Published by ICE Publishing, 40 Marsh Wall, London E14 9TP.

Distributors for ICE Publishing books are

USA: Publishers Storage and Shipping Corp., 46 Development Road,
Fitchburg, MA 01420

www.icevirtuallibrary.com
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-7277-4414-2
© Thomas Telford Limited 2011

ICE Publishing is a division of Thomas Telford Ltd, a wholly-

owned subsidiary of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).

All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as

permitted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,
no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of the Publisher, ICE
Publishing, 40 Marsh Wall, London E14 9TP.

This book is published on the understanding that the author is

solely responsible for the statements made and opinions
expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily
imply that such statements and/or opinions are or reflect the
views or opinions of the publishers. Whilst every effort has
been made to ensure that the statements made and the
opinions expressed in this publication provide a safe and
accurate guide, no liability or responsibility can be accepted in
this respect by the author or publishers.
 Civil Engineering Projects - what is value for money?

INTRODUCTORY NOTES

Session 1 Project costing - for today and tomorrow?

"Too much emphasis is currently placed on the least

initial cost of a project compared with the overall
11
[LIBRARY] cost throughout its life and its eventual replacement

Proposer: J A Derrington, Past President

Institution of Civil Engineers

Responder: M J N Barnett, Assistant Director

Kleinwort, Benson Ltd

Session 2 Quality of design and construction -

is it adequate?

"Is sufficient attention in civil engineering given

to the quality of design and construction, Need
quality and cost conflict?"

Proposer: B Doyle, Chief Executive

Welsh Water Authority

Responder: D Dennington, Partner

Bullen & Partners

Session 3 Innovation - what is its place in

civil engineering?

"Should the optimum value for money in relation to

a particular project be sacrificed in order to
encourage innovation and widen the skills and
experience of civil engineers in the longer term
interest of the country and the profession?"

Proposer: A J Egginton, Director Engineering

Science and Engineering Research
Council

Responder: D Dewar, Assistant Auditor General

National Audit Office
Session 1 Proposer: J A Derrington
A'

II
Too m u c h interest ly placed on the least initial cost of a
project compared with t h e overall cost t h r o u g h o u t its life and its
eventual replacement".

If I were a p r i e s t , or b e t t e r still a b i s h o p , it would be normal for m e t o

q u o t e a text b e f o r e giving an o p e n i n g address such as t h i s . If so, t h e text I
would c h o o s e would be taken from t h e front p a g e of t h e D a i l y T e l e g r a p h o f 17th
D e c e m b e r 1985 and is entitled "14 y e a r s late".

1
The Dungeness ' B nuclear power plant in Kent is likely t o b e fully
operational by C h r i s t m a s , 20 y e a r s after w o r k started, the Central Electricity
G e n e r a t i n g Board d i s c l o s e d y e s t e r d a y . T h e second r e a c t o r will open 14 years
behind s c h e d u l e and with a total cost £ 5 0 0 m i l l i o n o v e r the o r i g i n a l e s t i m a t e
of £111 m i l l i o n .

It is interesting to recall that t h e c o n t r a c t w a s placed cn t h e b a s i s o f t h e

initial bid cost being lower than t h a t o f f e r e d for both Hinkley Point 'B' a n d
Hunterston 'B' both o f which s t a t i o n s h a v e been producing t h e lowest cost
electricity in the W e s t e r n world f o r nearly 10 y e a r s , having been b u i l t f o r
total c o n t r a c t f i g u r e s of less than 2 5 % of D u n g e n e s s 'B'.

It is also the main reason f o r t h e "public accountabi1ity" policy o f

Government purchasing being t h e subject of some c r i t i c i s m in t h e p r i v a t e
sector o f industry where it is seen not o n l y as a complete f a i l u r e in
e f f i c i e n t m a n a g e m e n t of r e s o u r c e s , but a l s o as a rather lame e x c u s e to explain
it a w a y . For in t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r , although c o m p l e t i o n is not r e j e c t e d as a
rational purchasing policy, t h e competition o n price is linked with
c o m p e t i t i o n on d e l i v e r y or p e r f o r m a n c e , and also on quality of w o r k .

