The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm
ECAM
25,7
818
Received 14 April 2017
Revised 31 May 2017
Accepted 5 October 2017
Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
Vol. 25 No. 7, 2018
pp. 818-834
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
DOI 10.1108/ECAM-04-2017-0070
Barriers to the adoption of
value management in
developing countries
Douglas Omoregie Aghimien
Sustainable Human Settlement and Construction Research Centre,
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke
Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying,
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa and
Department of Quantity Surveying, The Federal University of Technology Akure,
Akure, Nigeria, and
Clinton Ohis Aigbavboa
Sustainable Human Settlement and Construction Research Centre,
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine the barriers to the adoption of value management (VM)
in the construction industry of developing countries with a view to providing possible measures in avoiding
these barriers and increasing the usage of the system within the construction industry.
Design/methodology/approach – The level of knowledge and adoption of VM practices, as well as the
barriers to its adoption in the construction industry were assessed through a survey design. Construction
professionals were sampled from the six geo-political zones in Nigeria through the use of a structured
questionnaire. Factor analysis was conducted on data gathered on the barriers of VM.
Findings – The study revealed a moderate level of knowledge of VM among construction professionals.
This implies that the problem of VM is not that of awareness, but readiness to adopt the system. The study
also reveals that the barriers to the adoption of VM can be categorised under the general stakeholder’s
barriers, training and education barriers, client barriers and government/top management barriers.
Practical implications – This study was conducted across the six geo-political zones of the country as
against common practice of selecting a particular region or states to represent the entire country. The findings
therefore show a true reflection of the barriers to VM adoption in the country and its recommendations can to
a large extent promote the adoption of VM in the country and also other developing countries where
construction projects are executed through similar method, style and approach.
Originality/value – This paper highlights the possible barriers to the adoption of VM in Nigeria construction
industry and provides ways to avoiding these barriers in order to achieve better quality construction and value
for money.
Keywords Barriers, Value for money, Construction projects, Project management, Value management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Value management (VM) originated in the industrial sector of the USA by Miles at General
Electric in the late 1940s and was used in the construction industry in the early 1960s
(Zimmerman and Hart, 1982). It was born due to the shortage of products component
which was an aftermath of the Second World War. At this time alternative components
were sort, but due to the war, these alternative components were often unavailable.
This led to a search not for alternative components, but to a means of fulfilling the
function of the component by an alternative method. It was later observed that this
method produced low-cost products without reducing quality. At the end of the war, Barriers to
this system was maintained as a means of both removing unnecessary cost from products the adoption
and improving design, hence, birthing value engineering (also known as VM) process of value
based on analysis of function (Palmer et al., 1996).
Oke and Ogunsemi (2013) submitted that the use of VM became popular in most developing management
countries in 1970s. It was often mandatory for general services administration contracts in the
USA and considerable success in its use was achieved. While VM has been adopted in 819
the construction industry of most developed countries like the USA, the UK, Hong Kong, China
and Australia, the same cannot be said for that of developing countries (Bowen et al., 2010;
Kim et al., 2016; Kissi et al., 2016); an industry that is characterised with poor project delivery
that has led to most client’s dissatisfaction. A client who desires to own a building will expect
to obtain one that satisfies his/her needs as to form and quality, of which he/she will pay the
most favourable price and get value for his/her money. To achieve this feat, VM would be one
of the best methods as it involves achieving value for money through the reduction of cost
while maintaining function as well as identification and removal of unnecessary materials,
process and workmen time (Aghimien and Oke, 2015; Aigbavboa et al., 2016).
Ofori (2000) noted that construction industries in developing countries are faced with
different arrays of problem and this is as a result of poor delivery of projects executed in these
countries. In Nigeria, Sabiu and Agarwal (2016) observed that achieving client’s value system
is in most cases, a dream than a reality, and this has led to dissatisfaction of clients in the
construction industry. The failed attempts to remedy this situation by the industry have led to
the recommendation of the adoption of VM by past research works in order to facilitate the
achievement of client’s value. Study carried out by Olanrewaju (2008) revealed that VM is
becoming popular among Nigerian construction professionals. Hayatu (2015) also assessed
the industry’s readiness to adopt the VM process in effective project delivery and observed
that this is actually achievable although with little adjustment needed in the industry’s current
practices. However, despite these recommendations, the growing awareness among
construction professionals and even the possibility of VM being achievable if implemented,
the VM practice is still a non-starter for the industry. Oke and Ogunsemi (2011) observed that
only very few numbers of VM workshops have been organised so far and the workshops were
even concluded prematurely. This situation begs the question, what factor(s) are responsible
for the non-adoption of this obviously beneficial practice in the industry?
While studies on the obstacles of VM in developed and developing countries around the
world continue to emerge (Dallas, 2002; Kim et al., 2016; Kissi et al., 2016; Luvara and
Mwemezi, 2017), the case of Nigeria merits a critical reflection also, considering the fact
that the industry is characterised with poor project delivery which has led to frequent
client’s dissatisfaction.
Based on this knowing, this study assessed the possible barriers to the adoption of VM in
developing countries using Nigeria as a case study with a view of providing possible
measures in avoiding these barriers and increasing the usage of the system within the
industry. This study was conducted across the six geo-political zones of the country as
against common practice of selecting a particular region or states to represent the entire
country. The findings therefore show a true reflection of the barriers to VM adoption
in the country and its recommendations can to a large extent promote the adoption of
VM in the country and also other developing countries where construction projects are
executed through similar method, style and approach.

