be carried outside by side. In any project; the element of risk should never be overlooked. The success of any project depends on how well the risks are managed.
While value management is concerned with the best way of achieving a business need, risk management is concerned with how risks arising from the solution can be managed in the entire life of the project. Risk management can be incorporated into the value management process where it can be used to assess the risks of the solutions proposed. The best solution will be the one that offers the best trade-off between value and risk (Green and Liu 2007).
Background Information
The purpose of the New cross-community center project is to provide leisure and recreation facilities to the residents of Old cross. Towards this end, it is designed to consist of a sports hall with badminton, volleyball, netball, and 5-aside soccer courts. This is aimed at facilitating the sporting activities of the end-users of the Old Cross.
Also, it incorporates a general multipurpose hall which will be used for martial arts activities. Just next to it will be changing rooms for both ladies and gentlemen. The complex will also include an indoor tennis court, with spectators sitting capacity of 100 people, and a store for the tennis equipment, cleaning equipment as well as other items that may require storage. The indoor tennis court should have changing rooms as well as an office for the coach just adjacent to it.
The project is also expected to provide fitness suites and a dance studio. Their purpose is to provide an area for fitness activities, aerobic activities, ballroom dancing as well as other similar activities. It should be fitted with good acoustic facilities as well as adjustable lights. The temperature should be regulated at a range of between 18 and 21 degrees and should have warm general lighting. The fitness center should also incorporate three televisions and monitors and should provide natural daylight. A first aid room should be provided as well as male and female changing rooms.
To provide further satisfaction to the end-user, the complex would also house a swimming pool hall with a 25m, 8-lane competition pool area, falling rapids, a poolside spa, disabled access to a selected area of the pool, a leisure water area as well as a beach area and leisure facilities. The hall should also provide a sitting area for casual spectators, a first aid room, and a changing village for both males and females. There was to be provided with a health suite whose details were yet to be provided by the leisure and recreation department.
There was also a suggestion that a café be provided within the complex. They had in mind a family-oriented facility adjacent to the swimming pool area and which would provide hot and cold drinks as well as snacks. One should be able to view the other entertainment areas of the complex via the monitors and also should have television transmission of sporting events. It was also envisaged that a small area is provided for the children to play as well as a restaurant having a good view of the tennis hall.
The project would also incorporate four small and three big meeting rooms, which can sometimes be used as dining rooms for certain functions or events. The meeting rooms should be well furnished with acoustic tile ceilings, carpeted floors, and plastered walls. The large meeting rooms would be fitted with multimedia projection as well as display equipment.
It was argued that since there lacked suitable accommodation in the neighborhood, the center would incorporate bedrooms. This should be up to standard and should provide comfort and good quality of service to the visitors.
To further enhance the facility, there was an idea to include staff accommodation. The accommodation should be accessed only through the controlled circulation area which would be inaccessible to the public. Under that, the administrative office would also be provided on the ground floor for the staff. A car park would also be provided so that those coming to the center could have a place to keep their vehicles, thereby providing added value to them.
It was also agreed that the complex would adhere to certain standards which would include; disabled access to all the public areas with the only exceptions being to the areas considered risky like the swimming pool, falling rapids, etc. To these, end doors would be fitted with long and low handles and with a kick plate on push elevation. Moreover, all steps would have adjacent ramps and very steep gradients would be avoided. It was also proposed that the project would adhere to the relevant regulations relating to the construction. A compliance report is supposed to be submitted to the leisure and recreation department on completion of the project.
It was also considered crucial to include emergency equipment and alarms in construction. The complex would be fitted with; CCTV systems, fire alarms, security alarms as well a lightning protection system. All this would be done by the relevant regulations governing it.
To ensure security, it was suggested that the leisure center would have only one access. Also, customers would be issued with security devices that allow them to access the pool area. Also, three receptionists would at all times man the entrance and they would have control of the CCTV camera as well as the alarm systems. Also, a barrier system would be incorporated at the entrance of the car park, with the entrance only allowed to those who have the security device. A CCTV surveillance system would also have a good view of the entire car parking area.
