conference papers

Papers from the COBRA, Cutting Edge and ROOTS conferences are all available for free download at w w w. r i c s - f o u n d a t i o n . o rg Please email info@rics-foundation.org for more inform a t i o n

VALUE MANAGEMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT: AN EXAMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR THEIR INTEGRATION AND ACCEPTANCE AS A COMBINED MANAGEMENT TOOL IN THE UK CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.
Hiley, A. and Paliokostas, P.P.
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, UMIST,

ABSTRACT
Increasing complexity within the UK construction industry has led to a fragmentation of roles, one result of which is the separation of the processes of design and construction. Research has shown that there is a need to structure a better relationship between these processes thus promoting constructability, which in turn reduces specific risks. Value Management (VM) and Risk Management (RM) can assist in creating a culture which enhances project performance by reducing risks. This paper examines the potential for their integration and the benefits which could accrue through the use of such a combined tool. A review of the literature on VM and RM and the concepts underlying their use is related to a study which reports on the perceptions of value managers concerning their integration. Value managers' familiarity with both procedures and experience of applying them as an integrated tool are investigated. The research evidence supports the conclusion that there is the potential for the integration of VM and RM and that the advantages of integration outweigh any disadvantages. The study also shows that their integration could assist VM and RM in achieving increased recognition in the construction industry. Keywords: Constructability, Risk Management, Value Management.

INTRODUCTION
Data on the economics of construction highlight the uniqueness of the construction industry. It involves various parties of different characteristics which can be grouped under the headings of the client, design and management disciplines and constructors, although individuals can combine a number of roles. The parties embark on a project for various reasons, and have specific objectives to achieve. The construction industry is fragmented and often it proves difficult to co-ordinate those involved in a project, especially when using procurement routes where design is separate from construction. Construction is considered to be a high risk industry, not only for the above reasons, but also because of many external uncontrollable factors. When conflicts arise between the parties, the risks can increase and have a serious impact upon project performance. To overcome its problems, the industry traditionally has looked to other industries for successful management techniques. Such techniques are utilised as a means of achieving value for money. Three areas need to be addressed to accomplish this: defining clear objectives and establishing a consensus as to how to meet these

objectives; ensuring the economic soundness of the project, and dealing effectively with problems which may adversely affect project objectives. The first two of these activities are encompassed within Value Management (VM); the third within Risk Management (RM). Whilst these disciplines have followed separate routes since their introduction into the construction industry, they have strong links. This paper reports on a study which investigated the arguments and the potential for their integration.

METHODOLOGY
A literature review was undertaken to investigate current thinking on the applications of VM and RM in the construction industry as two discrete disciplines, and to establish the extent to which the literature addresses the potential for their integration. A case study based on structured interviews relates these findings to current practice. The sample group was chosen to represent experienced value managers who were members of the Institute of Value Management (IVM) or an equivalent institute such as the Society of American Value Engineers (SAVE). Their length of experience ranged from four to twelve years. Within their consultancies the proportion of construction projects in relation to other work was above 75% for all but one of them. Of the total group contacted, nine practitioners agreed to contribute to the research.

THE ROLE OF VALUE MANAGEMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

A construction project is a one-off activity, with one chance to achieve a satisfactory outcome. This necessitates establishing unambiguous objectives. VM can identify the option which gives the best value for money in accordance with set criteria. The terminology used in connection with VM is extensive. The term Value Engineering (VE) is used by SAVE but they advise that terms are synonymous and therefore interchangeable. VE in North American terms is in general a technical activity, which utilises function analysis techniques and a 40-hour workshop. VM in the UK has acquired a specific meaning, namely the term for a strategic approach to problem solving which incorporates the technical activity of VE. Therefore in the UK the two terms cannot be used interchangeably. Kelly & Male (1993) report on a diversity of VM practice not reflected in the textbooks. Drawing on their work they propose a proactive, creative, problem solving methodology centred on a formal, multidisciplinary team approach to enable strategic decisions to be reviewed against the clients set criteria at agreed stages through the development of a project. This work was probably the first step towards the so-called second generation of VM, which focuses on terms such as client's system, and strategic decisions. Researchers have tried to differentiate between VE and VM and provide a theoretical framework for them. Green (1994) argues that traditional VE reflects the paradigm of hard systems thinking as it is chiefly concerned with the identification of alternative solutions to problems which are well structured, clearly defined and static. Therefore VE promotes the elimination of unnecessary cost and improves constructability, and by revisiting the design can improve performance and value. However problems are often messy, dynamic and ill-defined. For such situations, which predominate during the early design stages, an alternative paradigm has emerged, that of soft systems thinking. This is associated with problems dominated by conflicting objectives and value judgements. Therefore this second generation VM, as applied in the UK,