Review of related literature

Male and Kelly (1998) defined VM as a proactive, creative, problem-solving or problem-seeking
service which maximises the functional value of a project by managing its development
from concept to use. SAVE (2008) more explicitly defined the concept of VM as a systematic,
ECAM multi-disciplinary effort directed towards analysing the functions of projects for the purpose
25,7 of achieving the best value at the lowest overall life cycle cost. Based on this definition,
Short et al. (2008) gave the core of VM definition to include a systematic or organised approach;
multi-disciplinary; analysis of function; inception to completion and commissioning; best value;
lowest possible overall life cycle project cost; and return on investment.
The Construction Industry Board in 1997 stated that VM is a structured approach to
820 establish what value means to a client while trying to meet a perceived need, through clearly
defining and agreeing on the project objectives and establishing how they can best be
achieved. Kelly et al. (2004) opined that VM can be seen as an effective design management
method that can reduce unnecessary capital and life cycle costs. Abidin and Pasquire (2005)
further observed that in VM, although clients tend to put pressure on cost reduction, their
vision would still be the same, i.e. value for money, better quality, profitability and positive
business image.
Dallas (2002) stated that VM focusses on convening formal workshops at key milestones
throughout the project. The first of these will in most cases take place at concept stage and
involve a reconciliation of different stakeholder’s views to ensure the right project to meet
the business need. SAVE (2015) gave the format for this workshop to follow the sequential
phases of: the information phase, function analysis phase, creative phase, evaluation phase,
development phase and the presentation phase. This workshop according to Ellis et al.
(2003) allows selected members of the team to brainstorm on the project with the aim of
drawing up a cost effective design. However, Aigbavboa et al. (2016) noted that VM is not a
cost-cutting exercise but rather the major focus of the exercise is on function of an element
or project. This implies that with the use of VM, project can be procured at the lowest
possible cost by employing various cost control mechanism without jeopardising the value
and function of the project.
According to Che Mat (2006), VM has become a popular concept in many developed
countries around the world and it is attracting considerable attention in developing ones.
This attention in developing countries can be attributed to the immense benefits
experienced in the developed countries where this concept has been fully adopted.
Although past research works on VM in developing countries are focussed towards the
level of awareness, willingness to adopt the discipline and their benefits, recent studies
with regard to the challenges to its implementation are beginning to emerge. AI-Yami
(2008) identified lack of information, lack of awareness about VM and client’s commitment
as some of the major problems hindering the adoption of VM in Saudi public sector.
Lai (2006) identified some factors hindering the application of VM in the Malaysian
construction industry and they include: lack of knowledge about VM, lack of support from
parties with authority such as government and owners, and lack of local VM
implementation guideline. This was further corroborated by Jaapar et al. (2009) in the
investigation of the impact of VM implementation in Malaysia which revealed that lack of
VM knowledge, resistance to change by the involved parties and the conflicting objectives
of the project among parties are the main problems faced during the VM workshops.
Kim et al. (2016) also assessed the barriers to applying VM in the Vietnamese construction
industry and observed four core components which include: lack of qualified personnel to
implement VM, inherent difficulties in VM workshop, little awareness of VM existence
and lack of VM application documents.
Coetzee (2009) submitted that the true benefits of VM have not yet been realised by
stakeholders in the South African construction industry; a similar view held by Sigle et al.
(1999). The reason for this was attributed to the misconception in the concept of VM within
the construction industry. In a recent study in the country, Aigbavboa et al. (2016)
discovered that the major challenges of VM adoption are concerned with stakeholders’
issues and wrong perception of the discipline due to lack of training, orientation and proper
awareness of stakeholders. Kissi et al. (2016) assessed 22 challenges facing the Barriers to
implementation of VM in public projects in Ghana and discovered five key components. the adoption
These components are: VM team obstructions, VM study obstructions, VM implementation of value
difficulties, conceptual problems and developing economies obstructions. Luvara and
Mwemezi (2017) also assessed nine obstacles to the adoption of VM for public buildings in management
Tanzania and observed the most crucial of them are lack of understanding, wrong choice of
procurement route and lack of trained value managers in the construction industry. 821
In Nigeria, Ezezue (2015) observed that inadequate orientation and focus in VM principles
can impede the success of VM process. Hayatu (2015) also submitted that some of the
problems that could affect the implementation of VM in the construction industry include
lack of encouragement on the part of the government; lack of VM qualified practitioners;
lack of commitment to implement VM; inadequate training and management support; and
difficulties in the involvement of all key stakeholders in project processes.
Based on the findings of these research works with regard to the elements that could
obstruct the implementation of VM in developing countries, it is clear that some factors
stand out. Chief of these factors are the lack of knowledge and awareness of VM among
participants, lack of support from government and top management and client’s
unwillingness to bear any extra cost. Similarly, the absence of existing VM guidelines
coupled with lack of sufficient information tend to deter the VM process. Thus, it can be said
that as a result of the similarity in the manner of project execution within these developing
countries, there is the likelihood of similarities in the hindrances to the adoption of VM
within them.