The center would have security lighting incorporated throughout the building. Tree layout of the external landscape should take into consideration that they do not hinder the CCTV surveillance.
The total cost of the project would be 14284667.70 against an available capital of 9050000. However, the key weakness in the preparation of this design brief is that we felt that some very key stakeholders, particularly the end-users, were not involved in the identification of the needs. The initial stages had only the Newtown council and the various groups that were giving the grants.
The Value Management Study Agenda
The objectives of the value management study on the new cross-community center were on cutting down on the cost of the project and enhancing the benefits to the end-users as well as the other stakeholders. To achieve this, it was found necessary to carry out the value management study. This would provide a forum where all the stakeholders would converge to create consensus on what constitutes value and come up with the way forward. Again, by enhancing the value of the project, it would benefit our client in the long run as it would result in having more customers as they would be getting good value for their money.
Methodology
The methodology which we identified for this project is value management. As explained earlier, there are differences in the way value management and value engineering are carried out. However, it would be erroneous to assume that they are two different processes. Value engineering can be seen as a subset of the wider concept of value management. When faced with a somewhat vague and dynamic project, it is prudent to use value management but when faced with a well defined and technical project, it is preferable to use value engineering.
Therefore, it can be seen that when faced with a design brief that is not very clear and the objectives are hazy, it is best to start with the value management approach, and when the objectives have been fine-tuned, the process of value engineering can be applied. Furthermore, it can be seen that client participation in value management is much greater than in value engineering where it is expected that the participation of technical experts and construction managers would be greater. In value management, it is mainly about the clients explaining what ‘value’ means to them, while in value engineering; they are likely to employ economic analysis techniques such as internal rate of return and life cycle costing. Therefore, while value engineering is about building efficiently, value management is about improving the efficiency of dissemination of information (Green n. d.)
Orientation and Diagnostic Stage or the Pre-Workshop
The main purpose of this stage is to collect information, analyze it as well as seeking clarifications, and exploring appropriate ways of proceeding with the study.
Firstly, we identified the objectives or the agendas for the workshops and also the venue for the workshops. This was informed by the three major inputs of value management as identified by the experts which include; interviewing the key stakeholders, selecting the relevant participants, and procuring support documentation. We also agreed in our group that the whole period of value management study would be 15 to 20 days, with a two-week break before the actual workshop. This phase was further subdivided into two phases namely: the information gathering stage and evaluation stage. The information stage would take 10 to 15 days and the evaluation stage would take 5 to 10 days.
Male and Kelly (2007) observe that it is important to determine the degree of independence of the value manager. This would ultimately determine the control as well as influence the value manager has on the group.
In the design brief, we had background interviews where we gathered information from Mr. Raymond Mackenzie who is the Newtown council chief executive, Mr. Archie Fleming who is the Director in charge of Leisure and recreation, Mr. Alistair Riley the project architect, Dr. Jamie Macdonald who is the community medical officer, and finally, Mr. Keith Bennet the director of housing.
Background interviews are important because they help to identify strategic issues and in setting agendas for the workshops. They also help one to know the underlying politics that could influence the outcome of the study and it helps in identifying personalities and group dynamics.
We also identified the relevant participants for the workshop, which we ranked in order of priority. This was informed by the need to avoid locking out important and influential stakeholders.
As outlined in our group presentation, we had an initial list of 29 participants who we analyzed in terms of their relative importance and influence. This helped us to come up with a list of 15 participants. To help us to select the participants, we classified them into four groups using the stakeholder power and influence matrix. However, we left out important stakeholders like the Council health and safety executive and disabled groups. They would have had a major input to make regarding the construction of easy disabled access.
Our important and influential participants included: the New town council, the sports council, the indoor tennis institute, the kempsie tennis club, the leisure, and recreation department, Archie Fleming, architect Alister Riley, and Keith Bennet.
Part of the reasons which guided our selection of the key participant is that stakeholders such as the Kempsey Tennis Club, Drug and Addiction Committee, Sports Council, The Lottery Commission, The Howarth Trust, The Indoor Tennis Initiative, and The NHS all formed part of the initial team that drafted the design brief of the project. Therefore, we agreed that they ought to be part of the deliberations that would take place at the workshop stage.