In o u r private lives, w e c e r t a i n l y do not live on t h e basis o f always

accepting the cheapest offer, and m a n y of us do not follow t h e r a t i o n a l e o f
rejecting in o u r b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t i e s t h e m o d e used in o u r p r i v a t e l i v e s . My
o b s e r v a t i o n s as a c o n t r a c t o r , m a k e it c l e a r that in the p r i v a t e sector, t h e
interest lies in a c o m b i n a t i o n of e c o n o m y , quality and speed of c o n s t r u c t i o n
and t h e main o b j e c t i v e is v a l u e f o r m o n e y rather than lowest p r i m e cost. We
all v a l u e t h e client w h o seeks t h e best q u a l i t y , we understand t h e c l i e n t who
needs t h e fastest construction time, w e t o l e r a t e the client w h o seeks t h e
lowest cost and we avoid t h e man w h o t h i n k s he can get all t h r e e at t h e same
time.

In recent y e a r s w e also see a general u n d e r s t a n d i n g that additional s a f e t y is

a f u r t h e r a t t r i b u t e that it is worth b u y i n g . T h e r e is a growing a p p r e c i a t i o n
by large industrial c o m p a n i e s , s t a t u t o r y u n d e r t a k i n g s and o t h e r b o d i e s that
the standard o f an unblemished record of site safety is worth the cost of
achievement.

To understand the origin of the lowest cost s y n d r o m e , it is n e c e s s a r y to g o

back a c e n t u r y o r m o r e w h e n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n industry was a s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t
animal from t o d a y . Then the e n g i n e e r w a s also t h e m a n a g e r , d e v e l o p i n g t h e
total p r o j e c t by hiring c o n t r a c t o r s to supply labour, p u r c h a s i n g m a t e r i a l s
d i r e c t l y and so on, and always in a p o s i t i o n to m a k e a judgement on q u a l i t y of
m a t e r i a l , a v a i l a b i l i t y of supply e t c . , so that t h e o b j e c t i v e of a c h e a p p r i c e
was f a r m o r e r e l e v a n t to t h e c o n d i t i o n s .

Today w e h a v e m o v e d on to t h e p o s i t i o n w h e r e the e n g i n e e r is distanced from

the works, and in m a n y cases lacks t h e p r o p e r a u t h o r i t y to m a n a g e as did his
predecessor. Little wonder that t h e lowest p r i c e philosophy is equally
outdated.

So w h i l s t w e m a y c o n c l u d e that t h e c o m p e t i t i v e spirit must be retained, that

interest in safety, quality, performance m u s t stand with economy as an
o b j e c t i v e , little has been d o n e to e s t a b l i s h a m e t h o d of c o n t r a c t o r s e l e c t i o n ,
to .meet our total n e e d s . My first s u g g e s t i o n h e r e m a y well be found too
simplistic, but that m a y not b e bad in all s e n s e s . Little c h a n g e w o u l d be
made on present t e n d e r i n g p r o c e d u r e s if we g a v e greater emphasis to the
engineer's e s t i m a t e of t h e cost o f t h e w o r k s by placing the c o n t r a c t w i t h the
b i d d e r w h o o f f e r e d a p r i c e closest t o it. If the e n g i n e e r w a s t h u s p e r s u a d e d
to d e d i c a t e m o r e e f f o r t to the e s t i m a t i o n p r o c e d u r e , the c o n t r a c t o r received
the impression that h e w a s a f t e r all o n l y giving a second o p i n i o n , and the
client o b t a i n e d t h e result that he w a s seeking in having the w o r k s c a r r i e d out
for precisely the sum o f m o n e y t h a t he e x p e c t e d , nothing but good could
result, and the post contract ritual of claim and counter-claim might be
avoided.

It would a p p e a r h o w e v e r that a m o r e p o s i t i v e approach to e n s u r i n g maximum

value for m o n e y is called for in t o d a y ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n world. Every project
fone c o n s i d e r s now shows t h e i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y problems of i n t e g r a t i n g t h e
needs of p r o c e s s e q u i p m e n t and plant with building and facility layout through
all t h e s t a g e s of conceptual d e s i g n , layout, s e r v i c e planning and d e t a i l e d
design. It is suggested t h e r e f o r e that the t e c h n i q u e s already built in f o r
ensuring q u a l i t y and s a f e t y need to be covered in the field of v a l u e
engineering.