Research methodology
The aim of this study is to determine the barriers to the adoption of VM in developing
countries with a view to providing possible measures in avoiding these barriers and
increasing the usage of the system within the construction industry. The study was
conducted in Nigeria and respondents were gathered from the six geo-political zones in the
country. These zones are: South-West (SW), South-South (SS), North-Central (NC),
North-West (NW), South-East (SE) and North-East (NE). The study employed a survey
approach and construction professionals that are directly involved with construction
process were sampled. The criterion for selecting these professionals was based on the
premise that they must have been involved in the delivery of public construction project
either in the capacity of a contractor or a consultant. These professionals include: architects,
builders, engineers and quantity surveyors. The details of these construction professionals
were gotten from their respective organisational bodies and this aid their assessment.
A total of 330 questionnaires were administered with a total of 246 retrieved and ascertained
fit for analysis. This shows a return rate of 75 per cent which is well adequate for the study
based on the opinion of Akintoye (2000) and Moser and Kalton (1999). It was stated that the
result of a survey could be considered as biased and of little significance if the return rate
was lower than 20–30 per cent. Reason for the high response rate recorded can be attributed
to the time taken for the study and the manner with which it was to be conducted.
Data collection spanned a period of four months and two weeks, and most of the
questionnaires were self-administered, through the help of trained field assistants and also
through the use of electronic questionnaire means. Prior to engaging the trained field
assistants, they were properly briefed about the research topic and given the necessary
information on how to administer the questionnaire.
The research instrument used was structured questionnaire designed based on
information gathered from the review of related literature. The questionnaire was designed
in sections, with the first section designed to gather information on the respondent’s
background, level of knowledge in VM practices as well as their perception of the level of
ECAM adoption of VM in the construction industry. Information gotten from this section provides
25,7 quality check to the answers to the question on the factor(s) responsible for the non-adoption
of VM practice in the construction industry. Respondents were provided with barriers to the
adoption of VM identified in literature and were asked to rate the level of their severity
based on their level of knowledge and experience using a five-point Likert scale, with 5
being very severe, 4 severe, 3 moderate, 2 less severe and not severe. The study follows
822 Oke’s (2010) approach by providing a scale for rating the severity of the identified barriers
in the questionnaire. A scale of between 0 and 20 per cent was set for a barrier that is not
severe, 21 and 40 per cent for less severe barrier, 41 and 60 per cent for a moderate barrier,
61 and 80 per cent for a severe barrier and above 80 per cent for a very severe barrier. This
was done in order to give the respondents a range for their answer based on the experience
in the delivery of public projects in the country. The assessed barriers are listed in Table I.
Pilot study was conducted to pre-test the survey. Fellows and Liu (2008) suggested that
research instrument (questionnaire) should initially be piloted in order to test whether the
questions are intelligible, easy to answer and unambiguous, as well as providing an
opportunity to improve the questionnaire and determining the time required in completing
the exercise. This was done through sending out of the first draft of the questionnaire to 12
randomly selected construction professionals and the final draft of the questionnaire was
adjusted based on the result from the pilot survey.
Ascertaining the validity and reliability of a research instrument is important and must
be considered to ensure that accurate results are obtained (Kothari, 2004). According to
Wahyuni (2012), validity has to do with the extent to which a measure reflects the
phenomena being observed. Face and content validity are the two commonly used validity

Code Barriers Reference(s)

BA1 Inadequate training and education on VM approach Aigbavboa et al. (2016), Hayatu (2015)
BA2 Lack of readiness to adopt VM in the industry Aigbavboa et al. (2016), Kissi et al. (2016)
BA3 Poor relationships and communications among Chhabra and Tripathi (2014), Jaapar et al.
relevant stakeholders (2009), Woodhead and Downs (2001)
BA4 Stakeholders mind-sets/attitudes (unwillingness to Aigbavboa et al. (2016), Jaapar et al. (2009),
entertain new ideas and concept Mohd (1999)
BA5 Attitude of the design team Mohd (1999)
BA6 Client’s unwillingness to fund VM exercise Assaf et al. (1996), AI-Yami (2008), Hogg (1999)
BA7 Disability in selecting a good team with the right mix Kim et al. (2016)
of skills/absence of qualified personnel
BA8 Associated cost and time incurred on the VM Abidin (2005), Daddow and Skitmore (2005),
exercise to the client Kissi et al. (2016)
BA9 Understanding of VM terminology and methodology Aigbavboa et al. (2016), Coetzee (2009),
Ezezue (2015)
BA10 Clients lack of awareness of its existence and AI-Yami (2008), Jaapar et al. (2009), Norton and
knowledge of the benefits derived from the McElligott (1995)
integration of VM
BA11 Non implementation of past VM studies/lack of Hayatu (2015), Kim et al. (2016), Lai (2006)
available of VM guidelines
BA12 Lack of professionalism Abidin (2005), Stevens (1999)
BA13 Procurement method used for the project Clark (2000), Kissi et al. (2016)
BA14 Lack of government encouragement/top Al-Yami (2008), Assaf et al. (1996), Cheah and
management support Ting (2005), Daddow and Skitmore (2005),
Table I. Kim et al. (2016), Lai (2006), Mohd (1999)
Barriers to the BA15 Problem of technological advancement in employing Coetzee (2009)
adoption of VM in electronic VM approach
developing countries BA16 Contractual arrangements Cheah and Ting (2005), Hayatu (2015)
measures in evaluating the degree to which elements of a research instrument are relevant Barriers to
to, and representative of the targeted construct in the research (Adedokun et al., 2013). the adoption
Face validity for the research instrument was done by randomly selecting 12 research of value
experts in the industry from both academics and practice. This was done in line with
Sushil and Verma’s (2010) suggestion that face validity is assessed by having expert management
researchers to review the contents of the test to see if the items seem appropriate. At the end,
the 16 identified possible barriers of VM were adjudge applicable to developing countries 823
construction industries; hence, the questionnaire was considered face valid.
Cronbach’s α test was further used to test the reliability of the research instrument.
This method is used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire between each field and
the mean of the whole fields of the questionnaire. The normal range of Cronbach’s α value is
between 0 and 1, and the higher the value, the higher the degree of internal consistency.
Cronbach’s α value of 0.937 was derived and this shows that the instrument is highly
reliable since the degree of reliability of an instrument is more perfect as the value tends
towards 1 (Moser and Kalton, 1999).
For this study, frequency and percentage were used in analysing the background
information of the respondents. For the second section of the research instrument, data
gathered were analysed using Shapiro–Wilk test to check the normality of data, while
Kruskal–Wallis test was employed in testing the relationship in the view of the respondents
from the six different regions with regard to the identified barriers. Factors analysis was
further employed to analyse these barriers and group them into more manageable and
significant size.

