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

net/publication/265293205

Value management in analyzing project brief

Conference Paper · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

4 250

5 authors, including:

Saipol Bari Abd-Karim Imran Ariff Yahya

University of Malaya University of Malaya
42 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   218 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammed Ali Berawi

University of Indonesia
126 PUBLICATIONS   664 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Developing a Strategy-driven Framework for Project Governance View project

Professional Ethics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Imran Ariff Yahya on 24 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VALUE MANAGEMENT IN ANALYZING PROJECT BRIEF
1 2 3 4 5
I.A.Yahya , H.Abdul Rahman , M.A.Berawi , S.B. Abd Karim and K.L.Yee

Value Management Centre (VMC), Faculty of the Built Environment,

University of Malaya, Malaysia

Corresponding authors:
1 2 3
[email protected], [email protected]. [email protected],
4 5
[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

Achieving client’s satisfaction has been identified as one of the most important challenges in
construction projects. As most clients relied on their consultant team for advice, it is important that the
team could translate the client’s needs into a design, which specifies technical characteristics,
functional performance criteria and quality standards. Thus, project briefing is crucial to the success of
a project. The objectives of this research paper are to identify the development of value management
in Malaysian construction industry, to investigate the problems of traditional brief development
process and finally this research aims to establish whether value management (VM) could minimize
the problems in traditional project briefing. To fulfill the objectives, pilot study had been carried out to
obtain the background information before structured questionnaire survey was sent to validate the
literature facts. The primary findings of this research are the identification of briefing problems and
solutions by the architects and developers. Pearson correlation illustrated that clear expectations at
early stage of project and improving communications between parties are the most significant
solutions to the briefing problems. Hence, it was validated that VM is viable to be implemented at
project briefing stage.

Keywords: Briefing problems, Development of VM, Value Management (VM)

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 1

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Construction projects today are experiencing extensive delays, exceeded initial time and estimated
cost (Odeh, 2001). Clients often failed to receive a value for money product. Delays maybe caused by
situations such as changing of project requirements and having second thoughts at later stages;
uncoordinated and incorrect construction documents; brief information is still being given during later
stages of design and construction.

Achieving client’s satisfaction has been identified as one of the most important challenges faced in the
construction industry in the 1990s (Torbica and Stroh, 2001). As most clients relied on their consultant
team for advice, it is important that the team could translate the client’s needs into a design, which
specifies technical characteristics, functional performance criteria and quality standards; and the
completion of the project within a specified time and at the most cost effective manner. Wyatt and
Smith (1998) stated that the early stages in the development of a project are crucial to its success.
This is due to the importance of the decisions made during at these stages will influence the
characteristics and forms of the project.

According to Barrett and Stanley (1999) and Kamara et al. (2002), the current briefing practices in
construction industry are still considered as inadequate. Othman et al. (2005) suggested that a
detailed brief development management system incorporating both value management (VM) and risk
management (RM) is needed to improve the briefing process. Ann et al. (2005) has conducted
research to establish a VM framework for project briefing to systematically identify and clarify client’s
requirements; and it was proven that the application of VM into project briefing is most beneficial.
However, the viability of VM application at project briefing has yet to be tested in the Malaysian
construction industry. Therefore, it is significant to study the views of Malaysian industry players,
particularly parties involved in project briefing; on the application of VM into project briefing.

This paper aims to identify the development of value management in Malaysian construction industry,
to investigate the problems of traditional brief development process and to determine the viability of
VM implementation at the project brief formulation.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature reviews are divided into construction briefing, problems in project brief formulation and,
VM in analyzing project briefing.

2.1 Construction Briefing

Construction project briefing is the activity of taking a client’s clear, unambiguous and explicit
performance specification of a project (Kelly et al., 2003). A brief can be described as a formal
document which sets out the client’s requirements for a construction project and forms the basis for
design. Salisbury (1998) summarizes the briefing process in the context of the first four sections of the
RIBA Plan of Work which consists of the inception, feasibility, outline proposal and scheme design
stage. In Malaysia, the concept of briefing process is as stated by Salisbury (1998) and this is
supported as well by Kamara et al. (2002). Briefing is definitely a process and not an event itself.