A continued input is required at all stages of t h e design d e v e l o p m e n t b y a

team s p e c i a l l y trained in m a t t e r s of e c o n o m y - a v a l u e engineering t e a m . By a
regular p r o c e s s of a s s e s s m e n t and audit, following the pattern of s a f e t y and
quality a s s u r a n c e improvements can be incorporated, so that t h e r e g u l a r
estimating p r o c e d u r e s can e v o l v e from a sound f o u n d a t i o n . T h e fact t h a t f o r
safety and q u a l i t y t h e s e p r o c e s s e s are now accepted could be helpful t o t h e
value e n g i n e e r i n g a s s e s s m e n t . T h e y w o u l d also incorporate t h e m e t h o d s and
costs of r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e and renewal so that a c o m p r e h e n s i v e e c o n o m i c
picture is o b t a i n e d .

T h e r e is no d o u b t that m a n y well known c a s e s have b r o u g h t into d i s r e p u t e t h e

time honoured custom o f a c c e p t i n g t h e lowest price for a c o n t r a c t in t h e
belief that high q u a l i t y , good p e r f o r m a n c e and t r u e economy will r e s u l t . It
is suggested that recent d e v e l o p m e n t s in t h e use of "value e n g i n e e r i n g " can
e n s u r e that even if t h e lowest p r i c e is not a c h i e v e d , at least t h e best v a l u e
for m o n % y will b e o b t a i n e d .

19.2.85
B:ICEWORKS.JAD/PA
Session 1 : S, ^.
LI V Responder: M J N Barnett

Response to the proposition that "Too much emphasis is currently

placed on the least initial cost of a project compared with the
overall cost throughout its life and its eventual replacement".

1 1
Mr Derrington takes as his text the Dungeness B nuclear power
plant. This notorious plant is part of the AGR Programme which has
been castigated by an eminent Reith lecturer as "one of the three
worst civil investment decisions in history". My text is "hard
cases make bad law".
f
The Dungeness ' B story may be the result of bad design, bad
engineering, bad contract management, or bad government industrial
and energy policy. It was not the result of deliberately ignoring
life-cycle costs. If the plant had been capable of being
constructed on time and performing to specification, there is no
firm evidence that it would not have been an efficient source of
power.

The need for value engineering is undoubted but how relevant is it

to the proposition? At one level it helps to improve the accuracy
of the basic estimates of the costs, the construction timetable,
and the revenue potential. These are the foundations for the
comparison of the commercial and financial alternatives by the use
of such standard techniques as discounted cash flow and probability
analysis. The results are then subjected to professional,
commercial and political judgements in which value engineering is
one element. Competent value engineering will help to avoid more
Dungeness 'B's but not simply by downgrading the relative
importance of initial cost.

Analysis of the feasibility studies of seven large projects - in

the transport, power and industrial sectors in several countries -
shows that in six of the seven the real present value of the
operating costs and revenues is only one-fifth to one-tenth of
their apparent undiscounted value relative to the capital costs.
For example, for one power station in the United Kingdom (not
Dungeness B) the present value of the capital costs is 77% of the
total undiscounted capital cost; but the present value of the
operating costs and revenues over the planned life of the plant is
only 9% of their undiscounted value. The present value of the
gross revenue is only lh times that of the capital costs - not the
12 times that the crude figures would suggest.

The relative importance of the revenue is further reduced because

it is so much more uncertain. Risk analysis on another project - a
transport link - produced a standard deviation on the present value
of the capital cost amounting to one-sixth of the mean value; the
standard deviation on the present value of the total operating
cashflow was shown to be 3h times the mean. The degree of

Contd/.
confidence that we may have in the capital costs estimates is over
20 times as high as our confidence in the subsequent cashflows!

The validity of these comparisons depends on the accuracy of the

original estimates, of the assessment of the margins of error
inherent in these estimates, and of the appropriate rate of
discount for the purpose. These are matters for judgement rather
than proof. In fact, the degree of uncertainty attaching to each
of these projections is likely to be underestimated because of the
sheer difficulty of predicting some of the underlying influences;
and this difficulty increases more than linearly over time.

Economics is - I trust - less of a science than engineering.

Fluctuations in the rate of inflation can totally invalidate profit
forecasts unless relevant product prices and interest rates can be
adjusted in step. Foreign exchange movements are even more
volatile and less predictable. In the first three months of 1982
sterling appreciated by over 50% against the US dollar; in the
following three years it lost all that gain and more; only to rise
by some 35% between January and July last year. Forecasters of
movements in foreign exchange rates are no more successful than
other economic crystal gazers. In 1986 the scope for covering
foreign exchange risks forward is far wider and more flexible than
even five years ago, but it is neither universal nor always cheap.