Findings and discussion

General information of respondents
Result in Table II shows the general information of the respondents. From the table it can be
seen that most of the construction professionals sampled are located in the SW region of the
country with a frequency of 81. This is followed by SS, NC and NW with a frequency of
63, 40 and 33 respondents, respectively. The least represented regions are the SE and NE
with a frequency of 16 and 13, respectively. Result also showed that the most represented

Category Classification Frequency Percentage

Region of respondents SW 81 32.9

SE 16 6.5
NC 40 16.3
NW 33 13.4
SS 63 25.6
NE 13 5.3
Total 246 100.0
Profession of respondents Architecture 66 26.8
Building 39 15.9
Engineering 52 31.1
Quantity surveying 89 26.2
Total 246 100.0
Years of experience 0–5 73 15.9
6–10 59 24.0
11–15 39 29.7
16–20 33 13.4
Above 20 42 17.1 Table II.
Total 246 100.0 General information
Average 11.6 of respondents
ECAM construction professionals are quantity surveyors with 36.2 per cent followed by the
25,7 architects with 26.8 per cent and the engineers with 21.1 per cent. The least represented
are the builders with 15.9 per cent. The average year of working experience of all
the respondents is put at 11.6 years. This implies that information gathered from the
respondents can be relied upon as they have a considerable number of years of working
experience in the construction industry.
824
Level of knowledge and perception of the level of adoption of VM
With regard to the knowledge of the respondents in terms of VM practice, result in Table III
shows that in SW, NC and SS, there exists a high percentage level of knowledge of VM
among the respondents as 77, 73 and 75.2 per cent were derived for each of the regions.
However, the level of knowledge of VM in SE, NW and NE is on the average as 57.6, 51.6 and
63.4 per cent were derived for the three regions. On the general view, it is evident that the
respondents have a moderate knowledge of VM as a percentage level of knowledge of
66.3 per cent was observed which is a bit above average of 50 per cent.
This result can be attributed to the fact that SW houses Lagos State which is the country’s
commercial city with lots of construction companies, and construction activities taking place on
a daily basis. The NC also houses the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja) which is the country’s
administrative city, and the SS houses cities like Port Harcourt which as a result of its oil
production is undergoing a facelift with considerable number of constructions being carried out,
and Calabar which is known for its recreation and attraction of people (construction
professionals inclusive). Thus, these areas are bound to have a high number of construction
professionals with higher level of knowledge in construction and its related practices.
When asked about their perception of the level of adoption of VM in the construction
industry, there seems to be a uniform view among respondents in the six regions apart from
NC. While respondents from the other five regions believe it is within average, respondents
in NC, however, believe the level of adoption is rather low. On the overall, the adoption
of VM can be seen to be on the average (56 per cent) as seen in Table IV. Thus, despite

Level of knowledge of VM
Region of respondents Low Average High Total %

SW 16 30 35 81 77.0
SE 6 4 6 16 57.6
NC 0 26 14 40 73.0
Table III. NW 14 0 19 33 51.6
Level of knowledge SS 0 48 15 63 75.2
of VM practices NE 1 12 0 13 63.4
among respondents Total/average 37 120 89 246 66.3

Level of adoption of VM
Region of respondents Low Average High Total %

SW 23 40 18 81 58.8
SE 5 5 6 16 61.2
NC 39 1 0 40 40.3
NW 3 16 14 33 66.6
Table IV. SS 15 48 0 63 55.2
Perception of the level NE 0 12 1 13 61.6
of adoption of VM Total/average 85 122 39 246 56.2
having a moderate level of knowledge the practice is yet to be fully embraced. This further Barriers to
affirms past research works that the adoption of VM in developing countries is still bleak the adoption
(Bowen et al., 2010; Kissi et al., 2016). of value
Barriers to the adoption of VM in developing countries management
In order to determine the type of test to be carried out in analysing the data gathered, normality
test was first conducted. This was done to find out if the nature of data is parametric or 825
non-parametric. Since the sample size of the study is less than 2,000, Shapiro–Wilk normality
test was adopted as suggested by Pallant (2005) and Ghasemi and Zahediasl (2012). Result in
Table V shows that the significant value of all the assessed barriers is 0.000 which is less
than the 0.05 required criteria for normality. Hence, the data gathered cannot be examined
using normal parametric statistical techniques as they are non-parametric in nature. Thus,
Kruskal–Wallis test; a non-parametric test used in ascertaining the significant difference in the
perception of three or more categories of respondents was employed in determining
consistency in the opinion of the respondents within the six different regions.
Table VI shows the significant value derived from Kruskal–Wallis test conducted.
Result shows that the p-values of 11 out of the 16 assessed barriers are less than 0.05.
This implies that there is a significant difference in the way these respondents from the
different regions of the country view these 11 barriers. Reason for this can be attributed to
the individual perception of construction professionals as to the barriers of VM. However,
there seems to be a significant relationship in the way these respondents view the client’s
unwillingness to fund VM exercise (BA6), the procurement method used for the project
(BA13), lack of government encouragement/top management support (BA14), problem of
technological advancement in employing electronic VM approach (BA15) and the
contractual arrangements of the project (BA17).

Factor analysis
Considering the number of barriers identified from literature, there was the likelihood of
some barriers leading to similar underlying effects. Factor analysis was deemed necessary
to reduce these barriers into a smaller number of coherent subscales. For factor analysis to
be carried out, the data must be analysed to ascertain their suitability for the analysis.
First the sample size and number of variable for the study were considered alongside the

Shapiro–Wilk
Barriers Statistic df Sig.

BA1 0.872 246 0.000

BA2 0.891 246 0.000
BA3 0.762 246 0.000
BA4 0.767 246 0.000
BA5 0.858 246 0.000
BA6 0.841 246 0.000
BA7 0.876 246 0.000
BA8 0.807 246 0.000
BA9 0.844 246 0.000
BA10 0.789 246 0.000
BA11 0.829 246 0.000
BA12 0.900 246 0.000
BA13 0.753 246 0.000
BA14 0.733 246 0.000
BA15 0.884 246 0.000 Table V.
BA16 0.897 246 0.000 Normality test result
ECAM Kruskal–Wallis
25,7 Barriers χ2 Sig.