Typically, there are 3 types of brief namely the Statement of needs, Strategic brief and Project brief
(Refer Table 1). Different types of briefs at different stages could give different impact altogether. This
research focused on the stages of project brief.

2.2 Problems in Project Brief Formulation

The current briefing process does not provide optimum definition and understanding of the client’s
needs (Kamara et al., 2002) and there are 20 common problems known in briefing process (Barrett
and Stanley, 1999). Table 2 provides 8 problems in project briefing identified in the literature reviews
namely: lack of client’s experience with building industry; failure to reflect the priorities of the client
body; failure to identify the client’s needs; solution-focused thinking; buildability; insufficient time for
briefing; incomplete briefs and; inadequate communication between parties involved in briefing.

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 2

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2.3 Value Management in Analyzing Project Briefing

Much of the success of briefing depends on the management of the briefing process (Blyth and
Worthington, 2001). Moreover, Barret and Stanley (1999) stated that human nature often the root of
these failures and reveals that VM is useful to overcome briefing problems. Due to the complexities in
identifying and conveying clients' actual requirements accurately to the project team coupled with the
immense magnitude of project information that needs to be considered during the briefing process,
project briefs are often inadequate and not sufficiently explicit. Thus this may not truly reflect client’s
requirements (Barrett and Stanley, 1999). Lack of a systematic approach to identify and clarify the
client’s requirements, and defining and communicating them to the designers are the major
roadblocks to successful project delivery. Therefore, Kamara et al. (2002) suggested that a
framework is helpful to clarify the client’s vision, facilitate communication and common understanding,
enhance collaborative working environment, facilitate design creativity, minimizing unclear definition of
client’s requirements, minimize downstream problems, provide the basis of effective requirements
management and to ensure the focus of client’s requirements can be maintained.

Blyth and Worthington (2001) suggested that VM review is an effective method of ensuring that there
is a shared understanding within the client and user organizations at project briefing. VM review is a
structured exercise to assist the identification of underlying goals and opportunities. It is also an
effective way to identify priorities of various client groups.

VM allows organizations to adopt a consistent approach in decision-making process, taking into

consideration the needs of the business, the environment of the client’s organization and the people
involved. As a very effective tool in meeting the increasing demands for value enhancement by clients
(Dell'Isola, 1982), VM has been widely used in many countries over the past five decades (Ann et al.,
2005). Table 3 shows the benefits of VM which potentially minimizing the briefing problems.

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

There were 8 different problems in project briefing have been identified from literature reviews (Refer
Table 2). Thereafter, pilot study interviews were carried out to acquire sufficient information to aid the
formulation of structured questionnaire. 4 VM experts; each from the public sector, private sector,
academic field and also the representative of Institute of Value Management Malaysia (IVMM) had
been selected for pilot study with the purpose of obtaining more professional view. Therefore, non-
structured questions had been designed to allow them to express their opinions liberally. The relevant
views were incorporated into the structured questionnaire and the questionnaires were sent through
electronic and postal mail.

Targeted samples were the architects and developers in the Malaysian construction industry as they
are the main parties involved in the briefing stage. Samples for architect were obtained from the
‘Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia’ (PAM) website (last updated on 2005) whereby 116 architectural firms
with 15 years of establishment history were selected because they have sufficient experience,
especially in construction briefing. The sample size for this subgroup was 92 (Table 4). Samples for
developer were meant to represent the client in this research. They were obtained from the website of
REHDA (last updated on 2005) with a total of 368 developers and were randomly selected. The
number of developers selected was 191 (Table 4). Hence, the total samples for the questionnaire
were 283, however only 74 of the 92 electronic questionnaires were sent through. Therefore, the valid
total questionnaires sent shall be 265.

There were 5 sections in the questionnaire, prepared in both paper and webpage form. Reliability
analysis was performed before analyzing the questionnaire to ensure that the data is reliable.
Reliability refers to the consistency of the results (Foster, 2001). The reliability statistics shows a wide
range of result from 0.612 to 0.994. Section B has a poor reliability of 0.612 because this section
requires the respondents to reveal their knowledge on VM. According to Jaapar and Torrance
(2005a), VM application in Malaysia construction industry is still in its infancy, however it was found
that at least 23 numbers of projects have undergone value management methodology successfully.
This has caused the inconsistency of responses in this section.