supports communication, understanding and teambuilding, and improved definition of project objectives. Green (1999a) states that in the UK VM is basically a means of group decision support (GDS), which uses for example, Soft Systems Methodology. There is no single definition of VM or VE or of other terms such as Value Analysis. The pioneer Miles (1961) defined VE as an organised creative approach which has for its purpose the efficient identification of unnecessary cost. A definition which encapsulates the principles of VM is A systematic, multidisciplinary effort directed towards analysing the functions of projects for the purpose of achieving the best value at the lowest overall life cycle cost (Norton & McElligott 1995). It includes the key terms: multidisciplinary, systematic, value and function, through which characteristics of VM are identified. The concept of function is based on the principle that the value of an object is determined by what use is fulfilled and is not related to its cost. Functional analysis therefore underpins VM (Chamberland 1989). VM is a systematic process focused on identifiable steps collectively known as the Job Plan, which is undertaken using various procedures such as the 40 hour workshop, the charette and the value management audit. Developed from Miles original Work Plan, 6 steps are included from information gathering and criteria setting to decision-making related to selected options. In current practice this has developed into three distinct stages of Pre-Study, Main Study (Workshop) and Post-study activities, all focused on structured problem identification and problem solving (Hannan 1994). The procedures are not mechanistic as creativity is an essential constituent. The creative process is kept separate from evaluation to encourage innovative thinking without fear of criticism. VM is a multi-disciplinary approach based on an interaction of different disciplines providing a collective analysis of all aspects of a project and the cost implications of ideas so as to achieve the best value. This approach creates a dynamic team-building environment. However, the group activity requires an expert facilitator to create the appropriate environment. Researchers (Palmer 1992) support the view that the earlier in the design process VM studies are carried out, the greater the potential for cost reduction and the lower the extra design cost of implementing proposals, as the majority of cost is committed during the early design stages. Since its introduction into the construction industry VM has faced resistance. Architects can perceive VM studies to be a criticism of their competence. Many argue that the confused and inconsistent use of the terminology and the lack of a standard definition are barriers to its widespread use (Green 1999a). VM is also associated with many misconceptions. Many in the industry confuse VM with cost reduction exercises. Although these procedures have similarities, the methodologies, objectives and results are different. A cost reduction exercise does not aim to consider value and involves a sacrifice or a compromise to gain a lower total project cost (Norton 1992). The aim of a VM study is to lower cost whilst retaining or enhancing quality and performance requirements. VM can produce hard savings, those directly linked to cost saving, because they are easily quantifiable, and soft savings resulting from indirect benefits such as improved constructability or productivity (Jergeas 1999).

THE ROLE OF RISK MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION

According to many commentators the construction industry is subject to more risk and uncertainty than any other industry. The term Risk Management (RM) is usually