Memphis tennis club was selected because they were some of the financiers of the project. Moreover, the design of the complex had an indoor tennis center and we felt that their input would be required. Drugs and addiction committee was selected because they also formed part of the initial team that came up with the design, in addition to giving a grant. Also, we considered the sports council because they were also part of the facilitators of the project since they had given a grant. Moreover, since this project will be providing sporting activities, we felt that they would contribute constructively to the discussions.
The lottery commission, the Howarth trust, the indoor tennis initiative, and the NHS all were key contributors to the financial kitty that would be used to build the leisure and recreation center.
Keith Bennet was chosen because he had aggressively looked for funding for this project as well as the fact that he is the director of housing for the New Town council. We felt that his expertise could come in handy in this project. Architect Alister Riley was chosen as he is the one that developed the blueprint of the complex, therefore; he is a very important participant in the discussion.
Archie Fleming was selected as he is the director of leisure and recreation for the Newtown council. To ensure the success of this project, the director diverted money meant for the construction of a football project to this venture. Since the whole project is geared towards the provision of leisure and recreation facilities, we felt that he was a very important stakeholder.
In that group, we also incorporated the contractors and the construction society. Their inclusion was informed by the fact that once the blueprint for this project has been approved by the participants subject to the necessary modifications; it will then be forwarded to them for the construction work to commence. We also felt that it was important to incorporate the Local health area authority that would provide the end-user perspective to the discussions.
Another key group we felt we could not lockout of these discussions was the sports specialists and coaches. They would provide very important input regarding how the complex should be designed, what should be left out to avoid duplication, and such other issues that relate to the sports. We also allowed social workers to be part of this group because they would also act as the representatives of the customers who would be using the complex.
However, teams such as the local football club and fire officer were not included. The local football club was excluded partly because the project was not so much oriented towards football. The fire officer was also not included because we felt he was more or less represented by the architecture. Also, the council health and safety executive was not included as we felt that the Newtown council was represented by enough representatives. We also did not appoint the spectators into the group since we felt that they would be properly represented by the social workers. The same criterion was also applied for the Olympic athletes since they have already been represented by the sports council. The social people were also represented by social work people. The new residents and the young families were represented also by the social work people.
However, to make the team more inclusive, we added other eight participants who would bring more diversity to the group. They included; Keith Bennet, Architect Alister Riley, Archie Fleming, The Newtown Council, Contractors, and construction society, the Local Health area authority, Social work, and sports specialists, and coaches. According to Hammersley (2002), a team should be composed of representatives of all stakeholders, in addition to technical experts. As a group, we tried to abide by this principle and we came up with a group that was all-inclusive.
By and large, we tried to have a team that; would serve to improve the value of the project under review, would have a common realization of the needs of the project, and would have an understanding of the objectives of the project (‘Office of government commerce’ 2003). According to ‘Project Reference Group’ (2009), a group should consist of members who; have appropriate experience to participate in the study, have an influence on the outcome, and can operate in a group setting effectively and competently.
Also, the participant ought to be a genuine representative of the stakeholders that he represents, should have the mandate and ability to make decisions touching on the project, should have sufficient knowledge regarding the project, should have the willingness and ability to carry through all the stages of the study, and should have the willingness to learn new ideas.
According to the experts, a group of between 6 to 10 participants can work very well. However, when a group is bigger than that it becomes more difficult to manage. Nonetheless, we failed to consider group dynamics when we were doing the selection. A group of 15 participants is quite big and may prove to be very difficult to manage. When a group is big, it is important to divide it into smaller groups, say two, and assign them specific issues to tackle and later on bring them back together into one joint session.
Later in our group, we agreed to use functional analysis to bring to the fore the issues that needed to be analyzed. According to Bartolomei and Miller (1990), the Functional analysis system technique, also referred to as F.A.S.T, is used to analyze the activities into their respective component functions. Experts use this design to aid in system design and process improvement. This method is more appropriate for smaller groups. We also decided to use life cycle cost, which seeks to establish not only the acquisition cost but also the other elements of cost based on the expected life of the project (‘Central Unit on Procurement’ 1996).