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 3

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Missing value analysis was performed to ensure that the data is complete and no system missing
values. In this study, only 2.6% which considered as small percentage of missing values were found
at Section C and Section E. The missing was nonrandom, thus it has minimal affect to the analysis by
imputing the missing values. Thereafter, responses received would be analyzed using SPSS
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 14 software. Analysis will be done together for
electronic questionnaire and postal responses because both contained the same questions.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From the questionnaires sent, only 38 responses were received and this signified that the return rate
is 14.3%. Among the 38 responses, 9 were replied from the architectural firms whereby 29 were from
the developers. The low response rate was expected because according to Jaapar and Torrance
(2005a), only 57% of the private clients in Malaysian construction industry had sufficient knowledge
on VM. Their research on satisfaction and VM application in Malaysian construction industry had
received a low response rate of 5% only. Thus, the low response rate for this survey is considered
reliable.

The largest population of respondents is the developers (47.4%), followed by the developers who are
also builders (26.3%) and the architectural firms (23.7%). The smaller numbers of responses from the
architectural firms were due to the smaller samples obtained. One respondent had selected the
choice ‘Others’. For the purpose of this research, the 26.3% of the developers cum builders will be
analyzed under the same group of developers to reflect the contrast of opinion between architects
and clients. To ease the analysis, respondents from architectural firms will be termed as ‘architects’,
whereby respondents from developers’ organizations will be called ‘developers’.

4.1 Problems in Project Briefing

The mean values in Table 5 shows an average value of more than 3.20 which generally indicates that
most architects agreed with the problems listed. Responses from architects show that incomplete
statement of needs scored the highest mean value of 4.33. This result has revealed that incomplete
statement of needs is the most significant problem in project briefing for architects. Insufficient briefs
given by the client has caused more difficulties to the architects to prepare sketch design according to
the client’s requirements.

On the other hand, the mean values in Table 6 shows average values of more than 3.00 which
specified that most developers agreed with the problems listed. Highest mean value score was the
inadequate communication between parties involved in briefing (4.41), which shows that most
developers agreed of this problem and they are experiencing the construction jargon in
communication. At most circumstances, developers are not confident on how much their architect has
fully understood their requirements because they couldn’t communicate on drawings.

4.2 Viability of Value Management to be Implemented at Project Briefing Stage

Table 7 shows the mean value of solutions indicated by architects. The mean shows high average
values of more than 3.80 which indicates that most architects agreed with the solutions. Improving
communications between parties scored the highest mean of 4.33. Meanwhile, 7 of the solutions
listed scored more than 4.00; indicates that the respondents were confident that the solutions could
aid the problems in project briefing. Architects felt that improving communications between parties is
the most significant solution to problems in briefing. In briefing process, effective communications
between architect and client is the main factor contributing to the success of briefing.
Miscommunication leads to assumptions which then could leads to wrong design and variation orders.

Table 8 shows the mean value of solutions indicated by developers. The mean shows an average
values of more than 3.60 which shows that most developers agreed with the solutions. Similar to the
views of the architects, improving communications between parties scored the highest mean of 4.52.
It is undoubtedly that communication is the most important element in project briefing. Improving
communications between parties would benefit both architects and developers.

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 4

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Relationships between the problems and solutions for both parties were further analyzed by using
Bivariate Correlation analysis. For this survey, Pearson correlation coefficient was selected to test the
relationships between variables of problems and solutions. Two-tailed significance test was selected.

Table 9 shows the Pearson correlation for problems and solutions indicated by architects. It illustrates
that 3 out of 8 problems listed has significant strength at 99% confidence interval with particular
solutions provided in this survey. Pearson correlation data shows that lack of client’s experience,
failure to reflect priorities of the client body and insufficient time for briefing has the same significant
solution, which is to clear expectations at early stage of project. From the data, lack of client’s
experience has the strongest correlation with solution namely to clear expectations at early stage of
project. Clear expectations at early stage of project could solve the problem of client’s lack of
experience.

Table 10 shows the Pearson correlation for problems and solutions indicated by developers. It was
found that 4 out of 8 problems have solutions with significant strength. Process thinking on solution-
focused and inadequate communication between parties involved in briefing has both significance
solutions at precision of 95% and 99% confidence interval. Inadequate communication between
parties could be solved by improving communications and clearing expectations at early stage of
project.