BA1 84.429 0.000**

BA2 57.086 0.000**
BA3 30.473 0.000**
BA4 42.023 0.000**
826 BA5 27.144 0.000**
BA6 7.724 0.172
BA7 18.982 0.002**
BA8 29.905 0.000**
BA9 33.649 0.000**
BA10 13.859 0.017**
BA11 44.133 0.000**
BA12 30.765 0.000**
BA13 3.543 0.617
BA14 8.053 0.153
Table VI. BA15 4.201 0.521
Kruskal–Wallis BA16 2.720 0.743
test result Note: **Significant at p o 0.05

Cronbach’s α test carried out. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) suggested that the sample size of
the study should be from 150 to 300 for factor analysis to be considered. However, Pallant
(2005) stated that there had been little agreement amongst authors concerning the size of a
sample for factor analysis, but recommended the use of a larger sample. The sample size for
this study is 246 which is well within the range suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007).
Regarding the number of variables, Hair et al. (1998) suggested that factor analysis is
suitable for 20–50 variables, as the extraction of common factors becomes inaccurate
if the number of variables exceeds this range. However, study has shown that less number
of variables can be used when the sample size is large enough (Ahadzie et al., 2008;
Kim et al., 2016). Hence, the 16 variables used in this study coupled with the 246 sample size
are considered adequate for factor analysis.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity were also employed to test the factorability of the data gathered. This was done
using SPSS 17.0. KMO is a measure of homogeneity of variables and has become a popular
measure used in testing whether the partial correlations among variables are small
(Sharma 1996). The KMO index ranges from 0 to 1, with 0.6 suggested as the minimum
value for a good factor analysis (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Also Bartlett’s test of
sphericity shows whether the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. Pallant (2005)
suggested that the Bartlett’s test of sphericity should be significant ( p o 0.05) for the
factor analysis to be considered appropriate. Result in Table VII shows a KMO value of
0.624 and a significant level of 0.000 for the Bartlett’s test. This result coupled with the
0.937 result obtained from the reliability test carried out through the use Cronbach’s α test
shows that the use of factor analysis for the data gathered is appropriate.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.624

Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Table VII. Approx. χ2 842.779
KMO and Bartlett’s df 120
test result Sig. 0.000
With the data meeting all necessary requirements, factor analysis was conducted for the Barriers to
barriers to the adoption of VM in developing countries using principal component the adoption
analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation. Table VIII shows that six components of value
with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were extracted using the factor loading of 0.30 as the
cut-off point as suggested by Pallant (2005). The total variance explained by each management
component extracted is as follows: Component 1 (19.13 per cent), Component 2
(12.22 per cent), Component 3 (9.50 per cent), Component 4 (7.77 per cent), Component 5 827
(7.07 per cent) and Component 6 (6.75 per cent). Thus, the final statistics of the PCA
and the components extracted accounted for approximately 62 per cent of the total
cumulative variance.
However, Pallant (2005) suggested a critical look at the scree plot and component matrix
in other to determine which components ( factors) to extract/retain. In analysing the scree
plot, a change (or elbow) in the shape of the plot is identified and only components above
this point are retained. A look at Figure 1 shows that a change occurs from the fourth
component. Thus, four components are suitable for extraction. In order to further ascertain
this fact, a look at the component matrix table in Table IX shows that Components 1, 2, 4
and 5 have at least two items loading quite strongly (above 0.4). However, on Components 3
and 6 only one component had a loading of above 0.4. Thus, confirming that only four
components are necessary for extraction.

Initial eigenvalues Rotation sums of squared loadings

Component Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 3.060 19.128 19.128 2.222 13.886 13.886

2 1.955 12.218 31.345 2.006 12.537 26.423
3 1.520 9.500 40.845 1.608 10.049 36.472 Table VIII.
4 1.243 7.769 48.614 1.543 9.646 46.118 Initial and rotated
5 1.130 7.065 55.679 1.346 8.412 54.530 matrix of the barriers
6 1.080 6.748 62.427 1.264 7.897 62.427 to the adopt of VM

3
Eigenvalue

0
Figure 1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Scree plot result
Component Number
ECAM Component
25,7 1 2 3 4 5 6

BA1 0.765
BA4 0.709 −0.466
BA3 0.605 −0.519
BA5 0.553 0.322
828 BA13 0.537 −0.379 0.521
BA2 0.532 −0.304 −0.401
BA9 0.442 0.376
BA11 0.405 −0.321 0.323
BA8 0.638
BA16 0.504 −0.445 0.406
BA12 0.611 −0.309
BA14 −0.563 −0.451
BA15 −0.535
Table IX. BA6 0.327 0.531 0.378
Component BA10 0.358 0.408 0.390
matrix result BA7 0.314 0.584

Based on the above, varimax rotation was conducted with the number of components to be
extracted set at 4. Result of the new total variance explained shows Component 1 (19.13 per cent),
Component 2 (12.22 per cent), Component 3 (9.50 per cent) and Component 4 (7.77 per cent) as
seen in Table X. Thus, the final statistics of the PCA and the components extracted accounted
for approximately 48.6 per cent of the total cumulative variance.
Result in Table XI shows each of the four extracted components and their variables.
According to Spector (1992), a clear component structure is present when a variable has
significant factor loading (loading W0.50) on one component only. Hence, only elements
with 0.5 and above are considered for discussion under each component.

Discussion of factor extraction

General stakeholders barriers. The first principal component in Table XI has high factor
loadings for a group of variables which include: stakeholder’s mind-sets/attitudes
(unwillingness to entertain new ideas and concept), poor relationship and communication
among relevant stakeholders and lack of readiness to adopt VM in the industry.
These variables account for 19.13 per cent of the variance explained. After, examining
critically the latent characteristics of these barriers, and the fact that these barriers cut
across the various construction participants in the industry the factor is named as
“general stakeholder’s barriers”.
This finding connotes that the continuous execution of construction projects through the
same approach within the construction industry as a result of stakeholder’s rigidity to
change is part of the major reason for the non-improvement of construction project delivery
within the country. If VM is to be fully implemented within the construction industry,