defined as the product of the possibility of the occurrence of a hazardous event and the economical impact of this event (Smith 1999). Many differentiate between risk, which exists when a decision is expressed in terms of possible outcomes with known probabilities, and uncertainty, which exists when there is more than one possible outcome of a course of action, the probability of which is unknown. Sources of risk central to construction activities can be grouped under the headings of physical and environmental, design, logistics, cost, legislation and constructability. Also the multiplicity of parties with different roles and aims, the project complexity and the fragmentation of the construction industry are further sources of risk. Project risks are considered to be dynamic and therefore risk assessment should be a continuous process spanning all phases (Smith 1999). As the parties have different objectives the estimation of risk has to be done from their individual perspectives to enable them to adopt a specific strategy. For example, contractors wish to analyse and control risk in order to make a profit, to keep insurance premiums to acceptable levels, and to reduce losses. Project management practices need to limit professional indemnity claims, to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken to manage risks, to provide cost contingencies for clients and to protect their credibility (Akintoye & MacLeod 1997). RM is a systematic process and contemporary methodology encompasses 5 stages: identification, analysis, evaluation, response and monitoring (Baker et al. 1999). Broad titles can be used such as risk control instead of risk response and monitoring. Other models include risk attitude. In problem solving situations, the most critical issue is to identify the problem prior to analysis and response determination. Despite the importance of this stage Raftery (1994) reports that it has received little attention, and that many professionals experienced in RM processes consider the identification stage time-consuming. Many techniques support risk identification, most of them relying on experience of similar projects as there are no universal rules which can be used (Bajai et al. 1997). According to Chapman (1998) there are three techniques which may be employed by the risk manager: risk identification may be conducted solely by the risk manager; the risk manager may identify the risks after interviewing the project team; the risk manager may act as a group facilitator. Research indicates that checklists are the most common risk identification method used (Simister 1994). However the convenience and simplicity of this approach has some disadvantages including the inability to highlight interdependencies between risk drivers. Risk Analysis, which can be quantitative or qualitative, underpins RM methodology. Its aim is to evaluate the consequences associated with a specific risk. Raftery (1994) stresses that the guiding tenet of risk response should be that all parties seek a collaborative and if possible a mutually beneficial distribution of risk. Risk should be allocated to the party best able to manage it to ensure its effective control. It is accepted that there are different attitudes towards risk, and therefore towards its management. Smith (1999) identifies two main categories: the risk lovers and the risk avoiders. This can be considered an oversimplification as it omits those neutral to risk. In addition each nation may have a different attitude towards risk. According to Hofstede (1991) one of five elements of a national culture is Uncertainty Avoidance or how people perceive uncertainty and decisions about the future. Risk response depends on risk attitude which therefore has a crucial role in a clients organisational strategy. Risks can have a positive impact upon project performance. Current literature has the tendency to present risk as a negative element (Kim & Bajai 2000).

It can be argued that the main benefit of RM is to help project managers ensure that project objectives are not affected by adverse effects. RM is not a means of removing all the risks, but facilitates explicit decision making which will mitigate the effects of certain risks. Underlying this other benefits include: enabling decisions to be more systematic and objective, allowing comparison of the robustness of projects in relation to specific uncertainties, comparing the relative importance of each risk, providing an improved understanding of the project, promoting feedback and information transfer, and heightening awareness of the range of possible outcomes (Edwards 1995). Akintoye & MacLeod (1997) found that formal RM procedures appear to be used to a limited extent by project managers and contractors. According to them, contractors do not use formal RM procedures for reasons which include a lack of familiarity with the techniques and the difficulty of seeing its benefits especially in small projects. Some contractors considered the majority of risks to be contractual and solved through experience. Project managers argued that clients rarely request risk analysis and it is not commercially viable, adding that RM is about people and not scientific models.

A COMPARISON
Originating in other industries, VM and RM are considered an essential part of project management. They can be undertaken by a range of construction professionals but need the involvement of experienced facilitators. VM and RM are group activities based on systematic processes and utilise multidisciplinary teams in creative workshops. VM is a means of defining project objectives whilst RM ensures that they are not affected by future, uncertain events. VM needs creativity in order to generate options which meet required functions, whilst RM requires creativity when identifying and responding to potential risks. A common technique used in both is brainstorming. Both techniques bring value to a project. VM enhances value by clarifying objectives, establishing good communication and preventing conflicts. VE promotes the elimination of unnecessary cost and as a consequence adds value to the project. Proactive RM adds value to a project by ensuring that project risks are prevented, reduced or managed efficiently. Both techniques improve decision making. In the UK, VM has evolved into a soft approach to problem solving. This also applies to RM although this is less apparent. Green (1999a) reports that a tentative soft paradigm of RM is gaining ground in which less emphasis is placed on quantitative techniques and which stresses the team nature of RM and the corresponding importance of an independent facilitator. Green adds that soft VM and the emerging soft paradigm of RM are advocated primarily as a means of resolving conflict within the project team. It may be argued that VM and RM are fundamentally disparate in that they require a different mindset: VM may be thought of as requiring a positive approach, with RM requiring a negative frame of mind. However in RM, the negative phase can be said to be limited to the Risk Identification stage. The Risk Response stage requires a positive mindset in order to identify the means by which the situation may be improved. Both the literature and the respondents' comments revealed that the introduction of either VM or RM faces problems. These services are considered an additional cost, time consuming and clients are often unaware of their benefits. Their integration could overcome this problem by offering a combined efficient service and therefore help these disciplines achieve the recognition they deserve in the industry.