Prior to making any conclusion, analysis of 2 questions in the survey form have to be completed.
Table 11 shows the mean value of benefit and viability of VM at briefing stage. Both the mean values
exceeded the average of 4.00; indicating that most respondents who answered this question agreed
that VM provide various benefits and viable to be implemented at briefing stage.

4.3 Interview Analysis

The interview data was collected together during the pilot study because the data on development of
VM requires the VM experts’ knowledge. Questionnaire methodology alone would not be able to
obtain the information required as it involves historical data and long term observation on VM in the
construction industry.

According to IVMM representative, VM is still growing in the Malaysian construction industry and the
responses are good. On the other hand, academician mentioned that the level of acceptance of VM is
depending on individual and their level of exposure. From the result of her VM research, clients were
satisfied with the outcome of VM studies from their experience. Private sector expert felt that the
development of VM in Malaysian construction is slow. In his opinion, it is actually much depending on
the top management and stakeholders. Initiative always starts from client himself. The biggest hurdle
in the implementation process would be similar to the problem faced by the United Kingdom (UK)
construction industry as the local construction industry has institutionalized attitudes whereby since
VM cuts right across boundaries, the construction professionals did not take easily to it.

Public sector expert agreed that VM has a very good future in the Malaysian construction industry.
However, private sector expert revealed that the future of VM would much depends on the
Government because when the Government makes it compulsory for Public Works Department
(PWD) projects, the private sector will then follow. Generally, all experts have provided positive
responses to the future of VM in the Malaysian construction industry. Nevertheless, it has to depend
on the effort of the IVMM in promoting VM actively and the initiative from the Government. VM
develops slow but towards a positive way which will benefit the construction industry.

5.0 CONCLUSION

From literature review, 8 problems in project briefing were identified from various authors. Finding
results shows that all of the problems have the mean value more than 3.20 as indicated by architect
and mean value more than 3.00 by developers. This has proved the respondents agreed to the
problems and they were valid. The top 3 problems indicated by the architects were incomplete
statement of needs, inadequate communication between parties involved in briefing and insufficient
time for briefing. The similar trait is that all the top 3 problems were due to the clients and the
traditional briefing process itself. From the responses of developers, inadequate communication

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 5

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
between parties involved in briefing is the most significant problem, followed by lack of advice on
buildability and failure to reflect priorities of client body. The responses were good because they
reflect the nature of human being; always trying to transfer the blame to others when problems
occurred. This is however should not invalidate the data received because separate analysis were
carried out among them.

This research aims to determine the viability of VM implementation at project briefing formulation.
Generally, mean value more than 3.80 indicated by the architects and mean value more than 3.60
indicated by the developers have strongly affirmed that solutions provided are able to solve the
problems in briefing. The ranking of solutions provided by the architects were: (i) improving
communications between parties, (ii) early identification of project risks and (iii) review on more
alternatives. Improving communications between parties appeared on top of the ranking for both
architects and developers. On the other hand, the second and third ranking of solutions by developers
shows clear expectations at early stage of project and early prioritizing of project cost.

Pearson correlation has been carried out to test the significant relationships between problems and
solutions provided (Refer Table 9 and 10). Result shows that clear expectations at early stage of
project is the most significant solution for architects, whereas improving communications between
parties is the most significant for developers. Clear expectations at early stage of project actually
consists the element of communication whereby it requires verbal transaction of information. Thus, it
is concluded that improving communications between parties is the most significant solutions to
problems in briefing. Since benefits of VM are the solutions to minimize the problem in briefing, VM is
viable to be implemented at briefing stage.

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 6

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 Table 1: Types of brief (source from Kelly and Bowles, 2003)
Types of Brief Description
Statement of needs is the original statements transferred verbally
Statement of needs
from the client to the brief writer.
Strategic brief is the concept brief which contains information
Strategic brief
required by the project team to establish a ‘real’ project.
Project brief is the detailed brief developed from Strategic brief. The
Project brief main activity is the conversion of the input by client from the Strategic
brief into conceptual drawings.