Initial eigenvalues Rotation sums of squared loadings

Component Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

Table X. 1 3.060 19.128 19.128 2.417 15.109 15.109

Initial and rotated 2 1.955 12.218 31.345 2.326 14.536 29.645
matrix of the barriers 3 1.520 9.500 40.845 1.523 9.519 39.163
to the adopt of VM 4 1.243 7.769 48.614 1.512 9.451 48.614
 Component
Barriers to
1 2 3 4 the adoption
of value
Stakeholder’s mind-sets/attitudes (unwillingness to entertain new ideas and
concept) (BA4) 0.865 management
Poor relationships and communications among relevant stakeholders (BA3) 0.813
Lack of readiness to adopt VM in the industry (BA2) 0.525
Non implementation of past VM studies/lack of available of VM guidelines (BA11) 0.389 829
Disability in selecting a good team with the right mix of skills/absence of
qualified personnel (BA7) 0.361
Inadequate training and education on VM approach (BA1) 0.684
Contractual arrangements (BA16) 0.684
Procurement method used for the project (BA13) 0.683
Lack of understanding of VM terminology and methodology (BA9) 0.597
Attitude of the design team (BA5) 0.533
Client’s unwillingness to fund VM exercise (BA6) 0.668
Associated cost and time incurred on the VM exercise to the client (BA8) 0.625
Client’s lack of awareness of its existence and knowledge of the benefits derived
from the integration of VM (BA10) 0.558
Lack of professionalism (BA12) −0.716 Table XI.
Lack of government encouragement/top management support (BA14) 0.608 Varimax
Problem of technological advancement in employing electronic VM approach (BA15) 0.580 rotation result

then the factors relating to stakeholders must be given due consideration. Aigbavboa et al.
(2016) submitted that the major challenges of VM adoption in the construction industry are
concerned with stakeholders’ issues. Enlightening these stakeholders with regard to the
importance of embracing new ideas rather than sticking to the traditional method of project
delivery will go a long way in achieving the implementation of VM. Mohd (1999) and
Jaapar et al. (2009) observed that difficulty in changing of working culture of construction
professionals is a major hindrance to the use of VM. Poor relationship and communication
among relevant stakeholders is bound to also be a barrier considering the fragmented
nature of the construction industry.
Training and education barriers. The second principal component accounts for
12.22 per cent of the variance explained. It comprises of barriers such as inadequate training
and education on VM approach, contractual arrangements, procurement method used for
the project, lack of understanding of VM terminology and methodology and attitude of the
design team. These barriers were subsequently named “training and education barriers”.
The training of VM participants is important if the aim of the exercise is to be achieved.
This finding is in line with Ezezue’s (2015) observation that inadequate orientation/training
and focus in VM principles can impede the success of VM process. Hayatu (2015) also
submitted that inadequate training coupled with other problems is hindering the
implementation of VM in Nigeria.
Aigbavboa et al. (2016) observed that wrong perception of the discipline due to lack of
training, orientation and proper awareness of its participants is a major challenge for VM
activities in South Africa. In Tanzania, Luvara and Mwemezi (2017) observed the most
critical obstacles to the adoption of VM are lack of understanding, wrong choice of
procurement route and lack of trained value managers in the construction industry. This is
born out of the level of training and education with regard to the VM concept in this
developing country. Finding of this study also agrees with the findings of these stated
studies. It is important to note that the level of training and education on VM approach
attained by VM participants is bound to affect their selection of procurement method and
contractual arrangement that will favour the use of the exercise.
ECAM Kissi et al. (2016) stated that in Ghana, contracts are normally awarded to the lowest
25,7 bidder instead of on the basis of value for money. This system of procuring project does not
promote the use of VM. A similar situation exist in Nigeria until 2007 when the Federal
Government stipulated that procurement of public assets and services must be through the
application of value for money standards and practices in order to improve service delivery
(Hayatu, 2015). Despite this pronouncement, construction experts have failed to recognise
830 the role of VM in achieving this feat and as such, construction projects are still being
delivered poorly.
Client barriers. The third principal component accounts for 9.5 per cent of the variance
explained. It comprises of barriers such as client’s unwillingness to fund VM exercise,
associated cost and time incurred on the VM exercise to the client, and lack of awareness of
its existence and knowledge of the benefits derived from the integration of VM. Since these
barriers are client specific, this component is therefore named “Client barriers”. Studies have
shown that the use of VM on construction works gives considerable measure of cost
savings on the long run and if properly executed can also save time during construction
(Abidin 2005; Aghimien and Oke 2015). However, there seems to be the misconception of the
idea that the cost of implementing a VM exercise on a project is bound to increase the overall
cost of such project (Kissi et al. 2016). This misconception tend to act as barrier to the
adoption of VM as clients are not ready to incur anything outside the budgeted cost, thus
leading to client’s unwillingness to fund VM exercise.
The lack of knowledge and awareness of its existences and application among clients
ultimately impacts on the level of knowledge of the benefits to be derived from its usage.
Thus, if VM is to be fully functional within the construction industry, its awareness among
all construction participants is necessary as through this the benefits therein can be
showcased. These findings are in tandem with Ashworth et al. (2013), Hogg (1999) and
Oke et al. (2015) who stated that unwillingness of client to request and pay for the service is
a major factor that can impede the VM activities. Findings also corroborated Sigle et al.’s
(1999) observation that VM is not fully embraced in the South African construction industry
because clients are generally not familiar with the concept and the benefits therein.
Government/top management barriers. The fourth principal component accounts for
7.77 per cent of the variance explained. It comprises of barriers such as lack of government
encouragement/top management support and problem of technological advancement in
employing electronic VM approach. These barriers were subsequently named as
“government/top management barriers”. Hayatu (2015) found that lack of encouragement
on the part of the government through proper policy making to encourage the use of VM on
public projects is a major challenge to the implementation of VM in the Nigerian
construction industry. A similar situation exists in Malaysia as observed by Lai (2006).
Mohd (1999) stated that VM is unlikely to succeed and prove its significant contribution
without the support of top management. Al-Yami (2008) therefore suggested that the
support of top management is crucial to implement the recommendations of a VM exercise
so as to achieve a successful project.
In terms of technological advancement, Coetzee (2009) advocated the need to embrace
technological advancement and employ same in carrying out VM activities. This can be
done through the use of electronic means of conducting VM which will save cost and time
spent in gathering participant together.