Furthermore, we identified the following parameters to consider regarding the life cycle cost; capital cost, time, politics, environment impact, politics, exchange, esteem, and utility. They could help us to measure and prioritize the functions. We utilized the adjacency matrix to prioritize (‘Adjacency Analysis’ 2009). Thereafter, we did issues analysis and identified the following issues; risk, project concept, cost, politics, time, site, stakeholders, quality, safety and security, and design. We then prioritized those issues based on their relative importance.
In our group, we ranked the project design as the most important issue. However, looking into the design brief, we realize that the overriding objective of the New cross-community center project was to provide leisure and recreation facilities to the residents. Therefore, it ought to have been the highest-ranked issue as the project design is only incidental.
Again, some of the issues which we had put forward for consideration were not relevant for the value management. They include politics, project concept, and site. Also, risk ought to have been incorporated in the workshop and post-workshop stages as it can be used to analyze and assess the suitability of the proposals arrived at.
The selection of the right team helps in getting a winning value management strategy. Besides that, a team needs to have a fair representation of the community which will be affected by the project. There is a need also to have a group with the right mix of expertise, who can contribute positively and constructively to the project under review. More importantly, the team ought to incorporate key decision-makers who wield influence to speed the decision-making process.
The team was also able to have a design brief by the Newtown leisure and recreation committee of the project under review, which consists of general design notes, a schedule of accommodation, performance specifications, and the various expectations as agreed upon by some key stakeholders.
Documentation is important as it helps in the understanding of the information that needs to be considered. Initial documentation may include; outline drawings, design briefs, and performance specifications. This is important as it also helps in formulating the agendas for the workshops.
Strengths of Value Management
According to Crossley (2002), the strengths of this process of value management include identifying the politics that can come into play beforehand and formulating the appropriate responses to counteract them. Also, it makes use of teams consisting of individuals with different expertise which goes a long way in enriching the quality of the discussions at the workshop. It also helps in forming positive business and interpersonal relationships. The process also helps to dispel previously held misconceptions.
Weaknesses of Value Management
The downside of this process is that it may lead to unnecessary tensions and conflicts among the various stakeholders, especially if the person facilitating the proceedings is not skilled in managing human and group dynamics. Another problem with this approach is that it is too ‘mechanized and ordered’ in that the facilitator tries to handpick only those stakeholders who appeal to him with the possibility of locking out some potentially valuable stakeholders. This process could also fail to deliver on the desired outcomes especially if there is no one to champion the implementation of the same. There is also the possibility that the process could also result in resistance to change, particularly if the process is not commenced at the appropriate time.
Facilitator
To guide us in selecting the facilitator, we considered that he is the one that guides the participants in coming up with solutions for the issues under consideration. Also, he is involved in the initial stages of the formulation of the objectives of the study, he prepares the program of how the study will progress, informs the participants of the relevant issues of the meeting like the date and the venue among other issues (‘Project Reference Group’ 2009).
He also provides leadership on the proceedings of the workshop by; creating consensus should there be contentious issues among the participants, providing adequate information on the first day of the workshop, listening critically as the participants air out the view with the view to guiding them appropriately, helping the participants to be receptive to change and making sure that the group is functioning cohesively.
The facilitator is also charged with the responsibility of providing an enabling environment, where all the members are free to air out their views without fear. He should also explore other ways of achieving the objectives of the study should he realize that a particular method is not working. He should also stimulate the participants to come up with new solutions by guiding them.
Also, a good facilitator should have good communication skills, the ability to be able to tolerate irritable members of the group, and the ability to motivate members to achieve the objectives. He should also be self-confident and have a good sense of humor (De Leeuw 2001).
A facilitator should limit his control of the proceedings to situations where members become undisciplined or when members have to be stimulated to think along a new line. A facilitator should also step in when he realizes that some participants are not being ignored.
After the workshop, the facilitator ensures that the workshop report is prepared and presented to the client soonest possible. He helps the client to come up with a workable plan to achieve the objectives of the workshops. He may also be called up by the sponsor should his input regarding the outcome of the workshop be needed.