Table 2: Problems in project briefing

Problem Author Suggested Description

Inexperience clients often fail to understand the structure of

Lack of client’s Barrett and Stanley (1999) building industry and lack of appreciation of the building
experience with Kamara et al. (2001) technicalities. These frequently leads to the selection of
building industry Kelly and Bowles (2003) unsuitable site, low expectation on the project costs and failure
to appreciate the roles of various parties appointed.

The client body may consist of the building owner, users,

Barrett and Stanley (1999) buyers and other interest group with different attention to the
Failure to reflect
Blyth and Worthington end product. However, no structured objectives and
the priorities of the
(2001) methodologies could guide the design team to include most
client body
Kamara et al. (2001) perspectives of the client body and to establish relative
importance of requirements of the various interest groups.
The statement of needs tend to be influenced by the
Ann et al. (2005)
predictable solutions, which the brief writer is attempting to
Barrett and Stanley (1999)
Failure to identity solve the wrong problem. Some clients could wrongly define
Blyth and Worthington
the client’s needs their needs when the brief writers questioned in detail of the
(2001)
stated requirements and lead to the clients re-thinking of the
Kelly and Bowles (2003)
project.

Solution-focused Kamara et al. (2001) Solution-based thinking of the design team tends to shift the
thinking Kelly and Bowles (2003) focus from the client’s requirements to the design.

The traditional separation of design and construction process

Barrett and Stanley (1999) has limited the integration of both into early decision making
Buildability
Kelly and Bowles (2003) process. Architect could advise on the design but late
appointment of contractor causes lack of advice on buildability.

Ann et al. (2005) The common practice today is the combination of the briefing
Blyth and Worthington and the design stage. Very less time allocated exclusively for
Insufficient time for
(2001) the briefing process. The time pressure to the design team to
briefing
Kamara et al. (2001) meet deadlines has minimize the actual time needed to be
Kelly and Bowles (2003) spend to understand the requirements of the client.

Barrett and Stanley (1999) Incomplete briefs could occur when there is lack of adequate
Incomplete briefs Kamara et al. (2001) information at the early stage of the design process. It tends to
Kelly and Bowles (2003) make the design process more complicated that it should be.
Ann et al. (2005) Architect likes to communicate with drawings. However, most
Inadequate Barrett and Stanley (1999) clients could not understand such building language. Some
communication Blyth and Worthington clients are not clear on what and how to communicate with the
between parties (2001) design team. Conflicts could easily arise when both parties are
involved in briefing Kamara et al. (2001) speaking different languages (business and building
Pressman (1995) language).

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 7

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 Table 3: Benefits provided by VM to minimize briefing problems
Benefit Author Suggested Description

System thinking has been defined by Che Mat (2001) as the

Value
concept to look things in a broader perspective. Value
Management Che Mat (2002)
management encourages system thinking rather than solution-
Encourages Ong (2001)
focused thinking. More creative and innovative alternatives
System Thinking
can be generated at briefing stage.

Value management helps the clients and the project team to

focus on the objectives and needs of the project. It encourages
clients to fully contribute in the briefing process and facilitates
Establishing
Che Mat (2002) communication between clients and the design team. VM
Client’s Needs
Jaapar and Torrance (2006) methodology facilitates a systematic identification and clear
definition of client’s requirements, improves understanding of
various clients’ objectives and effective accomplishment of
these functions.

Intensive and facilitated briefing exercise could encourage

good team dynamics and team building. Team of different
Che Mat (2002)
professionals will enhance the value of the project with good
Jaapar and Torrance
Staff Development team building, rather than isolating themselves in their own
(2005a)
profession. With the sense of belonging, design team is willing
Jergeas and Cooke (1997)
to share their knowledge and integrating them into the project.
Lane (2004)
This has relieved the insufficient time for briefing at early stage
and any misunderstanding can be clarified immediately.

Eliminating unnecessary cost without reducing the product

reliability has been a recognized benefit of VM. Therefore, lack
Identifying and Che Mat (2002)
of advice on buildability in traditional approach of briefing can
Removing of Jaapar and Torrance (2006)
be resolved by implementing VM because VM workshops
Unnecessary Ong (2001)
allow which parties to review on the existing sketch and thus
Costs
obtaining more comments and this allow them to see clearer
on any unnecessary costs.
Che Mat (2002) VM also improve the communications between team
Improving Jaapar and Torrance members. Effective brief communications shall be concise and
Communications (2005a) clear, provide only relevant information, using appropriate
Ong (2001) language and comprehensive statements.