Conclusion
Bold statements have been made with regard to the poor nature of construction project
delivery in developing countries around the world, and research works have also proven
that VM can be a viable option in curbing this menace. However, the adoption of this
practice is still low in the construction industry of most developing countries as observed Barriers to
from the review of literature. This study therefore assessed the barriers to the adoption the adoption
of VM through the use of a questionnaire survey involving construction professionals of value
in Nigeria.
The study revealed a moderate level of knowledge (66 per cent) among construction management
participants within the country and this implies that problem of VM in the country is not
that of awareness but readiness to adopt the system. The study also reveals that the 831
barriers to the adoption of VM can be categorised under the general stakeholder’s barriers,
training and education barriers, client barriers and government/top management barriers.
Chief of these barriers are stakeholder’s unwillingness to entertain new ideas and concept,
inadequate training and education on VM approach, client’s unwillingness to fund VM
exercise and lack of government encouragement/top management support. This implies
that the execution of construction projects, through the same method as a result of
unwillingness to accept change, can be part of the major reason for the non-improvement
of construction project delivery within the country. If this is to change, the stakeholders,
particularly those with direct influence on the delivery of construction projects, must be
ready to adopt innovative ideas. There is therefore the need to enlighten stakeholders in
general through seminars, workshops and conferences on the need to embrace new ideas
like VM that would lead to the successful delivery of construction projects. By doing
this, client’s misconception as regards VM increasing cost can be addressed and their
fears alienated.
Similarly, in the delivery of successful projects, the role of training and education of
construction professionals cannot be over emphasised. Construction professionals in
developing countries, however, tend to fall short in this aspect and this has affected the
adoption of appreciable concepts such as VM in most of these countries as observed from
this study. Thus, there is the need for training of construction professionals on the
principles, concept and techniques involved in the VM process. Respective construction
professional bodies should therefore conduct frequent training workshops on VM for their
members, and also include same in their continuous professional development assessment.
Government plays a major role in the delivery of public projects and in the creation and
enforcement of policies and guidelines within diverse sectors of the country. VM cannot be
enforced in the procurement of public projects without the necessary government support,
nor can it be adequately adopted without the necessary policies in place. At the organisation
level, without the support of top management, VM cannot be adopted by construction
organisations, nor can its workers be trained in it. Therefore, government can help promote
the use of VM by creating policies, regulations and guidelines that will encourage its
implementation on construction projects within the country. Appropriate measures of
enforcing these policies must also be provided so as to ensure compliance.
This study was carried out in Nigeria and its strength lies in focussing on the existing six
geo-political zones of the country with a view to eliminate bias. The findings therefore show
a true reflection of the barriers to VM adoption in the country. It is believed that the findings
of this study will assist the government in understanding the need to create strategic
policies that will aid the adoption of VM in the delivery of construction projects in the
country. By doing so, clients, both public and private, can be assured of value for money
during the course of procuring a project. Also the findings of this study can help
construction professional understand the need for continuous training in VM in order to
deliver construction projects that are satisfactory to the client, thereby increasing clients’
confidence in the industry. While this study was limited to Nigeria, studies on the barriers of
VM can be extended to other developing countries where such studies have not been carried
out. More so, various measures to encourage the adoption of the practice can be examined,
especially by considering countries where the exercise has been fully adopted.
ECAM References
25,7 Abidin, N.Z. (2005), “Using value management to improve the consideration of sustainability within
construction”, PhD thesis submitted to the Loughborough University, Loughborough
University Institutional Repository, Leicester.
Abidin, N.Z. and Pasquire, C.L. (2005), “Delivering sustainability through value management: concept
and performance overview”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 12
832 No. 2, pp. 168-180.
Adedokun, O.A., Ibironke, O.T. and Olanipekun, A.O. (2013), “Vulnerability of motivation schemes in
enhancing site workers productivity for construction industry’s sustainability in Nigeria”,
International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering & Technology, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 21-30.
Aghimien, D.O. and Oke, A.E. (2015), “Application of value management to selected construction
projects in Nigeria”, Developing Country Studies, Vol. 5 No. 17, pp. 8-14.
Ahadzie, D.K., Proverbs, D.G. and Olomolaiye, P.O. (2008), “Critical success criteria for mass house
building projects in developing countries”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26
No. 6, pp. 675-687.
Aigbavboa, C.O., Oke, A.E. and Mojele, S. (2016), “Contribution of value management to construction
projects in South Africa”, Conference Proceedings of the 5th Construction Management
Conference Held at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, 28-29 November,
pp. 226-234.
Akintoye, A. (2000), “Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 77-89.
Al-Yami, A.M. (2008), “An integrated approach to value management and sustainable construction
during strategic briefing in Saudi construction projects”, doctoral dissertation, Loughborough
University, Leicester, November, pp. 1-307.
Ashworth, A., Hogg, K. and Higgs, C. (2013), Practice and Procedure for Quantity Surveyors,
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Assaf, S., Musallami, A.I. and Sughaiyer, M. (1996), “Value engineering in public construction projects
in Saudi Arabia”, Building Research & Information, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 152-159.
Bowen, P., Edwards, P., Cattell, K. and Jay, I. (2010), “The awareness and practice of value management
by South African consulting engineers: preliminary research survey findings”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 285-295.
Che Mat, M.M. (2006), “Value management as an effective tool for organisation in making strategic
decisions”, paper presented at an International Construction Conference, Padang.
Cheah, C.Y. and Ting, S.K. (2005), “Appraisal of value engineering in construction in Southeast Asia”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 151-158.
Chhabra, J. and Tripathi, B. (2014), “Value engineering: a vital tool for improving cost & productivity”,
International Journal Industrial Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 1-10.
Clark, L. (2000), “The need for a new VM standard in Australia”, Institute of Value Management
Australia Conference, Queensland.
Coetzee, C.E. (2009), “Value management in the construction industry: what does it entail and is it a
