analysis of construction projects by means of value curves

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731

Analysis of construction projects by means of value curves

P. Ballesteros Perez a,1, Mª.C. Gonzalez-Cruz b,*, J.P. Pastor-Ferrando b

a Depuracion de Aguas del Mediterraneo S.L. Canovas del Castillo Square 1, 5, Postal Code 46005 Valencia, Spainb Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Camino de Vera, s/n Postal Code 46022 Valencia, Spain

Received 18 April 2008; received in revised form 2 November 2009; accepted 10 November 2009

Abstract

The present work analyzes the expectations and relationships of the three key stakeholders involved in the construction project man-agement process: the construction Promoter (the company that finances, owns and represents the interests of the client), the projectdesigners (the company that elaborates the construction project) and the builder (the company that executes the construction project).

In this article we propose an analysis of the project stakeholders’ expectations using the strategy canvas tool (a graphical model thatuses value curves as a way of measuring the evaluation of the key factors involved in the design of the construction project document).

The analysis aims to provide evidence on the phases, characteristics and documents of the construction project design and manage-ment process better rated by the agents involved in the process. The analysis of the value curves will provide evidence on deficiencies inthe elaboration of the construction project document and will allow us to propose some solutions for certain situations. The work pre-sented is based on the answers supplied by 111 interviewed people belonging to the three agents mentioned above.� 2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project; Construction; Strategy canvas; Value curve; Stakeholders

1. Introduction

Nowadays the business world is in constant change (Kimand Mauborgne, 1999). Continual innovation is necessarybecause market sectors are also highly dynamic and change-able (Fernandez, 2005; Drucker, 2002). Mention is fre-quently made of customer focus when designing orredesigning new products or services in organizations, butit is also very true that this often does not lead to significantresults or achievements (Leonard and Rayport, 1997;Huovila and Seren, 1998).

The planning of facilities can be viewed as an integratedsystem in which different agents interact with the purposeof materializing a new facility and obtaining some benefit.The construction process, usually begins with an interest

0263-7863/$36.00 � 2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.003

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 96 387 98 66x75654; fax: +34 96 38798 69x79869.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.B. Perez), [email protected] (Mª.C. Gonzalez-Cruz).

1 Tel.: +34 96 352 09 22, mobile: +639 230 917; fax: +34 96 353 12 25.

for the Promoter and always exist the element that willserve as link and guide among the different agents involved:the construction project.

The construction project can be considered as a tool forthe design of new facilities. For years the construction pro-ject process has been evolving to reach its present configu-ration not only in terms of the documents layout but alsothe related procedural methods.

One of the aims of this paper is to define the commoncharacteristics of present-day construction projects in Span-ish practice. For this end we have studied which aspects arebetter valued by the different agents involved in the process.The stakeholders selected for the present study are: Publicadministration or Private Promoters (depending on thefinancial source), project designers and builders.

These stakeholders have been chosen as the most repre-sentative, but the conclusions of this article are also applicableto companies which have direct contact with the executionof the construction projects, e.g. of technical assistanceand project management companies. The findings only areapplicable to companies directly related to construction

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.003

mailto:[email protected]



720 P.B. Perez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731

projects because stakeholders from sub-sectors of the con-struction industry, such as material and equipment suppli-ers, have different expectations to the stakeholders above.

The tool that we have used is the strategy canvas (Kimand Mauborgne, 2004), first developed by Chan Kim andRenee Mauborgne in 1997 (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997)and successfully applied to the design and re-design ofproducts and services.

2. Background

The construction project management involves numerousparticipants: end users, Promoters, construction companies,project designers, government/public bodies as well as alarge number of sub-contractors, suppliers and other entities.

The end product, whether civil engineering works orbuildings, is a complex combination of innumerable par-ties, each with its own particular technology and humanresources. It is described solely by the construction projectthrough its designs, plans, technical specifications, etc.

The construction sector is complex. It is difficult to putinto one of the three main economic categories (primary,secondary and tertiary). One fairly widespread opinion con-siders it to be in an intermediate situation, half way betweenindustrial and service activities. But the construction activ-ity presents further substantial doses of difficulty, configur-ing a set of features that define the work to be carried out,contractual relationships, and organization. Seen as a pro-cess, it has two characteristics of production: it takes placeby commission or under request, and it is intermittent. Thepeculiarities of construction as a productive activity are thatthis industry is characterized by the production of heteroge-neous and diverse goods, which are made in different placesand under different circumstances, with processes not ame-nable to mechanization, and working on most occasionsunder request, hence not being able to extend the scope ofits activity (SEOPAN, 2003; Merchan, 2000).

