Anda di halaman 1dari 14


1 , Mohammed Ali Berawi 2 , Imran Ariff Yahya 3 , Hamzah Abdul-Rahman 4 andOthman Mohamed 5 Value Management Centre (VMC), Faculty of the Built Environment,University of Malaya, Malaysia Corresponding authors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Abstract The idea of integrating value management (VM) and risk management (RM) has started more than ten years ago as many professionals realised that it is impossible to separate between value and risk. VM is about articulating what represents value in terms of project benefits while RM is about identifying causes of uncertainty and what can go wrong. Both activities complement each other; VM can reduce risk and RM provides opportunities to increase value. In the construction industry, both VM (including VE) and RM are widely accepted as best practice tools for effective management of projects. The most important features for integrating VM and RM are that both are systematic processes, involving a multi-disciplinary team in creative workshops. They both use a brainstorming technique as means for decision making process. Therefore combining the two processes within a single study is practical and logical as both share the same resources. This paper examines the application of the integration of RM and VM which is subsequently known as Value and Risk Management (VRM) based on several infrastructure project case studies. Keywords : Risk Management, Value Management Quantity Surveying International Conference. 2 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

1.0 INTRODUCTION The issue of combining risk and value is an observable fact driven by a desire to minimise the time taken to act and to produce results with optimum performance and quality. Furthermore, it is also an issue whether risk and value are isolated. DellIsola (1997) cited that the opportunity of integrating value management (VM) in conjunction with the formal risk assessment and analysis started in 1993when a city port authority required a value engineering (VE) effort that would be augmented with an application of a risk assessment. Focusing on the integration of value management and risk management application, this paper intends to give clear direction of the subject to be studied, by discussing the scope and approach of both value and risk management. Additionally it also provides a clear guideline of where and how to integrate the methodologies by addressing the issues and scope of application through case studies of infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom (UK). 2.0 VALUE MANAGEMENT Value management (VM) started from a technique developed by Lawrence D. Miles in the United States in 1940s for product improvement, known as value analysis (VA), which then evolved to value engineering (VE) and VM due to the use and application in different industry. The definitions of VM are found in many literatures and is consistently known to be a rigorous, systematic effort to improve the value and optimise the life cycle cost of a facility, without sacrificing the needed performance level (DellIsola, 1997);a proactive, creative, problem-solving or problem seeking service which maximises the functional value (Male et al ,1998). Other new definitions could also be found in the British Standard BS EN 12973:2000 as well as the Association for Project Managements Body of Knowledge (APM, 2000). The collections of definitions from several sources (i.e. Woodhead,Kaufman & Berawi, 2004; Berawi & Woodhead, 2005a; Berawi & Woodhead, 2005b; Berawi, 2006)shared the key words with general understanding of value management and can be described asfollows:1. Methods and tools - Structured techniques or effort, workshop2. Management style - Team oriented, creativity and innovation, problem solving, skills and motivation3. Cost and value - Optimise life cycle cost and maximise or improvise value4. Competitiveness - Performances, needs and requirements, threats and opportunity There are three techniques in conducting VM, recognised and implemented worldwide by practitioners, namely: value planning, value engineering and value analysis. These techniques served as guidance in undertaking VM studies and are shown in Figure 1. Quantity Surveying International Conference. 3 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia VALUE PLANING (VP)VALUE EGIEERIG (VE) VALUE AALYSIS (VA)

Pre-Investment Stage Investment Stage Unbudgeted Projects Budgeted Projects Implementation Operation End of Assets Concept Feasibility Feasibility Appraisal Proc &Training Operation Decommission Close out Define Project Define Project Approach Develop Approach Design Develop Detailed Approach Procurement & Training----- Feedback Hand Over/ Post Project Evaluation Next Project Figure 1: Value management stages (Source: Merna & Al-Thani, 2005:p75) The job plan in VM was developed by Miles in 1961, which was popularly known as VE and was further explored and developed to enhance the use of VM. The Society of American Value Engineers or SAVE International published its own job plan in 1997 while Male et al (1998) have their own as well. The similarity between Miles procedure and SAVE Internationals procedure is that both have three phases. The Pre-study Phase by SAVE International is a development of the orientation and information phases by Miles. The same applies to the Value Study Phase and Post-study Phase, which might be developed from Miles procedure. On the other hand, Male et al (1998) proposes six-phase procedures of VM where there are interconnections and similarities of the procedures with SAVE International. Instead of having one value study phase as developed by SAVE International, which comprises of several steps in the procedure, Male et al has divided the phase into Creativity, Evaluation and Development phases. The differences of job plan phases and procedures are asshown in Table 1.Table 1: Job plan procedure (Source: Sutrisno, 2004) Lawrence D. Miles(1961)SAVE International (1997) Male et al (1998) OrientationInformation Pre-study Phase: Data collection Pre-study Phase: Information gathering & synthesis, produce agenda, presentation & team buildingSpeculationAnalysisProgramme planningProgramme executionStatus Value Study Phase: Complete dataFunction analysisCreative processEvaluationDevelopmentPresentation Information Phase: Information gathering & sharing, synthesis,function analysis, task analysis, process analysis,target areas Creativity Phase: Brainstorming Evaluation Phase: First level sort, refine sort, select for development Development Phase:

Development and implementation planSummary &Conclusion Post-study Phase: Ensure implementationIssue recommendation Consensus Phase: Presentation to project sponsors and senior management VALUE MANAGEMENT Quantity Surveying International Conference. 4 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 3.0 RISK MANAGEMENT The concept of risk management (RM) is far from new. It started with gambling, which is a game of chance, and makes profits based on prediction (Dallas, 2006). Risk exists as a consequence of uncertainty (APM, 2000) while risk management describes the deliberate management of uncertaintyor its effects (Ward et al , 1997). The construction industry for instance, is open to risk and uncertainty due to the nature of its business, from the initial investment appraisal of a project up to the physical completion of the project. This industry is prone to danger if no proper measures and precautions are taken into consideration, especially in managing risks and uncertainties. However, Rogers (2002) argues that attempting to entirely eliminate risk is not a practical exercise because of the associated costs and therefore there has to be a trade-off between any benefits from reducing risk and the cost of doing so. RM ensures that risks are identified, reviewed and mitigated accordingly and key stakeholders are made aware of the risks prior to any decision making. Hence, good risk management, at all levels, is therefore critical to success in achieving goals (PPA, 2006).Chapman & Ward (2002) implies that a source of risk is any factor that can affect project performance, and risk arises when this effect uncertain and significant in its impact on project performance. According to Chapman & Ward (2002), a broad definition of risk, particularly project risk, is The implications of the existence of significant uncertainty about the level of project performance achievable . RM is defined as the systematic process of identifying, analysing and responding to project risk, including maximising the probability and consequences of positive events and minimising the probability and consequences of negative events to the project objectives PMI (2000); the combination of the probability of an event and its consequences IRM (2002) and also an uncertain event or set of circumstances that, should it occur, will have an effect on the achievement on the projects objectives Chapman & Ward (2003). These definitions have common understanding of risk: event and its consequences. The aims and objectives of RM is to ensure that risks are identified at project inception, their potential impacts allowed for and where possible the risks or their impacts minimised (OGC, 2003) and; to improve project performance via systematic identification, appraisal and management of project-related risk (Chapman & Ward, 1997; Ward et al

, 1997). There are many models used to manage the risks and according to Smith et al (2006) most practitioners have developed their own methodology suited to the types of projects they are involved in. The standard model is divided into 4 parts namely risk identification, risk analysis, risk response and risk monitoring and review and are explained in Table 2.Table 2: Risk Management Stages (Source: OGC, 2003) Risk identification Determine what the risks are, Distinguishes between the origin of the risk and itsimpact (may use risk register) Risk assessment(or risk analysis) Determine the probability of occurrence and potential impact or severity.Understand and quantify the likelihood of occurrence & potential impactDivided into Qualitative and Quantitative assessment Risk response To contain them within acceptable limit (taking countermeasures)Only when the possible causes and effects have been considered & understood.Divided into Avoidance, Reduction, Transfer and Retention/acceptance Monitoring Update & control the risksOngoing review throughout the project, actions recorded in risk register Feedback How well the risks were managed and lesson learned to improve RM performancefor future projects, how well they we managed, how to improve Quantity Surveying International Conference. 5 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 4.0 INTEGRATING VALUE AND RISK MANAGEMENT In construction industry, both VM (including VE) and RM are well used (Weather head, 2006) and widely accepted as best practice tools for effective management of projects (Griffin, 2006). Griffin (2006) argues that the issue is no longer about whether they should be used but whether the processes should be integrated. Furthermore, OGC (2003) mentioned that VM and RM are interrelated tasks that should be carried out in parallel. According to OGC (2003), the application of VM will help client to identify the best way of meeting business need while RM is used to manage the risks associated with the solution that offers the best whole-life value to the business and should not be seen as barrier to innovation. The main idea for integrating VM and RM (hereinafter referred to as VRM) is to optimise value on a project. Dallas (2006) stated there is little point in going to great lengths to maximise the value of aproject if significant risks materialise which impair its delivery, thereby destroying value, and a projectin which all risk is avoided is unlikely to maximise value. Meanwhile, Paliokostas (2000) indicatedthat these techniques appear to be so compatible and complementary, so that continuing to usethem separately could mean waste of time and resources. The OGC (2003) proposed that VMexercises are carried out first, to determine what exactly constitutes value to the business fromdelivery of a project. After that, the likely risks to occur to the preferred option are identified. Thisexercise will be repeated to all options in