THE ARGUMENT FOR INTEGRATION

VM and RM are two well-established disciplines recognised as a part of best practice. The links between them are strong. In RM when a risk is managed it is possible to achieve a cost saving and an enhancement in value. In VM when options are considered there may be risks associated with each proposal. RM and VM appear to be both compatible and complementary and therefore it is logical to argue that the potential for a common framework should be investigated. Norton & McElligott (1995) suggest that RM may be enhanced by VM, using the VM team to either audit or produce a project's RM plan. They suggest that during the creative stage alternative methods of mitigating recognised risks can be generated. Therefore the addition of RM can also improve awareness of the potential risks of alternative proposals (Thiry 1997). In a combined approach there is potential to benefit from the assembled multidisciplinary team and also to promote the introduction of RM into an organisation (Connaughton & Green 1996). Since RM is mainly perceived as a negative process a combined approach could mean that advantage could be taken of the creative, positive atmosphere of a VM study to generate ideas to mitigate risks or identify opportunities. Green (1999b) argues that Strategic Choice, a socio-technical approach, pioneered by the Tavistock Institute during the 1970s can provide an integrated framework for VM and RM. This approach is facilitator-driven with no specific constraints regarding the length of workshops. According to Green (1999b), the first step towards an integrative framework is to discard the language of risk and value in favour of the language of uncertainty. He argues that VM is concerned with resolving the uncertainty associated with project objectives, whilst in contrast RM addresses the uncertainty associated with the outcomes. Therefore when RM and VM are expressed in terms of uncertainty, the interdependence between them becomes more apparent. A criticism of this approach is that it introduces another term, namely Uncertainty Management, which may exacerbate the existing confusion concerning terminology. American Value Engineers addressed the integration of VM and RM some time ago. Kirk (1995) suggests a generic approach to VM, encompassing within the traditional Job Plan a RM Program which includes a qualitative risk assessment, a quantitative risk analysis and also the implementation of risk mitigations. Kirk suggests that this would ensure the optimum effective use of an interactive and multi-disciplinary team of experts and also would improve the effectiveness and credibility of the workshop output. According to Kirk (1995) this process has proved successful in practice.

ANALYSIS OF DATA
The respondents agreed that the terms VM and VE cannot be used interchangeably. The respondents viewed VM as a structured approach to defining what value means to a client in meeting a need by establishing a clear consensus about the project objectives. It was agreed that VE is encompassed within VM and is a systematic approach to delivering the required functions at the lowest cost without detriment to value. Three respondents adopted the London Underground Limited (LUL) definition of VM that VM is a structured and disciplined, team centred problem solving technique aimed at ensuring the optimum balance between performance, cost and delivery". According to LUL, VM is the umbrella term encompassing both Value Planning (VP) and VE. VP refers to the strategic activities at the front end of the

project, whilst VE considers value during the design stages. The respondents stressed the importance of involving stakeholders in the process, and of team building. They agreed that soft VM occurs very early in the process when project objectives are not yet defined, whilst hard" VM or VE is a process initiated when design information is available. They concurred that the range of terminology led to confusion and affected awareness and use of VM, especially amongst clients. It was believed that European value managers should adopt a consistent definition emphasising the outputs of VM exercises, as the inconsistent terminology leads to misconceptions and reluctance to use VM. The respondents did not endorse the traditional advantages of VM such as enhancing quality, the elimination of unnecessary cost or offering a second look at the design to the extent anticipated. They preferred the soft benefits of team building, better communication, and creating an increased understanding amongst project members and stakeholders. They cited narrow-minded clients as a barrier to VM use citing their widespread ignorance concerning the benefits of applying VM studies in a project. Apart from resistance from architects, which is a well-known difficulty, the misapplication of the technique was identified as a problem. This stems from the belief that VM is being practised whereas in actuality cost cutting is being undertaken. This misconception leads clients who have not experienced correct VM practice to be under the misapprehension that VM is being applied. All of the respondents practiced RM but only a minority were members of a formal association. The majority agreed that RM in construction addresses only threats and that there is little consideration of the positive side of risk. They supported the tenet that RM should also identify opportunities. Five of the sample group considered themselves fully familiar with all the procedures and methodologies of RM in construction, and used brainstorming and checklists as methods of risk identification. The respondents were aware of risk analysis techniques such as Monte Carlo Simulation, Sensitivity Analysis and Decision Trees, but did not use them to any great extent in practice, basing risk analysis mainly on qualitative methods. Some respondents listed advantages for RM similar to those which they had identified in respect of VM. These included a better understanding of project objectives, team building, the education of inexperienced members, improved project management, establishing the justification for contingencies, a lower project cost and not missing an obvious problem. The problems associated with the application of RM were seen to be clients' ignorance of its benefits, a narrow view of RM as solely a means of calculating a contingency and that it was a time consuming and negative procedure. Additionally it was felt that there was a tendency amongst clients to think that RM would produce an absolute outcome. The comment was made that clients wished to identify risks and transfer them to the contractor rather than allocate the risks to the party best able to manage them. A further problem identified was the reluctance to proceed beyond the stage of risk identification to its management. Some respondents considered RM and VM difficult to carry out adequately within severe time constraints, and stated that their integration could alleviate this time problem. All the respondents stated that they did integrate RM and VM. One respondent, however, said that he did so only when the client specifically requested a combined approach. The respondents agreed that the issue of the integration of VM and RM was receiving increasing attention. The majority concurred that the integration of these two disciplines could mean more effective use of the team. However this