The market, moreover, is dominated by the demand foreach specific project, and the different bidders must com-pete with each other to obtain the adjudication of the pro-ject. In most cases, the contract is awarded to the lowestbidder. Consequently the price of the product is formalizedprior to the production process. This prior determinationof the price has two consequences (Merchan, 2000):

� It forces the entrepreneur to narrow his profit margins;even at a time of depression when he must present exces-sively low prices in order to ensure that he remains in themarket, at the expense of zero or near-zero surpluses.� The final price of the product usually presents substan-

tial variations from that agreed, especially at a time ofinflation.

In many countries, construction is one of the mostdynamic economic activities. This is the case of Spain,where construction has experienced a dramatic growth inthe last years (SEOPAN, 2003). Additionally, more than

90% of the investment in civil works corresponds to publicadministrations and affiliate companies.

A fundamental role in the development of this activity isplayed by project engineers (Pellicer et al., 2004). Somecharacteristics inherent to the construction project havesignificant impact on the work to be done by these organi-zations. As an illustration we can mention (Austin et al.,1996):

� The needs of the client (Promoter, end users) are notusually sufficiently defined and considered.� The technical specifications or conditions established are

not documented and cannot, therefore, present clearsubsequent traceability.� Some essential specifications (cost) are excluded from

the iterative process without paying attention to theimplications for the end product or its exploitation.� The design process is not planned. It is difficult to find

procedural approaches that can be applicable to a widerange of cases.� The selection of the technical solutions chosen from among

the possible alternatives is not managed systematically.� Javier Rui-Wamba assures that (Rui-Wamba, 1999).� The traditional paths do not lead to the future.� Working methods must change drastically.� Current methods must not only be improved, but

transformed.

It is common to propose qualitative intervening actionsto improve project quality standards (Serpell and Fer-nando, 1998), and to carry out analyzes of the causeswhy projects generally end up extending their time frameand increasing their cost (Shing-Tao, 2002). Nevertheless,It is strange, to study project risks and uncertainties (dela Cruz et al., 2006). This article aims to analyze the weak-nesses in the Spanish construction projects occurring as aconsequence of the national economic situation, and topropose feasible improvement actions.

Some affirmations commonly shared in the world ofconstruction projects have been well-read in the bibliogra-phy (Merchan, 2000):

� Those who participate in the construction processare not sufficiently aware that such a process is a chainof contracts between different stakeholders. At any time,the client has the power to demand the quality required.Not taking this into account generates many problems.� The importance of the technical studies prior to project

planning is undervalued. Much attention is paid tobureaucratic and administrative aspects to the detrimentof technical aspects.� Excessively tight deadlines are set for technical studies.� All too often, the party commissioning the project con-

siders it to be a mere administrative formality in order toobtain the construction license. This ignorance of what aproject really is, implies that quality is not demanded ofit, and it is not considered important.

P.B. Perez et al. / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 719–731 721

� The internal control of the project as well as its externalsupervision, are non-existent in a large number of cases.� Absence in the project of specifications about use and

service life.� In tendering and adjudication, excessive weight is given

to delivery times and economic aspects, to the detrimentof quality and technical aspects.� There is no effective system for the selection of construc-

tion firms.� The user has very little protection against problems

deriving from poor project quality.� Construction regulations are over-abundant and com-

plex, as well as incomplete.� The public administration is slow to regulate the

establishment of failure prevention systems, i.e. effectiveregulations for the control of the project and its imple-mentation, together with a system of guarantees to theuser.� The new regulations continue to be based on schemes of

technical organization that, on many occasions, havebecome obsolete.

3. Considerations

For the present study we have designed a question-naire that has been answered by experts of Spanish publicand private organizations. Although the study has beenconducted for the case study of Spain, the analysis toolsused can be applicable to any country, organization,region or economic sector that manages constructionprojects.