defining value and associated risks until they arrive atoptimum balance of value and risk.It is arguable that the integration of RM and VM can be used to reduce the negative impact onprojects and to assist value improvement. While this is so, the risks of available alternatives willinfluence the decision about project objectives and preferred outline designs (Connaughton & Green,1996), which strengthen the idea of combining RM and VM. Moreover, Kirk (1995) highlighted thatthe use of workshops have proven to be the ideal settings for determining or validating project risks,brainstorming risks mitigations, and developing the input to risk analysis computations using thecollective judgement of the experts. Furthermore, Othman (2004) supported the idea of integrationof VM and RM as two complimentary disciplines, saying that best value could not be achieved unlessassociated risks have been managed. Scholars and researchers in VRM (Connaughton & Green,1996; Paliokostas, 2000; Smith et al , 2006; Thompson, 2004) have provided reasons why there is aneed to integrate between VM and RM is as follows:1. Utilisation of the same resources/ multi-disciplinary team hence avoiding duplication of effort2. Involvement of stakeholders in the workshops3. Good way of introducing VM and RM into an organisation4. Maintain and improve future appraisals and assessment of projects5. Influences the VM proceeds in this case-option appraisal, by allowing the users to consider specific options used in the past similar projects6. Makes them aware of their weaknesses and strengths7. Shortening he time taken to develop viable solutions based on the risks facing a project8. Identifies specific risk allocation structures in association to contract strategies9. Provides in-depth assessment processPhillips (2002) as cited in Thompson (2004) mentioned that much of the power of VRM methodologylies in the rigorous, disciplined approach and the ability of team members to focus collectively, bothinwardly and outwardly on broad range of topics. This shows that VM and RM shares commonstructured base and has similarities in undertaking a project. The similarities between VM and RMmethodologies are as shown in Table 3. Quantity Surveying International Conference. 6 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Table 3: Comparisons between VM and RM (Source: Paliokostas, 2000) Value Management Risk Management A systematic process, undertaken according to fixedplan and efficient way, reflected in the Job Plan A systematic process, comprising 3 distinct phasesi.e. risk identification, risk analysis & risk responseMulti-disciplinary team in creative workshops,considered as group activitiesMultidisciplinary team in creative workshops,considered as group activitiesUsing brainstorming as technique to identify solutionsthat meet required functionsUsing brainstorming as technique to identify risks thatmay affect project performance A mean of defining project objectives A process that ensures that project objectives are notaffected by future and uncertain events.Brings value to a project by defining clear objectives,establishing communication between parties,preventing conflicts and eliminating unnecessarycosts Adds value to the project by ensuring all risks aremanaged efficiently, preventing or reducing future riskthat affect project objectives A means of decision making process and consideredas an aid to help clients take informed decision A means of decision making process and consideredas an aid to help clients take informed decisionNeed the involvement of experienced facilitators tolead group members