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 8

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 Table 4: Sample size for a given population size (source from Sekaran, 2000)
N S N S N S
10 10 220 140 1200 291
15 14 230 144 1300 297
20 19 240 148 1400 302
25 24 250 152 1500 306
30 28 260 155 1600 310
35 32 270 159 1700 313
40 36 280 162 1800 317
45 40 290 165 1900 320
50 44 300 169 2000 322
55 48 320 175 2200 327
60 52 340 181 2400 331
65 56 360 186 2600 335
70 59 380 191 2800 338
75 63 400 196 3000 341
80 66 420 201 3500 346
85 70 440 205 4000 351
90 73 460 210 4500 354
95 76 480 214 5000 357
100 80 500 217 6000 361
110 86 550 226 7000 364
120 92 600 234 8000 367
130 97 650 242 9000 368
140 103 700 248 10000 370
150 108 750 254 15000 375
160 113 800 260 20000 377
170 118 850 265 30000 379
180 123 900 269 40000 380
190 127 950 274 50000 381
200 132 1000 278 75000 382
210 136 1100 285 100000 384
‘N’ represented the population size, whereas ‘S’ represented the sample size

Table 5: Mean value of problems in project briefing indicated by architects

Problem Mean value Rank
Lack of client’s experience with building industry 3.89 4
Failure to reflect priorities of the client body 3.78 5
Failure to identify the client’s needs 3.22 8
Process thinking on solution-focused 3.67 7
Lack of advice on buildability 3.78 6
Insufficient time for briefing 3.89 3
Incomplete statement of needs 4.33 1
Inadequate communication between parties involved in
4.22 2
briefing

Table 6: Mean value of problems in project briefing indicated by developers

Problem Mean value Rank
Lack of client’s experience with building industry 3.59 7
Failure to reflect priorities of the client body 3.82 3
Failure to identify the client’s needs 3.76 4
Process thinking on solution-focused 3.62 6
Lack of advice on buildability 3.86 2
Insufficient time for briefing 3.14 8
Incomplete statement of needs 3.66 5
Inadequate communication between parties involved in
4.41 1
briefing

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 9

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 Table 7: Mean value of solutions indicated by architects
Solution Mean value Rank
Clear expectations at early stage of project 3.89 8
Having a structured framework of briefing 4.22 4
Improving communications between parties 4.33 1
Review on more alternatives 4.22 3
Early identification of project risks 4.22 2
Enhance collaborative working environment 4.00 7
Maintaining focus on client’s requirement 4.00 6
Early prioritizing of project cost 4.11 5

Table 8: Mean value of solutions indicated by developers

Solution Mean value Rank
Clear expectations at early stage of project 4.48 2
Having a structured framework of briefing 4.21 5
Improving communications between parties 4.52 1
Review on more alternatives 3.66 8
Early identification of project risks 4.07 6
Enhance collaborative working environment 3.86 7
Maintaining focus on client’s requirement 4.24 4
Early prioritizing of project cost 4.24 3

Table 9: Pearson correlation for problems and solutions indicated by architects

Mean value for
Solutions with significant Pearson
Problem respective
strength correlation
variables
Lack of client’s experience Clear expectations at early stage
3.89 & 3.89 .944(**)
with building industry of project
Failure to reflect priorities of Clear expectations at early stage
3.78 & 3.89 .871(**)
the client body of project
Failure to identify the client’s
- 3.22
needs
-
Process thinking on solution-
- 3.67
focused -
Lack of advice on buildability - 3.78
-
Clear expectations at early stage
Insufficient time for briefing 3.89 & 3.89 .807(**)
of project
Incomplete statement of
- 4.33 -
needs
Inadequate communication
between parties involved in - 4.22 -
briefing

