A conceptual framework for improving value generation in complex construction projects

TILLMANN, P.A. A Conceptual Framework to Improve Value Generation in Complex Construction Projects. 2012. Doctoral Thesis (Doctor of Engineering) – Civil Engineering School, Post graduate Programme in Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre. This research was motivated by a practical problem with potential theoretical contributions. The problem in hand is the difficulty to generate value in complex construction projects, a problem observed in a large urban regeneration programme in Porto Alegre. Past research indicate that in the last decades there was an increase in project complexity, posing challenges to traditional managerial practices. According to some authors, such complexity is partially due to an increasing concern to understand how project’s outputs contribute to generating change and delivering benefits to different stakeholder groups. Within this context, the lack of managerial support provided by traditional project management approaches is pointed out. Firstly because such approaches generally focus on the delivery of a physical product, within time and budget. Secondly, they do not provide support for dealing with the conflicting interests of multiple stakeholders. And thirdly because they do not properly consider that projects are susceptible to their economic, social and political context and subject to changes in such environment. In this research, two managerial approaches that are being used in the construction industry were identified as having potential contributions to improve value generation in complex projects: the Benefits Realisation Approach (BeReal) and the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS). The literature available about these approaches is mainly prescriptive. Thus, there is still a need to understand why and how such approaches contribute for value generation. A third approach, the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) used where the problem was identified, was also analysed, as the literature suggests it also offers contributions to deal with some aspects of complexity. This research followed a Design Science Research process: finding a practical problem with potential theoretical contributions, framing the problem and searching for potential solutions, understanding how and why the solutions contribute for solving the problem and analyse the theoretical contributions of the solutions. In this study, emphasis was given to the evaluation of potential solutions identified. Three empirical cases were realised: the first one was in a urban regeneration programme in Brazil, aiming to understand the problem; the second was realised in a healthcare infrastructure programme in the UK, to analyse the adoption of BeReal; and the third in a healthcare infrastructure programme in the US, to analyse the adoption of LPDS. The three studies presented different managerial contributions to support value generation. Such contributions are analysed based on a conceptual framework that was devised. The model reveals the underlying concepts of observed managerial practices that contribute towards the improvement of value generation.

[1]  Gregory A. Howell,et al.  SHIELDING PRODUCTION: ESSENTIAL STEP IN PRODUCTION CONTROL , 1998 .

[2]  Terry Williams,et al.  Modelling Complex Projects , 2001 .

[3]  William A. Lichtig,et al.  The Integrated Agreement for Lean Project Delivery , 2010 .

[4]  Frank F. Land,et al.  The moving staircase - Problems of appraisal and evaluation in a turbulent environment , 1999, Inf. Technol. People.

[5]  Christopher J. Hemingway,et al.  The importance of context in programme management: An empirical review of programme practices , 2007 .

[6]  Julien Pollack,et al.  Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis , 2004 .

[7]  R. B. Woodruff,et al.  Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage , 1997 .

[8]  Gregory Howell,et al.  The Underlying Theory of Project Management Is Obsolete , 2008, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[9]  C. Tomkins,et al.  Can Target Costing and Whole Life Costing be Applied in the Construction Industry?: Evidence from Two Case Studies , 2000 .

[10]  Daniel Forgues,et al.  Can procurement affect design performance , 2008 .

[11]  Gerald Bradley,et al.  Benefit Realisation Management: A Practical Guide to Achieving Benefits Through Change , 2006 .

[12]  Wolfgang Ernst Eder.  THE PROTO-THEORY OF DESIGN: THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS OF THE ANCIENT GEOMETERS , 2008 .

[13]  Simon A. Austin,et al.  A problem‐solving approach to value‐adding decision making in construction design , 2006 .

[14]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  Contracts and production , 2006 .

[15]  J. Ward,et al.  Evaluation and realisation of IS/IT benefits: an empirical study of current practice , 1996 .

[16]  K. B. Monroe.  Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions , 1990 .

[17]  K. Cassell,et al.  The Information Paradox: Realizing the Business Benefits of Information Technology , 1999 .

[18]  H. Johnson,et al.  A former management accountant reflects on his journey through the world of cost management , 2002 .

[19]  Elizabeth Daniel,et al.  Benefits management : delivering value from IS & IT investments , 2005 .

[20]  James P. Womack,et al.  Managing to Learn: Using the A3 Management Process to Solve Problems, Gain Agreement, Mentor and Lead , 2008 .

[21]  Graham Winch,et al.  Towards a theory of construction as production by projects , 2006 .

[22]  Kaj U. Koskinen,et al.  Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts , 2009 .

[23]  Gregory A. Howell,et al.  Competing Construction Management Paradigms , 2003, Lean Construction Journal.

[24]  Leonard Susskind.  The information paradox of black holes , 1997 .

[25]  David Baccarini,et al.  The concept of project complexity—a review , 1996 .

[26]  Glenn Ballard,et al.  Production Control Principles , 2009 .

[27]  J. R. Turner,et al.  Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them , 1993 .

[28]  Ofer Zwikael,et al.  Towards an outcome based project management theory , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

[29]  D. Snowden,et al.  A leader's framework for decision making , 2007 .

[30]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Using performance measurement models for benefit realization with enterprise systems the Queensland government approach , 2001, ECIS.

[31]  Durward K. Sobek,et al.  The Second Toyota Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster , 1995 .

[32]  Stephen Emmitt,et al.  Communication in Construction Teams , 2006 .

[33]  G. Howell,et al.  Integrated Project Delivery An Example Of Relational Contracting , 2005 .

[34]  Darren Dalcher Pmp.  Project Management for the Creation of Organisational Value , 2012 .

[35]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[36]  J. Cutcher-Gershenfeld,et al.  Lean Thinking , 2019, Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management.

[37]  Cynthia F. Kurtz,et al.  The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[38]  Mark Winter,et al.  Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network , 2006 .

[39]  Barbara Colledge,et al.  Relational Contracting: Creating Value Beyond the Project , 2005 .

[40]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  Should project management be based on theories of economics or production? , 2006 .

[41]  W. Hanemann,et al.  Comparing benefits and costs of water resource allocation policies for California's Mono basin. , 1996 .

[42]  Jan Holmström,et al.  Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach , 2009, Decis. Sci..

[43]  Mike Kagioglou,et al.  Benefits realisation: Planning and evaluating healthcare infrastructures and services , 2010 .

[44]  Andrew Davies,et al.  Creating value by delivering integrated solutions , 2005 .

[45]  Michael Sherwood-Smith,et al.  Business benefits from information systems through an active benefits realisation programme , 1998 .

[46]  Michel Thiry,et al.  Combining value and project management into an effective programme management model , 2002 .

[47]  Jim Suhr,et al.  The Choosing By Advantages Decisionmaking System , 1999 .

[48]  B. Weisbrod,et al.  Collective-Consumption Services of Individual-Consumption Goods , 1964 .

[49]  J. Aken.  Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules , 2004 .

[50]  Mark Winter,et al.  Projects and programmes as value creation processes: A new perspective and some practical implications , 2008 .

[51]  Michael Whelton,et al.  The Development of Purpose in the Project Definition Phase of Construction Projects - Implications for Project Management , 2004 .