Venue
Deciding on the venue of the workshop is very important. First and foremost, the venue should be in an independent place, free from any manipulation by any of the stakeholders. It is preferable to rent out a conference facility. The room should be set out such that all the participants are visible.
The venue should also be able to cater for refreshment at the appropriate point of the workshop for instance, during lunchtime. It is also important to have rules of engagement at the venue, for example, a prohibition to use mobile phones during the proceedings. This should be done to ensure that the participants have an environment that is conducive to achieve the objectives of the study (De Leeuw 2001).
Workshop Phase
In the workshop phase, our group proposed a three days workshop with the participants as identified in the pre-workshop stage. However, owing to lack of time our team proposed that we have two days face to face meeting. Firstly, we could start by having all the participants in one group and briefing them on what the study was all about. Afterward, the participants could be split into two groups, each group tasked with looking into different specific issues of the project and later bringing the two groups together for a final plenary meeting (Saifulnizam 2010). To cut down on cost, and to avoid a lengthy workshop that could exceed the two days, we agreed on an e-workshop session where all the participants could interact via the internet after which they would have a workshop.
Ultimately, it was agreed that we could do a mix of an e-workshop and a traditional one at the end to agree on those issues which could not be thrashed out on the electronic platform (Male et.al, 2007). One day would be dedicated to an e-workshop, where all the participants would be briefed on the agendas for the workshop. The other two days would be dedicated for the face to face meetings where all participants would be present. It was agreed that brainstorming would be the most ideal way of generating responses from the participants because it would appear less intimidating. This would help in generating more responses, which could then be evaluated to find the most appropriate solutions (‘Project Management knowhow’ 2012).
The questions posed to the participants were; how could the cost of the project be minimized for our client? What modifications could be carried out on the design to make it more efficient and prove to be value for money to the end-user? Which issues need to be addressed and how could they be prioritized? How do we improve the value of the concept design to align with the project objectives? How well does the design of the project serve the purpose for which it was intended? (Central Unit on Procurement’ 1996).
According to Hammersley (2002), the following are the various stages of the workshop phase of value management. These are information, function analysis, speculation, evaluation, development, decision, and implementation.
Anticipated climate and culture of the workshop phase
Given the final list of the participants that we arrived at earlier, when we were selecting the participants, we expected that they would work harmoniously with each other. This is because they work in functions that complement one another. Also, a good facilitator was found who could help in building a good team spirit whereby, members could air out their views without fear.
It was also agreed that all members who had been appointed to the team should be encouraged to attend the meetings to enhance the generation of ideas. Furthermore, it was also agreed that the mode of operation of our group would be democratic where all members would be able to air out their views.
Information Stage
During this stage, the participants will be briefed on the overall project, its function the overall objective of its implementation, the procedure to be followed in our discussion, and what would be the priorities and the facilitator. At this point too, the participants will be informed about the constraining factors. The purpose is to ensure that all the participants are aware of the issues at hand. More importantly, the participants shall be subdivided into two groups for ease of proceedings, with each group being allocated specific issues to handle.
Function Analysis
At this stage, the various functions of the project will be broken down into their higher activities involved in their implementation. To achieve this, the group must understand what each part contributes, in terms of functions to the overall project. Some questions which will be asked include; what needs does the project fulfill? What must be provided by the project? How much does the provision of that need cost? What is the relative value of the need relative to its cost?
It is at this stage that functions will also be divided into core and subsidiary functions. Core functions are those functions that form the basis for the implementation of the project while subsidiary functions are those which support the core functions. Afterward, relative weightings based on what value the function contributes to the project are assigned to the various functions. This will form the basis of the decision which will be arrived at the decision stage.
This is meant to avoid duplication of functions and unnecessary wastage and to ensure that the overall intended purpose of the project is achieved. In the case of our project, the objective is to provide recreation facilities to the residents to enhance their health.
Another key tool that will be used in analyzing function is the function cost analysis. This seeks to analyze the function in terms of the cost incurred in achieving it. It must be remembered that value is the maximization of function while at the same time trying to reduce the cost. But we must not lose sight of the fact that value management seeks to maximize value, and that cost reduction is only incidental but not the primary goal.