Less predictable still are the technological, commercial and

political discontinuities which turn the best laid plans upside
1
down overnight. Many are 'obvious after the event, but it is a
rare plan which takes realistic account of them in advance. For
these there is no market in which to obtain forward cover.

This is not to say that lowest initial cost is always best or that
other factors are all unimportant and random. The suggestion is
simply that more distant factors carry less weight than the
undiscounted figures imply; that they are inherently less
predictable and less controllable; that this unreliability can
confute the most meticulous analysis; and that, as key decision
criteria, they should be treated with suspicion and great care.

In summary, best and common current practice fully recognises the

significance of life-cycle net costs and also places the proper
emphasis on initial cost.

i/mtm
3.86
Session 2 Proposer: B Doyle

Title: Is Sufficient Attention in Civil Engineering given to the Quality

of Design and Construction? Need Quality and Cost Conflict?

INTRODUCTORY NOTES

The question is approached from the standpoint of a client rather than that of
a consultant or contractor. Illustrative examples are drawn from direct
experience of capital projects in Welsh Water as well as on a wide range of
more general observations. A definition of "Quality" in the context of civil
engineering is offered within which it is concluded that sufficient attention
is not always paid to quality in civil engineering and that quality and cost
need not conflict but frequently do.

The basis for the design of any project is the planning stage which includes
problem definition and demand forecasts. Most civil engineering projects have
a significant impact on the surrounding infrastructure and therefore these
early stages of planning are critical. Mistakes at this stage have far
reaching effects on the overall quality of a project and a number of typical
examples are discussed to illustrate different aspects of the problem
definition and planning process with particular emphasis on demand
forecasting.

The design process itself is then examined and the various elements
contributing towards a high quality design are analysed in some detail. These
include fitness for purpose, design life, maintenance costs, efficient use of
materials and ease of construction. Recognition is given of the overriding
consideration given to safety and examples are put forward of projects in
which the design failed at least one of the criteria.

Consideration is then given to the problems which can arise during

construction which include poor supervision, lack of positive quality
assurance and the confused area of overall responsibility.
Having demonstrated that a range of problems can and do occur at all stages of
civil engineering projects the paper then attempts to identify the root causes
of these failures. Problems at the planning stage can arise from forecasting
errors but frequently are the result of political pressures aimed at
minimising initial capital cost. At the design stage there appear to be three
primary contributing factors. First the method of remuneration of consulting
engineers, second the built-in conservatism within the civil engineering
profession and third the separation throughout much of the Industry of the
responsibility for design from that for construction. Associated issues of
research and development and the increasing fear of litigation are also
examined.

Increased pressure on initial capital cost, unclear lines of responsibility

and the overwhelming reliance on closed tenders for awarding projects underlie
many quality problems during construction. It is noted that from a
contractors viewpoint, the profit from a project rarely comes from the basic
tender price but from the various extras and claims which can be negotiated
coupled with any short cuts which can be made along the way. In addition
there is kittle scope in civil engineering for economy through repetition.

The final section of the paper looks at some long term changes which might be
introduced in order to improve the quality of design and construction without
increasing overall cost. Among the suggestions are a different approach to
the remuneration of consulting engineers in order to encourage a greater
investment in design effort thus increasing the chances of design being of
adequate quality. A move away from fee scale and the value of various forms
of incentive are discussed. Suggestions are made to encourage increased
vertical integration within the civil engineering industry to counter
increased liability. Finally proposals are put forward for a much more
innovative attitude to be developed towards tendering with serious thought
being given to the benefits of integrated package deals which include both
design and construction.

F B DOYLE
12 February 1986
Session 2 Responder: D Dennington

Session No.2 Quality of design and Construction - is it adequate?

Response to Proposer. Introductory Notes

The responder has progressed from package dealer, to public servant

promoting and executing works and onto consultancy. The standpoint
as far as possible is from the side.

Quality should match service requirements; "fitness of purpose"

may be its definition for civil engineering works. Generally quality refers
to the standards of finish and workmanship to which British Standards
have addressed themselves for years. There is no differentiation in
this specified quality for all parts of projects. The whole life concept
need not be applied to the entire works - each element may be con­
sidered separately in these terms.

The first phases of planning a project and receiving approvals based

on cost needs some built in room for manoeuvre to reduce specification
of non critical elements if later estimates prove that initial ones were
too low, so that projects, still to a worthwhile specification, may
proceed. The best should not always be enemy of the good.