within processNeed the involvement of experienced facilitators tolead group members within processNeeds creativity to generate alternative solutions andmeet required functionsRequires creativity to identify potential risks andresponding to risksEvolved from hard approach to soft approach suchas problem solving, communication, understandingand team buildingSoft paradigm of risk management such as softsystem methodology, places emphasis on humanaspect and qualitative issues.Requires a positive approach Requires negative frame of mind 5.0 VRM APPROACHES Workshops are useful way of identifying project risk and therefore it possible to combine risk andvalue management in the same workshop (Connaughton & Green, 1996). In the UK, a general guidein conducting VRM is provided by the OGC, identified as The Gateway Process . This processhelps to reduce overall project risk by examining the project at critical stages in its life cycle toprovide assurance that it can progress successfully to the next stage (OGC, 2003). Meanwhile, Kirk(1995) and Thompson (2004) suggested that VM and RM could be integrated in a workshop throughthe job plan process with risk considerations in each phases as shown in Table 4.In undertaking VM workshop, it is beneficial that the aspect of risks are taken into consideration intothe phases of job plan, to achieve project objectives as this allows potential risks to be identified,analysed and appropriate responses to be taken for each items and options. Kirk proposes the riskactivities for each item under consideration during the job plan phases while Thompson provides thegeneral risk considerations to the project under study. By integrating both activities, it may become avery strong and useful combination of risk analysis and management in a value studies. The extentto which any risk analysis is carried out during a value study (VS) should be down to the judgementof those involved in the study to achieve the most appropriate results. Quantity Surveying International Conference. 7 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Table 4: Risk considerations and activities in Job Plan phases (Source: Thompson, 2004 & Kirk, 1995) Job Plan Phase Risk Considerations RM Activities InformationPhaseListing of known risks, issues, problemsassociated with the projectProject may have been initiated as a result of a problem or a riskIdentify risk issuesDetermine risk impactPerform risk analysis of designer cost estimateFunction AnalysisPhaseSome functions may address or be influencedby know risksBrainstormingRisk mitigationCreative PhaseIdeas may address how to get around knownor possible risksEvaluation PhaseEvaluation criteria should include risk items toeliminate ideas which have a very high riskassociated with themConsider risk as a weightedcriterionDevelopmentPhaseRisk allowances associated with eachproposal at all stages of a project, especiallyduring the construction and operation andmaintenance will give a better comparison of proposals during any cost/ benefit analysisusing whole life costingTime implicationsConduct RA of VA alternativedesignPresentationPhaseThe risk that not everyone will sign up to thepreferred proposal and how to deal with itPresent RA with suggestedmitigationsRecommend project cost &contingencyImplementationPhasePerform second risk analysis of final reconciled proposal 6.0 METHODOLOGY This paper explores the procedures and process of VRM adopted by selected organisations. It alsodiscusses and analyses the application, potential and results of the implementation of VRM.

Theissues of validating the integration of VRM is examined and learned to enabled and support the ideaand its concept through case studies. This paper provides four case studies of the application of VRM in the UKs infrastructure projects; selected from the rail industry and water industry but limitedto the following issues:1. Selected case studies are only chosen concerning the development and implementation of value management and risk management of infrastructure projects that have undergone theVRM methodology2. Case studies and their information derived from the workshop reports provided through theprocess of data collection and interviews.3. The research is conducted within a very limited time frame, which is three months and thuslimiting the whole process of data collection and interviews.4. The contact persons in this research was limited to only those involved in VM, based on thecontact information available in the UKs Institute of Value Management (IVM) website. All data are of a qualitative type, derived from the interviews were analysed. Comparisons of practices in different scenarios were made to study on the similarities and differences of approaches. Quantity Surveying International Conference. 8 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 7.0 CASE STUDIES 7.1 Case Study 1:Application of VRM in the Rail Industry - Carriage Washer Renewal The project under study was the carrier washer and the team need to look into all aspects, includingtype of the machine, effluent discharging, control machines and cleaning methods. The team cameout with a full list of characteristics of the proposed new carriage washing machine to be included inthe project such as capability of cleaning per day, body sides and eaves, dedicated plant room, bulkstorage tanks of water, able to achieve required efficiency as well as means of monitoring and dosingof effluent from machine.The workshop aimed at looking for VE opportunities or savings and identifying potential risks for theproject. The workshop was conducted in a manner that suits to study on both, value and risk. Theproject risks were identified through the quantified risk assessment process which assists indemonstrating that submissions have a robust risk element attached to them. Risks were describedusing a three-part method; cause of the risk in a given circumstance; consequence is the risks affect;and the risk it self is the means to produce consequences. The quantified risk assessment involvedgenerating quantitative estimates on the likelihood and cost impact of each risk including assessmentof the impact of the risk. A risk register is prepared to allocate and monitor the list of risk andownership of the risk, and all the data was modelled using risk analysis software. The sensitivity of the overall outcome of quantitative risk assessment indicated whether a risk occurs or not, thenumber of times it occurs or the variation in its impact when it does occurs. Ranking the significantrisks produces different results using the quantitative risk assessment rather than to simply rankingthem by expected impact. 7.2 Case Study 2:Application of VRM in the Rail Industry Station Enhancement Project The project understudy involves workshop conducted for general improvements involving thereplacement of the surface car park with a new on site multi storey car park. It also includesimprovement works to the station, transport interchange and the sale of the residual car park area for residential development. The multi storey car park, interchange and highway improvement works areto be procured separately to the station enhancement works and lift installations.The team agreed to adopt brainstorming techniques and information captured either on flipcharts or live on the