Speculation and Creativity
In this stage, if the generation of new ideas will not have the likelihood of significantly affecting the value of the possible alternatives, their selection will proceed at this stage using a tool such as a decision matrix which utilizes the relative weights agreed upon at the initial stages of the workshop.
However, if coming up with new ideas will impact the selection of the options; the facilitator will allow the group to get into a session of generating new ideas. He may opt to use brainstorming as it is more effective and draws out many ideas as opposed to any other ideas. It is at this stage that the expertise of the facilitator will come into play especially if the participants will get to a point where they will need to be motivated to come up with new ideas. Another tool that could also be used is the guided debate.
After new ideas have been generated, the participants will proceed to rank the options as per the pre-agreed criteria. This is to ensure that the group concentrates on the best options and seeks ways of improving them.
Idea Development
At this stage, the participants will be split into two groups, with each group tasked with evaluating and assessing the technical aspects of particular options. The questions which will be asked at this stage are; in what another way can the function be achieved? What another part of the project can serve the same function? What are the cost implications of the alternatives? The ideas will be analyzed in terms of risks, environmental impacts, political consequences, and changes in the design of the project, among many other aspects. After they are through with the assessment, the groups will then report their findings at a joint meeting.
Decision Building
At this stage, the participants will scrutinize the remaining options to see what possible beneficial combinations could result from those options. Those combinations must take into account the principle of value and where possible, contribute to the reduction in the overall cost of the project. The options will be considered in terms of merits and demerits.
It is tempting at this stage to shy away from ideas that may require significant modification to the project design, as well as those ideas that add to the overall cost of the project even if those ideas may contribute significantly to value addition. Some methods which can be used to come up with the appropriate option include evaluation matrices. This utilizes criteria, which are assigned relative weightings. Options are then ranked in terms of the respective total weightings. This will form the basis for the evaluation of the options.
Implementation
At this stage, the participants will be subdivided into groups and given some particular aspects of the proposals arrived at in the decision building phase. They will then be given the criteria for assessing the proposals, the timelines, and the time to report to a plenary meeting where the decision will be formulated.
Outcomes of the Workshop
The overriding principles guiding our deliberations will be that the modifications should not adversely affect the functions of the community center project, looking at the cost constraints of the project, prudent use of the available space, and considering the needs of all the relevant stakeholders, in particular the end-users (Office of Government Commerce 2003). Some of the proposals that came about included having 5 large meeting rooms as opposed to having 3 large and 4 small meeting rooms. Part of the reasons to support this was that it would cut down on the cost considerably, without compromising on the quality of the function for which it was intended.
Another proposal put forward was to merge the General purpose hall with the indoor tennis center. We felt that this would cut down on the space used by these two areas as well as increase the spectator capacity for the martial arts by 100 spectators.
The fitness suite was also merged with the dance studio. This is because both the activities of the dance studio and the fitness suite can be brought together without compromising on the quality of either. By carrying out the proposals, we felt that we would have taken into consideration the cost as well as the prudent use of the space and at the same time providing the customers quality service.
Benefits of the Outcomes
The group was able to come up with proposals that served to reduce the overall cost of the project as well as utilization of the space in the most economical manner. The involvement of the various stakeholders drawn from the various backgrounds ensured the pooling of divergent ideas that contributed to the generation of new ideas. Also, since the participants represented the other stakeholders, this would go a long way in ensuring that there would be a sense of ownership by all the stakeholders. Having representatives from the various stakeholders ensured that decision making progressed faster.
According to Waterhouse (2007), the benefits which result from value management include avoiding duplication, reducing the appropriate use of resources, achieving the same objectives by identifying and removing unnecessary parts of the project, considering not only the cost of acquisition but also the whole life cost of the project and also using methods which are energy efficient.
Risks Evaluation
Evaluation of risk is a very important aspect of value management, especially during and after the workshop. This is primarily because the selection of options in itself is risky. In this project, the risk would arise since some stakeholders; especially those that gave grants could feel short-changed. Also, the designers of the project could feel as if their proposals are being watered down and therefore fail to cooperate in redesigning the project blueprint.