It has to be recognised that political decisions affect design. The

relevant Acts are the instruments concerned. If quality embraces
as it should the service to those who feel the impact of a design
as w^ll as its users, eg. an elevated road, then legislation such as
the Land Compensation Act of 1973 have a profound effect. Its
absence before that date did not inhibit construction. Its appearance
affected quality and cost immediately, and engineers did not promote
the Bill. y

There is no need to consider that contractor involvement in the

design process is a panacea for low cost quality and fitness of purpose,
nor that if it occurs then total involvement is necessary an example is
given of selective involvement. Two stage tendering is discussed.

The design processes are dogged by the responsibility issues

applied more and more stringently by zealous owners.

Resource to litigation increases the burden of insurance and cuts

profits and incentives. It does improve performance but puts a
cost penalty on future work. Innovation declines; works become
more ponderous to be on the safe side. The owner pays eventually.

In a perfect world no supervision should be necessary. It is in

any event the duty of the Contractor to supervise his work; the
Engineer inspects. This should be the criterion for the much
needed examination of the issues surrounding this subject.
To sum u p , quality and design emerge in the best form possible between
the Scylla of litigation and the Charybdis of planning stage procedures.
It is remarkable that serviceable works result so often reasonably
within expected cost. The future should include more flexibility
of quality according to the function of an element and there should
be shared risk. The quality of the service condition affects both
users and neighbours.

D. Dennington
27.2,86
Session 3: Proposer: A J Egginton
:
•#^ -%\

Innovation - what is its place in civil engineering?

'Should the optimum value for money in relation to a particular project be

sacrificed in order to encourage innovation and widen the skills and

experience of civil engineers in the longer term interest of the community

and the profession?'

There is clearly no question that in this industry, as in all others,

companies will only survive and prosper by offering high quality products

on time and at the lowest possible price. But what do these terms mean in

practice? The words 'high quality' indicate, in the first instance, of

course, the ability to perform to specification, but should have meanings

well beyond that very limited definition. Clients looking at proposals

will be seeking innovative qualities which indicate improved 'whole life'

performance and reduced operating cost. They will be seeking ways of

improving durability of the product and ways of minimising the risk of

failure^. But they will want to do this on the basis of 'track record',

ie they will not wish to be the first to try a new technique or process.

All of this, of course, implies a number of conditions being met and,

particularly, an overhead to be invested which enables innovation to be

introduced and research to be conducted in such a way that the clients

wishes as stated above are met. The problem is that in the short term,

competitors may offer a lower price by not investing in this overhead,

thus making their product superficially attractive to clients.

In spite of this, it is hard to see how an industry can properly carry out

its responsibilities for the nation in the longer term if, somehow or

other, this kind of provision for the future is not made. Why should

civil engineering be different in this respect from all other industries?

But another dimension is the international one. Other countries do not

take this approach. For example the recent formation of the Construction

Industry Institute in the United States involving a large number of civil

engineering companies and clients, indicates a recognition by the industry

that innovation and research need to flourish if the industry is to

prosper. Similarly in Japan there is increasing emphasis now being given

by the industry to the use of high technology in construction.

Thus in these countries at least the industries are taking a positive

approach to innovation and its relevance to their future development. In

addition in Japan the Government is assisting the industry strongly in

this process and the US Government investment in construction research is

already at a much higher level in relation to GNP than that in the UK.

Levels of such support by Government in France and Germany are also

significantly higher than in this country.

It would seem from this that the UK (and one should stress this as a

national and not purely an industrial issue) must make provision for

future support of innovation in civil engineering. The question is where

should the resources come from? Obviously the identification of need must

lie primarily with the industry but there are then a number of options for

the funding.

(i) Individual companies can provide for their own future in the

decisions regarding innovation and research. This has the

advantage of linking decisions most closely to operational

requirements of companies but then in the short term the

companies concerned suffer the competitive disadvantage referred

to above. Moreover in many areas the underpinning research will

* often be of interest to a number of companies and would be more

efficiently conducted on a collaborative basis.

(ii) Collaborative programmes could be conducted for this reason

either in the form of clubs or through bodies such as Research

Associations. This of course already takes place on the latter

basis and as such represents a charge on companies, albeit

arguably at too low a level.

(iii) A much more overt participation by Government in partnership

with companies (or clubs) on a basis similar to that applied in

other industries through the DTI Support for Innovation Scheme.