advantage was not considered as the most important as the potential increase in efficiency depended on whether it was appropriate to use the same workshop. The comment was made that it was not necessary to involve the same people, however it was thought that it was important to ensure that there was a flow of information from one workshop to the other. The respondents agreed that the effectiveness of risk responses can be enhanced by the use of VM and that this in turn would increase the value of a project. A combined approach was thought to aid the evaluation of alternative VM proposals not only in terms of cost and quality, but also in terms of associated risks. An option may cost more initially but if a significant risk is mitigated or eliminated it will represent good value for the client. The respondents commented that consideration of risk during VM studies promoted the examination of a response to the risks. Often the creative atmosphere of VM identifies solutions to specific risks that the use of RM alone would miss. They believed that integrating VM with RM leads to a complete picture of the project and effective decision making. Some respondents disagreed with the premise that VM requires solely a positive approach as it focuses on improving a situation and enhancing value, whilst RM requires only a negative attitude to predict what can go wrong. They generally agreed that the perception that contradictory mindsets were needed was a problem. The point was made that a range of attitudes was required for both RM and VM to support all the techniques. For example, VM requires an analytical mindset in the early stages to assess information, and creativity to identify options. The respondents commented that contrary to sources such as VEAMAC (1998) they did not accept that RM and VM were radically different and therefore believed that their integration could offer a focused efficient service. The early stages of a project were identified as being the most important and therefore to require consideration of both risk and value. It was put to them that since consideration of risk is already offered within VM, there is no need for an integrative approach. The majority of respondents disagreed with this adding that consideration of risk is not enough and the full RM procedure is required. The respondents were asked whether they thought that the integration of VM and RM could help these two disciplines achieve greater recognition within the industry. Many clients are sceptical of paying for a VM service, mainly because they consider that it should be a normal part of the design team's responsibility. The respondents' views depended on their specific experience. Most pointed out that the sector of the construction industry in which they were involved supported the use of VM and RM. They agreed that in respect of the industry as a whole these two disciplines may not have received the recognition they deserved, but that the situation was improving. One respondent preferred the word "co-ordination" and observed that that there was a danger that integration may result in one of the techniques becoming more dominant, with a corresponding loss in the other's benefits. All the respondents emphasised the need to allow sufficient time to carry out the procedures. They agreed that the advantages of the integration of VM and RM far outweighed any disadvantages.

CONCLUSIONS
It may be concluded that there are many issues of debate both within the literature and amongst practitioners concerning not only the application of RM and VM as separate disciplines but also the potential for their integration. Each respondent had a preferred definition for VM, reflecting the general inconsistency concerning VM terminology.