This can be managed by ensuring that all the relevant stakeholders, including the technical teams, are present so that they can be part of the deliberations and understand why the decisions are being made. After all, the objective of all the stakeholders is to have a workable project. Another risk to consider is the fact that all the new proposals necessitate a change of the center’s design, which had already been completed. There was a perception that these changes were coming in at a very late stage. Another key thing to consider is the likely impact of the new project on the environment and the community at large and the mitigating measures that could be undertaken to alleviate any risks.
Action Plan
After the workshop, an action plan will be prepared. This is a document that is prepared at the end of the workshop phase of value management. It contains a summary of the findings of the workshops, indicates the ideas that seem to carry the most benefits for value addition. Also, it identifies; what is needed to carry out the project; individuals who are expected to take care of certain aspects of the project and the deadlines for carrying them out; what needs to be done to facilitate the recommendations arising from the workshop stage; and ideas which require further considerations and assessment (‘Department of public works’ 2010).
Post Workshop Stage
At this stage, a report will be prepared to show the steps that were followed during the workshop stage and the various resolutions which arose from it. The report shows a detailed report of the proceedings and the reasons and justifications for the resolutions and recommendations adopted at the workshop. After the report has been prepared, it should be given to the participants first before being forwarded to the management.
Post Study
It is at this stage that the implementation of the project will take place. Successful implementation of the project depends on the apportioning of the requisite resources as well as giving the relevant team enough time to consider and evaluate the proposals, and later carry out the project.
On the other hand, the success of the value study is dependent on the following parameters; the facilitator who guides the workshop and who is instrumental in guiding the participants so that they can come up with workable solutions; having participants with a varying knowledge base and who will contribute positively and constructively in the project; developing a proper way of navigating the study from the initial stages to the final stage to ensure it complies with the objective of the study; and finally having a proper plan that details what need to be done at each stage of the study.
Conclusion
It can, therefore, be seen that value management when appropriately used can result in a lower cost to the financier as well as high-quality service to the customers. This is achievable because the study involves the inclusion of a wide range of participants representing the various stakeholders. These participants give feedback at the various stages of the study, which forms the basis of the alternatives that are arrived at. For our study, we were able to achieve considerable savings as well as better satisfaction to the customers.
Reference List
‘Adjacency analysis’ 2009, Landscape design validation, Web.
Bartolomei, J, and Miller, T 1990, Functional analysis systems technique (F.A.S.T.) as a group knowledge elicitation method for model building, Web.
‘Central Unit on Procurement’ 1996, Value management, London, HM treasury.
Crossley, 2002, Value management as a successful project intervention strategy, Web.
De Leeuw, C 2001, Value management: an optimum solution, Web.
‘Department of Public Works’ 2010, Value Management Guideline, Web.
‘Global value management (GVM)’ 2002, Value management, Web.
Green, S n. d, A smart Methodology for value management, Web.
Green, S and Liu, A 2007, Theory and practice in value management: a reply to Ellis, Polfulam, University of Hong Kong.
Hammersley, H 2002, Value management in construction, Web.
‘Institute of Value Management’ 2001, Developing Competence and Knowledge to Deliver Sustainable Value, Web.
Male, S and Kelly, J 2007, A re-appraisal of value methodologies in construction, Leed, University of Leed.
Male, S, Gronqvist, M, Kelly, J and Devonport, T 2007, Electronic value management (Evm), Leeds, University of Leeds.
‘Miga solutions’ 2012, Maximizing the Value of Medical Equipment, Web.
‘Office of government commerce’ 2003, Risk and value management viewed, Web.
‘Project management knowhow’ 2012, Implementation phase, Web.
‘Project Reference Group’ 2009, Value Management Practice Guidelines, Web.
Saifulnizam, M and Vaughan, C 2010, implementing value management as a decision making tool in the design stages of design and build construction projects: A methodology for improved cost optimization. Sentosa Island: Qut digital repository, Web.
‘Total Asset Management’ 2004, Value Management Guideline, Web.
Waterhouse, P 2007, Using value management to optimize project outcomes, Web.