worthwhile practice?”, treatise submitted to the Department of Quantity Surveying, University
of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Daddow, T. and Skitmore, M. (2005), “Value management in practice: an interview survey”,
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 11-18.
Dallas, M. (2002), “The journey from cost to value”, Journal of Value Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 8-11.
Ellis, R.C.T., Wood, G.D. and Keel, D.A. (2003), “An investigation into the value management
services offered by UK cost consultants”, Proceedings of the RICS Foundation Construction
and Building Research Conference, School of Engineering and the Built Environment, University
of Wolverhampton, 1-2 September.
Ezezue, B.O. (2015), “Value management in Nigerian manufacturing companies: challenges and Barriers to
prospects”, Proceedings of 11th International Business and Social Science Research Conference, the adoption
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Dubai, 8-9 January.
Fellows, R.R. and Liu, A. (2008), Research Methods for Construction, 3rd ed., Wiley-Blackwell Science,
of value
London. management
Ghasemi, A. and Zahediasl, S. (2012), “Normality test for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians”,
International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 486-489.
833
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tathan, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hayatu, U.A. (2015), “An assessment of the Nigerian construction industry’s readiness to adopt value
management process in effective project delivery”, MSc thesis submitted to the School of Post
Graduate Studies, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
Hogg, K. (1999), “Value management: a failing opportunity?”, Proceedings of the RICS Foundation
Construction and Building Research Conference, Glasgow, pp. 133-140.
Jaapar, A., Endut, I.R., Bari, N.A. and Takim, R. (2009), “The impact of value management
implementation in Malaysia”, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 210-219.
Kelly, J., Male, S. and Graham, D. (2004), Value Management of Construction Projects, Wiley-Blackwell
Science, Chichester.
Kim, S., Lee, Y., Nguyen, V.T. and Luu, V.T. (2016), “Barriers to applying value management in
the Vietnamese construction industry”, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 55-80.
Kissi, E., Boateng, E.B., Adjei-Kumi, T. and Badu, E. (2016), “Principal component analysis of
challenges facing the implementation of value engineering in public projects in developing
countries”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 142-150.
Kothari, C.R. (2004), Research Methodology; Methods and Techniques, 2nd ed., New Age International,
New Delhi.
Lai, N.K. (2006), “Value management in construction industry”, MSc dissertation, Technology
University Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Luvara, V.G.M. and Mwemezi, B. (2017), “Obstacles against value management practice in building
projects of Dar es Salaam Tanzania”, International Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 13-21.
Male, S. and Kelly, J. (1998), The Value Management Benchmark: A Good Practice Framework for
Clients and Practitioners, Thomas Telford, London.
Mohd, M.H. (1999), “The challenges and potentials of value management in local construction
industry”, Journal Alam Bina, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 41-47.
Moser, C.A. and Kalton, G. (1999), Survey Methods in Social Investigation, 2nd ed., Gower Publishing
Company, Aldershot.
Norton, B.R. and McElligott (1995), Value Management in Construction – A Practical Guide,
Macmillan Publishers, London.
Ofori, G. (2000), “Globalization and construction industry development: research opportunities”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 257-262.
Oke, A.E. (2010), “Assessment of competencies of Nigerian quantity surveyors as value managers”,
unpublished MTech thesis, submitted to the Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal
University of Technology, Akure.
Oke, A.E. and Ogunsemi, D.R. (2011), “Value management in the Nigerian construction industry:
militating factors and perceived benefits”, Proceeding of the Second International Conference on
Advances in Engineering and Technology, Faculty of Technology, Makerere University,
30 January-1 February, pp. 353-359.
Oke, A.E. and Ogunsemi, D.R. (2013), “Key competencies of value managers in Lagos state, Nigeria”,
Proceedings of the West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) Conference, Accra,
12-14 August.
ECAM Oke, A.E., Aghimien, D.O. and Olatunji, S.O. (2015), “Implementation of value management as an
25,7 economic sustainability tool for building construction in Nigeria”, International Journal for
Managing Value and Supply Chain, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 55-64.
Olanrewaju, A.A. (2008), “Assessing the practice and prospects of value management in the Nigerian
construction industry”, master’s thesis in International Islamic University Malaysia, Gombak.
Pallant, J. (2005), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for
Windows (Version 12), 2nd ed., Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.
834
Palmer, A., Kelly, J. and Male, S. (1996), “Holistic appraisal of value engineering in construction in
United States”, Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 122 No. 4, pp. 324-326.
Sabiu, B.Y. and Agarwal, V.C. (2016), “Minimizing the factors hindering the practice of value
management in the Nigerian construction industry”, International Journal of Science,
Engineering and Technology Research, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 2974-2978.
SAVE (2008), “What is value engineering?”, Society of American Value Engineers, 48th Annual
Conference, Silver Legacy Resort, Reno, North Virginia, 9-12 June, available at: www.value-eng.org/
SAVE (2015), Value Methodology Standard, 2015 ed., Society of American Value Engineers Mount
Royal, NJ.
Sharma, S. (1996), Applied Multivariate Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Short, C.A., Barett, P., Dye, A. and Sutrisna, M. (2008), “Impacts of value engineering on five capital arts
projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 287-315.
Sigle, H.M., Klopper, C.H. and Visser, R.N. (1999), “Value management in the South African
construction industry”, Acta Structilia, Vol. 6 Nos 1/2, pp. 41-49.
Spector, P. (1992), Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduction, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA.
Stevens, D. (1999), “Value management: expanding the methodology through future techniques”,
The Value Manager, Vol. 5, pp. 10-20.
Sushil, S. and Verma, N. (2010), “Questionnaire validation made easy”, European Journal of Scientific
Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 172-178.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Pearson Education,
Boston, MA.
Wahyuni, D. (2012), “The research design maze: understanding paradigms, cases, methods and
methodologies”, Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 69-80.
Woodhead, R.M. and Downs, C. (2001), Value Management: Improving Capabilities, Thomas Telford,
London.
Zimmerman, L.W. and Hart, G.D. (1982), Value Engineering: A Practical Approach for Owners,
Designers and Contractors, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

Further reading
Jaapar, A., Maznan, N.A. and Zawawi, M. (2012), “Implementation of value management in public
projects”, ASIA Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies, Mercure Le
Sphinx Cairo Hotel, Giza, 31 October-2 November, pp. 77-86.

Corresponding author
Douglas Omoregie Aghimien can be contacted at: aghimiendouglas@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com