computer, lead by a workshop facilitator. The primary objectives of the workshop were toreview the scheme and to recommend the preferred elements for the particular stationenhancements project and to clarify and confirm costs to ensure the proposals are affordable.Meanwhile, the workshop also identified several sub-objectives for the workshop such as to identifykey stakeholders, constraints and assumptions with the project; to identify key functional elements of the project; to review scheme elements and options and identify any new ones; to work on theelements and options and identify advantages and disadvantages associated with the options; toidentify key risks; to propose timescale for implementation; to identify indicative costings and VEopportunities; and also to allocate the owners, timescales and final action plans. 7.3 Case Study 3:Application of VRM in the Water Industry Water Treatment Project The project which has no sewage treatment works prior to the initiation of the project comprises of two sewered areas; one located by an airfield and the other is further along the coast. Bothsewerage systems discharged into a designated catchment area which is classified as recreationalwater. Meanwhile, the designated catchment area is at the entrance of a lake and therefore, therewere two options to be considered in the workshop; crossing the existing bridge, the largest Quantity Surveying International Conference. 9 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia cantilever bridge in the world; or treating the flow at the project site. The workshop was conducted toinvestigate the possibility of pumping the flow from project site across the bridge to the catchment.There were two separate workshops conducted for the project identified as Workshop 1 andWorkshop 2:Workshop 1 aimed to gain a better understanding of the business risks and other issues associatedwith the water treatment, and to challenge the business need in order to deliver appropriate solution.Lead by a VM facilitator and attended by a team of various background professionals, the membersof the workshop have agreed to use the VM Job Plan study format with an additional stageassociated with business risk was brought in. During the information phase, the workshop discussedthe background and history surrounding the project site. The workshop then studied on the businesscase issues including aim of the project, drivers, scope, constraints, output, and assumptions. Other issues such as planning consent, land acquisition, future expansion, time and cost were alsodiscussed. It also managed to identify the current business risks associated with the project whichwere scored in terms of their probability and impact. In creative phase, the workshop has identifiedoptions addressing the business risks for the project. Ideas generated during this phase wereevaluated further for considerations.Workshop 2 aimed to agree the preferred options in dealing with the treatment issues for the project,and to identify the next steps in order to progress the project. The stages of the workshop were insimilar format as VM1 but the contents have been examined and narrowed down. The teammembers then presented a summary of current options and costs that need to be analysed andfollowing the discussion, several options were discarded due to their high costs. The remainingoptions were assessed in terms of business risk remaining post solution using a probability-impactmatrix for each option. Meanwhile, secondary risks associated with the options were identified andplotted for further studies. The project team recommended that one of the options which represent alow cost and low business risk solution be taken forward as preferred option in dealing with treatmentissues. During the creative phase, the workshop has