(iv) The creation of a national programme based on (iii) but

involving participation of other bodies such as SERC and the

universities.
These various modes of operation entail progressively reducing levels of
industrial investment are required to support advances in innovation and
research. Thus the last may from that point of view be seen as the
preferred one but if it were adopted it is important to provide strong
links between the industry's needs and the programmes of research or
innovation that may be carried out to try and satisfy those needs.

The opening question also refers to the widening of skills in the

profession provided by increased attention to innovation. The civil

engineering profession has always placed great emphasis on education and

training and, understandably, on a proper professional approach to work in

this field. Without this the industry would not be able to fulfil its

responsibilities to the community or compete successfully for overseas

trade. However just as it is important for companies to seek methods of

innovation, so it must be for the civil engineer himself, and the two of

course go naturally together. Indeed, the proven track record of

individual engineers to innovate will frequently be seen as providing the

best guarantee to clients of the reliability of new methods and

techniques.

In summary, I suggest the following as a basis for the future:

(i) if the industry is to survive against international

competition, it must pay increased attention to innovation and

R&D;

(ii)that this is best done gradually and on as wide a basis of

consensus within the industry as possible;

(iii)that a wide debate is needed to demonstrate the long term

benefits, in terms of value for money, arising from investment

in innovation; and

(iv)that this is best done through a partnership of Government,

industry and academia.

A J EGGINTON

14 February 1986
Session 3: Responder: D Dewar

Civil engineering projects: What is value for money?

Session 3: Innovation - what is its place in civil

engineering?

1 When the proposition refers to "sacrificing

optimum value for money in relation to a particular
project" the essential issue is seeking better value
for money in the longer term. The concept of
discounting short term advantage against longer term
gain is not new, of course, and lies at the heart of
investment appraisal, life cycle costing, and so on.
In principle it is financially sound and acceptable, in
both the public and private sectors.

2 In practice, however, there are at least three

potential problem areas. The first is financial
constraint; the second is fairness; the third is
* measurement.

(i) Financial constraint

The basic problem here - certainly in the

public sector - is that there is never
enough money to do all that is in principle
desirable. Economic stringency and the need
to restrict public expenditure make hard
decisions unavoidable, and a number of
desirable capital projects - or desirable
elements within capital projects - regularly
go to the wall. These matters cannot be
wished away. Nevertheless it is important
that the pressure to cut costs in the
shorter term does not degenerate into short­
sightedness. But the issue is not simply
one of seeking the right balance; often it
is about priorities over what can be done
 within limited funds available.

(ii) Fairness

A decision to spend now to save later raises

the inevitable question - who pays? Where
the body concerned has a continuing and
assured interest, for example in accepting
higher initial costs of better insulation
for the sake of lower future energy costs,
then the person paying does so in reasonable
confidence that he will receive those future
benefits. This is far less certain, however
in the field of innovation and research,
where the ultimate benefits may well be
conjectural and often a long way in the
future. Generalised and exhortatory
arguments based on increasing future
prospects may cut little ice with the person
being asked to "invest" in this way. Does
Government however have a special responsibi­
lity to foot this "future benefits" bill in
its particular capital projects? And, if
so, does its responsibility vary in
different sectors of the market - eg Defence
- or for different kinds of product? What
contribution should the profession itself
make, insofar as the longer term interests
being enhanced include those of the
profession itself?,

(iii) Measurement

To be convincing, arguments that it is

worthwhile to pay extra to support
innovation need to be solid, factual and,
wherever possible, quantified. How much less
value for money - ie more cost - is it worth
 accepting and for what reliable and
ascertainable future benefits? The case for
future benefits will not succeed if it is
presented as an act of faith, or as a "good
thing" that it is somehow wrong or
unprofessional to be sceptical about or to
question. Of course, not all benefits can
be clearly quantified, in financial terms or
otherwise; and this certainly does not make
them any less real. But anyone arguing a
belief in the concept of investment - and
this is the nub of the proposition under
discussion - must accept a belief in
securing an appropriate return on such
investment. Financial and operating
benefits must therefore be a feature of
individual propositions, expressed in terms
which underpin the judgements involved and
enable achievement to be monitored against
pre-set objectives.

3 In summary therefore those advocating that

"optimum value for money in relation to a particular
project should be sacrificed in order to encourage
innovation" must expect - and indeed encourage -
clients (and auditors) to ask them why this particular
project? why now? how much less value for money or
higher cost? for what return? with what risks? and
over what timescale? The willingness to invest
(whether public or private funds) will depend on the
conviction of the answers. A disciplined and
professional approach requires nothing less.