They supported the premise that this can act as a barrier to its widespread use. In the UK practitioners currently differentiate between "soft" VM and "hard" VM or VE. This distinction relates to the timing of VM studies: soft VM can be undertaken early in the briefing process, even before the project objectives are defined, but hard VM is used when design information is available. The data reveal that there are many misconceptions concerning VM, fuelled to some extent by the inconsistent and confused terminology. This leads to problems both in raising awareness of VM and in attempting to dispel the perception amongst some sectors of the industry that it is purely a cost-cutting exercise. The interview data indicate that the traditional benefits of VM are considered secondary to the achievement of better communication, improving team building and understanding between the project members and stakeholders. The most important advantage found in both current UK literature on VM and from the results of the interviews was that VM facilitated the establishment of clear objectives. The data indicate that experienced value managers consider RM and VM to be complimentary disciplines. From the literature review it may be concluded that the subject of the integration of RM and VM has received little attention. However the interviews revealed that the majority of respondents actually integrate VM and RM in practice. Some of them working as members of large client organisations undertake VM and RM in the same workshop, using the same people. Other respondents who provide consultant services in VM and RM are able to undertake a combined approach when asked to do so by their clients. It may be concluded from the data presented here that the practice in the construction industry is ahead of theory. The advantages which an integrated approach can achieve have been recognised. However there is a lack of a standard formal framework under which these two techniques can be combined. It may be concluded from a review of the benefits of both RM and VM that their integration would enhance the outcomes of both procedures whilst at the same time improving the efficiency of the workshop activity and thereby its credibility. For example whilst RM adds a further dimension to the evaluation of VM proposals, VM can, through creativity, improve the effectiveness of risk responses. The integration can increase knowledge of a project and therefore result in improved decision-making. The disadvantages of the integration were difficult to identify. The most significant disadvantage was found to be that these disciplines are thought by some practitioners to require a different mindset, and therefore it could be argued that the introduction of RM could stifle VM. However the respondents were in accord that the consequence of promoting the integration of RM and VM could result in a powerful management tool and increase their application within the construction industry.

REFERENCES
Akintoye, A. S. & MacLeod, M. J. (1997). Risk Analysis and Management in Construction. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 15, No 1. Bajai, D., Oluwoue, J. & Lenard, D. (1997). An analysis of contractors approaches to risk identification in New South Wales, Australia. Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 15, No 7. Baker, S., Ponniah, D. & Smith, S. (1999). Risk response techniques employed currently for major projects. Construction Management & Economics. Vol. 17, No 2.

Chamberland, T. R. (1989). Value Engineering, function and FAST in Building Design. Ekistics, 56. Connaughton, J. N. & Green, S. D. (1996). Value Management in construction: A Client's Guide. CIRIA. London. Chapman, R. J. (1998). The effectiveness of working group risk identification and assessment techniques. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 16, No 6. Edwards, L. (1995). Practical risk management in the construction industry. Thomas Telford, London. Green, S. D. (1994). Beyond value Engineering: SMART value management for building projects. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 12, No. 1. Green, S. D. (1999a). A participative research strategy for propagating soft methodologies in value management practice. Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 17, No 3. Green, S. D. (1999b). Towards an integrated script for Risk and Value Management. Proc. CIB W-55 & W-65 Joint Triennial Symposium, Customer Satisfaction: A Focus on Research and Practice in Construction. Eds: P.A. Bowen and R.D. Hindle, Cape Town, South Africa. Hannan, D. (1994). The Value Management Workbook: A Standard Approach for project Managers. Proceedings of the SAVE Annual Conference 1994. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. Jergeas, F. G. (1999). Value Engineering Incentive clauses. Cost Engineering, 41/3. Kelly J. & Male, S. (1993). The economic management of projects. QS Bulletin. Kim, S. & Bajai, D. (2000). Risk Management in Construction: An Approach for Contractors in South Korea. Cost Engineering. Vol. 42, No. 1. Kirk, D. Q. (1995). The integration of Value Management and Risk Management. Proceedings of the SAVE Annual Conference 1995. Miles, L. D. (1961). Techniques for Value Analysis and Engineering. McGraw-Hill. Miles, E. R (1989). Lawrence Delos Miles Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. Ekistics, 56 Norton, B. (1992).Value added. Chartered Quantity Surveyor. June. Norton, B. R. & McElligott, W. C. (1995). Value Management in Construction: A practical guide. Macmillan London. Palmer, A. (1992). An investigative study of value engineering in United states of America and its relationship to United Kingdom cost control procedures. PhD Thesis, Loughborough University of Technology. Raftery, J. (1994). Risk Analysis in Project Management. E & FN SPON, London. Simister, S. J. (1994). Usage and benefits of project risk analysis and management. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 12, No 1. Smith, N. J. (1999). Managing Risk in Construction Projects. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. Thiry, M. (1997). Value Management practice. The Project Management Institute. VEAMAC (1998). Does Combined Value and Risk Management have a place in the briefing Stage of a project? Facilitated by Dr Graeme Bowles of Heriot Watt University, www.brookes.ac.uk/other/veamac/may98.