identified options addressing the business risksfor the project and all ideas generated during this phase were evaluated further for considerations. 7.4 Case Study 4:Application of VRM in the Water Industry Waste Water Incineration Project This case study is related to the waste product related to the water industry, provided by one of thewater and waste water company in the UK. The project aimed to ensure the existing incineratorscomply with waste incineration directive (WID) as the key driver, and to ensure that older incineratorsoperated until certain period, subject to maintenance.The workshop started with identifying the scope of works for the said project. There was a major constraint to be taken into consideration by the workshop team i.e. to achieve 25% savings asindicated by the client. At the end of the workshop, the project team should be able to identify thepreferred option with its associated risks, establish the need for the design and cost and establishany additional design requirements for WID.During the creative phase, several options were identified by the team members and were further evaluated for their benefits and concerns including recommendation for further actions associatedwith the options. Apart from evaluating the options, the workshop also evaluated on failure scenarioswhich involve business risk assessment and management for the preferred option and presentedwith a probability-impact tables. The next steps were the development of the preferred option thatstudied the future design requirements and meeting the key dates. Quantity Surveying International Conference. 10 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 8.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT CASE STUDIES Based on the information provided, the case studies are summarised as follows:Table 5: Summary of comparisons of VRM application Subject /DescriptionCase Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4 Industryunder studyRail Rail Water Water Project Carriage washer renewalStationenhancementWater treatment Related waste water incinerationWorkshopformatIntegrated VM/RMVE Studiesconducted for theproject as well asrisk identificationusing quantified riskassessmentIntegrated VM/RMVE Studiesconducted for theproject as well asrisk identificationusing quantified riskassessmentBased on IVMworkshopmethodologies; VM1and VM2.No clear informationprovidedTechniquesinvolvedJob Plan,BrainstormingJob Plan, FASTdiagram,BrainstormingJob Plan,BrainstormingJob PlanJob Plan No clear informationon Job Plan but thereport did includedall 5 phase activitiesNo clear informationon Job Plan but thereport did includedall 5 phase activitiesIntroductionInformation &challenge phaseBusiness riskassessmentCreative phaseEvaluation phaseWay forward (VM1)Recommendationand action plans(VM2)Identification phaseCreative phaseEvaluation phaseDevelopment phaseRiskconsideration inWorkshopRisk identifiedduring VE studiesusing quantified riskassessment.Risk identifiedduring VE studiesusing quantified riskassessment.Risk identificationduring businesscase risk studiesDuring evaluationphase, theworkshop evaluatedon failure scenarioswhich involvebusiness riskassessment andmanagement for thepreferred option andpresented with aprobability-impacttablesVE studies Specific VE studyconducted for thisproject.Workshop studieson pre-preparedestimates to identifyVE opportunities or savings, complyingwith the objective of the workshop.Specific VE studyconducted for thisproject (prefeasibility stage).

Workshop studieson the originalestimate as base.No information onspecific VE studies.No information onspecific VE studies. Quantity Surveying International Conference. 11 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Estimates preparedare exclusive of riskaspects and werebased on thecompanysprocedure.RMworkshopQRA involvedgeneratingquantitativeestimates on thelikelihood and costimpact of each riskincludingassessment of theimpact of the risk.QRA involvedgeneratingquantitativeestimates on thelikelihood and costimpact of each riskincludingassessment of theimpact of the risk.No information onspecific RMworkshop as riskaspects wasconsidered in theVM workshops.No information onspecific RMworkshop as riskaspects wasconsidered in theVM workshops.Workshopresults The projectshould beallocatedcontingency levelof 10% additionto the baseestimate. Main critical risksplayed aroundthe issue of sufficient water supplies &drainage for successfulproject delivery. Able to identifythe overall costsavings based onthe review andthe VE study Workshoprecorded somesavings base onthe originalestimate. The totalexclusions as aresult of VEsavings at 40%from the totalbase estimate. Additional costsincurred due tothe additions of several items tothe project. 22% of overallsavings from theVE workshop of the total baseestimate. Both VM 1 and VM2 were verybeneficial andmembers of theworkshop agreedin choosing onebest solution. Able to provide thebest solution to theclient, in terms of risk and costwhereby theoptions selected for the treatmentworks provides theclient with low riskat low cost.No information 9.0 DISCUSSIONS This paper concerns on the application of the integration of value and risk management in railindustry and water industry. The case studies provide four examples of projects that haveundergone VRM processes, undertaken by different organisations. Although there are differentapproaches towards the use of VRM approaches, this research found out many similarities duringthe process. The first similarity is about aims and objectives whereby all projects have clear sets of aims and objectives to be achieved after the workshops. Secondly, the workshops were conductedaccording to the basic principles which consist of techniques like job plan and brainstorming. Jobplan and brainstorming played vital part in conducting VM studies to generate ideas, evaluate anddevelop them during the workshops. The third similarity concerns on the risk aspect and RMworkshops. All projects under the study have risk consideration in their VM workshop. Last but notleast, the overall results gained from the case studies are on the positive side.Based on the above case studies, it is found that the application of VM, RM and

their integrationvaries from one project to another and from one organisation to the other. Generally, the applicationis very much dependent on several factor such time and budget constraint, complexity and clients