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 10

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 Table 10: Pearson correlation for problems and solutions indicated by developers
Mean value for
Solutions with significant Pearson
Problem respective
strength correlation
variables
Lack of client’s experience
- 3.89 -
with building industry
Failure to reflect priorities of Improving communications
3.78 & 4.52 .379(*)
the client body between parties
Failure to identify the client’s
- 3.22 -
needs
Review on more alternatives 3.67 & 3.66 .494(**)
Process thinking on solution-
focused Enhance collaborative working
3.67 & 3.86 .452(*)
environment
Improving communications
Lack of advice on buildability 3.78 & 4.52 .385(*)
between parties
Insufficient time for briefing - 3.89 -
Incomplete statement of
- 4.33 -
needs
Improving communications
Inadequate communication 4.22 & 4.52 .593(**)
between parties
between parties involved in
Clear expectations at early stage
briefing 4.22 & 4.48 .396(*)
of project

Table 11: Mean value of benefits and viability of VM at briefing stage

Item Mean value
VM provide various benefits at briefing stage 4.33
VM is viable to be implemented at briefing stage 4.22

REFERENCES

Ann, T W Yu, Shen, Q., Kelly, J. & Hunter, K. (2005). Application of value management in project briefing.
Facilities [online], 23 (7/8). Available from:
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?index=3&did=875532361&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=4&VInst=PRO
D&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1156496419&clientId=18803 [Assessed 23 August
2006]
Barrett, P.S. & Stanley, C. (1999). Better Construction Briefing. Blackwell Science: Oxford.
Beverley, A.S.F. (2006). International construction: Malaysian contractors business and financial strategies.
Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of the Built Environment, University of Malaya.
Blyth, A. & Worthington, J. (2001). Managing the brief for better design. New York: Spon Press.
Che Mat, M.M. (2002). Value management: Principles and applications. Petaling Jaya: Prentice Hall.
Dell’Isola, A.J. (1982). Value engineering in the construction industry. United States of America: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Foster, J.J. (2001). Data analysis using SPSS for Windows version 8 to 10. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Jaapar, A. & Torrance, J. V. (2005a). Value management and its current status in Malaysia. The Malaysian
Surveyor, ISM, 39 (2), 14-24.
Jaapar, A. & Torrance, J. V. (2006). Contribution of Value Management to the Malaysian Construction
Industry: A New Insight. International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 (ICCI 2006), 21- 24
June 2006, Padang, Indonesia.

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 11

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 Kamara, J.M., Anumba, C.J. & Evbuomwan, N.F.O. (2002). Capturing client requirements in construction
projects. Great Britian: Thomas Telford.
Kelly, J.R. & Bowles, G. (2003). Value and risk management. United Kingdom: School of the Built
Environment, Heriot-Watt University.
Kelly, J. & Male, S (1991). The practice of value management: Enhancing value or cutting cost? London:
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Kelly, J.R., Shen, Q.P., Hunter, K. & Yu, A. (2003). A framework for using value management in the briefing
process to create better project briefs. A World of Value – Hong Kong 6th International Conference,
26 – 27 November 2003, Hong Kong.
Odeh, A. M. & Battaineh, H.T. (2001). Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts. International
Journal of Project Management [online], 20 (1). Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9V-449V0S0-
7&_user=152948&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2002&_alid=439142170&_rdoc=9&_fmt=full&_orig=se
arch&_cdi=5908&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000012678&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_
userid=152948&md5=213438b120be7e6415516d0ac020ccd3 [Assessed 25 August 2006]
Ong, H.T. (2001). Value Management: Enhancing Project Cost Performance. Malaysia: Pro-Value
Management Sdn Bhd.
Othman, A.A.E., Hassan, T.M., Pasquire, C.L. (2005). Analysis of factors that drive brief development in
construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management [online], 12 (1). Available
from:
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?index=7&did=801030721&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=4&VInst=PRO
D&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1156496419&clientId=18803 [Assessed 25 August
2006]
Salisbury, F. (1998). Briefing Your Architect, 2nd ed. Architectural Press: Oxford.
Sekaran, U. (2000). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach, 3rd ed. United States of
America: John Wiley & Sons.
Torbica, Z.M. & Stroh, R.C. (2001), Customer satisfaction in home building. Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 82-6.
Wyatt, R. and Smith, J. (2000). Digital simulation of option-choice behavior, Computers, Environments and
Urban Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 331-54.

Quantity Surveying International Conference. 12

4-5 September, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

View publication stats