Advertisement

Realization of Benefits from Best Value Approach by Proper Utilization of Expertise in Infrastructure Projects

  • Lashand Sivathasan Nadarajah
  • Magnus Mikael HellströmEmail author
  • Gøril Hannås
Conference paper
  • 76 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

In the search for improved contract and project management in construction, the Best Value Approach (BVA) is a concept that has been introduced with a proven track record for better performance. The BV-philosophy stresses the importance of proper utilization of vendor expertise, as well as reducing management, direction and control by assumed non-expert clients. The development of BVA has mainly taken place through lessons learned from a number of projects, and existing research is mostly concerned with practicalities and “how” to apply it. However, research is scarce on what characterizes an expert in a BV-context, and the concept lacks scientific documentation regarding underlying premises. To fill this void, we pose the following research question: How can vendor expertise be utilized in order to achieve BVA benefits? We develop a framework for vendor expertise in BVA, and how it can be utilized to realize proposed BVA benefits. The framework is based on both relevant theories and findings from an in-depth case study. Our contribution is an increased understanding of the expert-role in BVA, and how clients can facilitate the experts in BVA projects. In this paper, we question the rationale behind BVA and discuss the underlying premises for transferring supreme responsibility of public construction projects to private marked vendors.

Keywords

Best value approach Expertise Procurement Project management Uncertainty 

References

  1. Argyris C (2002) Double-loop learning, teaching and research. Acad Manag Learn Educ 1(2):206–218Google Scholar
  2. Duren VJ, Dorée A (2008) An evaluation of performance information procurement system (PIPS). In: 3rd international public procurement conference proceedings, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Farrington-Darby T, Wilson JR (2006) The nature of expertise: a review. Appl ErgonGoogle Scholar
  4. Grant RM (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Inst Oper Res Manag Sci 7Google Scholar
  5. Hambrick DZ, Meinz EJ (2011) Limits on the predictive power of domain-specific experience and knowledge in skilled performance. Current Dir Psychol Sci SAGE J 20(5):275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hillson D (2009) Managing risk in projects. Gower Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Joudi A, Breivik IB, Wondimu P, Houch LD (2018) Experience with best value procurement in norwegian infrastructure projects. Procedia Comput Sci 138:783–790Google Scholar
  8. Kashiwagi DT (2002) Application of information measurement theory (IMT) to construction. In: 18th annual ARCOM conference (ss. 513–514). Association of Researchers in Construction ManagementGoogle Scholar
  9. Kashiwagi DT (2016) Best value approach. Kashiwagi Solution Model, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  10. Klakegg OJ, Torp O, Kalsaas BT, Bølviken T, Hannås G (2017) Uncertainty management—area of development for lean construction. In: Kalsaas BT, Lean construction—understand and improve production. Fagbokforlaget, 335–360Google Scholar
  11. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  12. March J (1999) The pursuit of organizational intelligence. Blackwell, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. McInerney C (2002) Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge. J Am Soc Inf Sci TechnolGoogle Scholar
  14. Nadarajah LS (2019) Realization of benefits by utilization of vendor expertise—a study of best value approach in a Norwegian road infrastructure project. University of Agder, Faculty of technology and science, School of business and lawGoogle Scholar
  15. Spender J (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of a firm. Strat Manag J 17Google Scholar
  16. Storteboom A, Wondimu P, Lædre O (2017) Best value procurement—the practical approach in the Netherlands. Elsevier, BarcelonaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Verveij J, Kashiwagi D (2016) Introducing the best value quality checklist in procurement. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and ConstructionGoogle Scholar
  18. Yin RK (2003) Case study research. Design and Methods (3 ed) Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lashand Sivathasan Nadarajah
    • 1
  • Magnus Mikael Hellström
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Gøril Hannås
    • 2
  1. 1.Multiconsult NorwayOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Working Life and Innovation, School of Business and LawUniversity of AgderGrimstadNorway
  3. 3.Faculty of Science and EngineeringÅbo Akademi UniversityÅboFinland

Personalised recommendations