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 12 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia requirement. Being a relatively new process, the authors strongly recommended that acomprehensive studies to be conducted to establish how to deal with VRM in a common andstructured manner. Indeed, supports from both VM and RM practitioners point of view are verymuch welcomed to maximise chances for project success. REFERENCES Association for Project Management (APM) (2000), Project Management Body of Knowledge, 4 th

Ed,2000.Berawi, M.A. (2006), Distinguishing Concept Types in Function Models During the Act of Innovation. PhDThesis. Oxford Brookes University. UK.Berawi, M.A. & Woodhead, R.M. (2005a), HowWhy Logic Paths and Intentionality, Value World ,Volume: 28, Number: 2, pp. 12-15.Berawi, M.A. & Woodhead, R.M. (2005b), The If-Then Modelling Relationship of Causal Function andTheir Conditioning Effect on Intentionality, Value World , Volume: 28, Number: 2, pp. 16-20.BS EN 12973:2000 (2000); British Standard; Value Management, 15 June 2000Chapman, C & Ward, S (1997); Project Risk Management-Processes, Techniques and Insights; JohnWiley & SonsChapman, C & Ward, S (2002); Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and Insights ; JohnWiley & Sons Ltd.Chapman, C and Ward, S (2003); Transforming Project Risk Management into Project UncertaintyManagement; International Journal of Project Management, 21 (2003): Pp 97-105 Connaughton, J.N & Green, S.D (1996); Value Management in Construction: A Clients Guide ;Construction Industry Research and Information Association, UK.Dallas, M (2006); Value & Risk Management - A Guide to Best Practice; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.DellIsola, A (1997); Value Engineering: Practical Applicationsfor Design, Construction, Maintenance &Operations ; R.S. Means Company, Inc.Griffin, L (2006); Taking Projects by S.T.O.R.M A Model for Integrating Value, Opportunity and RiskManagement; Value Magazine, Feb 2006 ; Institute of Value Management, UK.Kirk, D.Q (1995); The Integration of Value Management and Risk Management; SAVE Proceeding , 1995.Male S., Kelly J. & Fernie S. et al (1998);The Value Management benchmark : A Good PracticeFramework for Clients and Practitioners; Thomas Telford Publishing, UKMerna T & Al-Thani F (2005); Corporate Risk Management-An Organisational Perspective ; John Wiley &Sons Ltd.OGC (2003); Office of Government Commerce- Achieving Excellence in Construction, ProcurementGuide 04: Risk and Value ManagementOthman A.A.E (2004); Value and Risk Management for Dynamic Brief Development in Construction; Proceedings of the CII-HK Conference , Hong Kong. 9 December 2004.Paliokostas, G.P (2000); The Integration of Value Management and Risk Management (MScDissertation), Dept. of Civil and Construction Engineering, UMIST.PPA (2006); Prescription Pricing Authority; (22/03/2006)Project Management Institute, PMI (2000). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge , PMBOK guide ,2

nd Ed, Project Management Institute, Inc. Quantity Surveying International Conference. 13 4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Rogers, J (2002); Strategy, Value and Risk The Real Options Approach: Reconciling Innovation,Strategy and Value Management; Palgrave, New YorkSmith N.J, Merna T & Jobling P (2006); Managing Risk in Construction Projects (2 nd Ed) ; BlackwellScience Ltd.Sutrisno, M (2004); An Investigation of Private Sector Participation Project Appraisal in Developing Countries using Elements of Value and Risk Management ; PhD Thesis; Manchester Centre for Civil and Construction Engineering, UMIST.The Institute of Risk Management (IRM), The Association of Insurance and Risk Managers (AIRMIC) & ALARM The National Forum for Risk Management in the Public Sector (ALARM) (2002); RiskManagement Standard.Thompson, M (2004); Value Solutions-A Path to Sustain Infrastructure; Incorporating risk into valueengineering; CSVA Conference , Toronto, 2004.Ward SC, Klein JH, Avison DE, Powell PL & Keen J (1997); Flexibility and the Management of Uncertainty: A Risk Management Perspective; The International Journal of Project & BusinessRisk Management, 1[2] (1997): Pp 131-145 Weatherhead, M (2006); Integrating Value and Risk in Construction; Value Magazine, Feb 2006 ; Instituteof Value Management, UK.Woodhead, R.M., J.J. Kaufman, Berawi, M.A. (2004), Is Drink Beer a function?, Value World , Volume:27, Number: 1, pp. 11-15.* * * * * * * * * * * * * *