The three key stakeholders involved in the constructionproject process are: public administration or Private Pro-moters (analyzed as a single agent representing the end user(MacMillan, 2006)), the Engineering project designers, andthe builders. The other participants generally are subordi-nate to one of the main stakeholders (Chinyio et al.,1998) and for the sake of simplicity have not been consid-ered in this analysis.

The “project document” is considered as the main linkbetween the stockholders involved in the construction pro-ject management process (Kathleen and Harmon, 2003).Hence, the construction project process has been divided(from project conception to project execution) into phasesthat are evaluated using a set of critical success factors forbuilding projects (Chan et al., 2004; Parfitt and Sanvido,1993).

This can be justified by the fact that about 30% of theproject failures occur between the stages of project designand project execution (Puddicombe, 1997). This affirma-tion along with the fact that project designers and contrac-tors are traditionally seen as “adversaries” (James andRobinson, 2003) support the idea that the “project docu-ment” should be considered as a cooperation tool thathelps to meet the common interest of all stakeholdersinvolved in the process and to avoid time delays and eco-nomic losses (Tommy et al., 2006).

4. Description of the strategy canvas tool

The authors of the strategy canvas or value curves, W.Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne, describe the tool as fol-lows (Kim and Mauborgne, 2004):

The value curve is the basic component of the strategycanvas and constitutes a graphical representation of the rel-ative performance of a firm in terms of the competitivenessvariables of its industry [. . .].

A strategy canvas serves to see the future in the present.To achieve this, the firms must understand how to interpretvalue curves. The value curves of an industry contain ahuge amount of strategic knowledge about the currentand future situation of a firm.

This technique has started to be used in recent years inthe field of marketing (Kim and Mauborgne, 1999) andin innovation (especially value innovation (Kim and Mau-borgne, 1997, 2002; Drucker, 2001)) and is useful for focus-ing efforts on the key factors most valued by clients in theprocess of designing new products (Leonard and Rayport,1997; Huovila and Seren, 1998; Garsden, 1994). The pur-pose of the curves is to highlight the parameters that aremost valued by clients in the future product, and to com-pare them with those of existing products. From the fitnessbetween the two curves emerge opportunities for improve-ment and innovation.

In the present study, we use the strategy canvas tool tocompare how different clients (the three stakeholders underanalysis) value the same product (the “project document”).

The application of the tool for this purpose requires nomodifications of the strategy canvas technique or valuecurves.

Regarding the application of the strategy canvas tool toa sector different from that of industry or services, its usehas no constraints as a construction project can be consid-ered as an element of comparable attributes or features(items to value) that has to be attained for certain end usersor clients, who will demand product adaptation to theirexpectations and needs.

In case of having to modify the expectations of thestakeholders, or the products or services related to thecurves, the strategic canvas tool must be applied with thetools described by Kim and Mauborgne: the four actionsframework , the eliminate-reduce-raise-create grid and theinitial litmus test for BOS: focus, divergence, compellingtagline (Kim and Mauborgne, 2004).

5. Description of the experiment

5.1. Structure of the value items

In order to apply the strategy canvas to the “construc-tion project document” the quality parameters of the pro-ject were identified for further valuation and comparison.The items to be valued coincide with a sequence of phasesthat reflect critical success factors in the management ofconstruction projects (Chan et al., 2004; Parfitt and

Table 1Scoring scale of the items.

Rangeof itemvalues

Importance(%)

Consideration Quality Need Depth

1 0–20 Never None Never Negligible2 20–40 Exceptional Minimum Rarely Superficial3 40–60 Regular Medium Regularly Medium4 60–80 Habitual High Habitual High5 80–100 Always Maximum Essential Complete


Sanvido, 1993). Each item represents a unitary element ofvaluation and comparison.

The “construction project document” process wasdivided into five phases: study of alternatives, pre-definition,definition, control of project execution and completion, andeach of these project phases were divided into different itemschronologically in order as mentioned above. A detaileddescription of each item is given in Annex1, which was deliv-ered to the professionals answering the questionnaire.

Even taking into account that it is not a complete check-list, we consider that, in general, an “ideal” project wouldbe sufficiently defined. It is evident that the greater thedefinition of the items, the lower the probability of defectsin the project (Chang and Chiu, 2005).

5.2. The questionnaire

After the definition of the items, we designed a question-naire that was sent to 321 specific professionals chosen toSpanish public and private entities related to construction.The questionnaire was sent of personalized form by threemeans of communication: fax, e-mail and by mail. One hun-dred and eleven professionals answered the questionnaire.The average time that they used was 30 min. In the resultsthere was sufficient representation from the three key groups.

The profile of the professionals who answered thequestionnaire was as follows:

� Thirty four representatives of projects consulting. Theywere project managers, consulting managers, technicalspecialists, and project technicians in general.� Forty two representatives of Building companies. They

were: owners, general managers, responsible for publicadministration contracting, specialists in studies of con-struction, supervisors of construction, chiefs responsiblefor production.� Thirty five representatives of private companies and

public administration. They were: chief operating offi-cers, construction managers, chief engineers, and projectengineers (in public administration companies). On theside of private companies: responsible for area, strategicdevelopment directors and investors.

The instructions indicated that the expert had to answerthe questionnaire exclusively on behalf of the interests ofthe entity he/she was currently working for. The expertshould avoid any bias against the interests of other agentsin case he/she had had some prior professional contactwith them. Additionally, the scoring scale of the items(1–5 points) organized into groups as shown in Table 1,was clearly explained in the instructions.

The questionnaire can be seen in Annex 1.

5.3. Results and graphical representation

The data obtained from the 111 questionnaires werethen processed for each of the three stakeholders, and the

resulting values of the items in each group were averaged.The standard deviations were calculated for the items ineach group.

In order to complete a statistical basic analysis on theanswers of three stakeholders, four ANOVAs was carriedout for each of 35 items, distributed in five phases, whichwill be described later on. The first ANOVA studied theaverage of the answers of the three stakeholders simulta-neously, whereas the other three remaining ANOVAs,compared the average of the answers of the three stake-holders, in pairs.

The last step consisted of the graphical representation ofthe three value curves (one curve for each stakeholder).Finally, the curves were analyzed and some conclusionswere drawn from the results.

According to ANOVAs, those average answers of itemsof every Stakeholder that had high probability of not dif-fering from the average of the answers of another Stake-holder, have been represented by a black solid color inthe nodes of the value curves.

6. Graphic analysis of the strategy canvas

The results obtained from the different valuations permitthe graphical representation of the strategy canvas and thevalue curves for each of the five stages of the constructionproject process (Table 2).

Chan and Mauborgne (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997,2004) describe how to interpret strategy canvas for differentindustrial products with the same client. The present paperanalyzes the resulting graphics, taking into considerationthat in our case study there is a single product (project)and different clients (stakeholders). Next is a brief descrip-tion of the interpretation of the graphics:

Comparison of the valuations (curve peaks) for eachitem enables us to identify those project aspects more liableto remain unattended or unsolved. Remember that in mostcases the financing for the project comes from the Pro-moter, and thus his interests prevail over the rest. However,the project designer and the builder also have negotiatingpower as they are necessary agents to successfully executethe construction project.

As shown in Fig. 1, in the Phase 1 of the constructionproject management process, it is evident that the Pro-moter and the project designer show common interests.

Table 2Score of the value items according to the questionnaire data (N: number of interviewed subjects; l: arithmetic mean value of the answers; r: standard deviation of the answers).

No. Phases/items Project consultancy Construction firm Promoter/admin.

N l r N l r N l r

1 Study of alternatives

I Multidimensional study of reality 34 2.80 0.66 42 1.81 0.40 35 3.97 0.90II Drafting of conditions 34 4.13 0.63 42 2.62 0.62 35 4.77 0.41III Complete definition of the problem or need 34 4.05 0.34 42 2.84 0.74 35 4.55 0.65IV Assumption of simplifying hypotheses 34 3.74 0.88 42 1.98 0.38 35 2.62 0.59V Sketches of viable and possibly optimal alternatives 34 4.15 0.43 42 3.72 1.02 35 4.01 0.60VI Analysis and comparison of alternatives 34 3.94 0.48 42 3.05 0.67 35 4.12 0.78VII Reasoned choice of the most suitable alternative 34 4.18 0.47 42 2.54 0.86 35 4.08 0.38

2 Pre-definition

I Definition of environment (multi-theme cartography) 34 2.68 0.78 42 3.87 0.59 35 3.58 0.84II General vision (of the whole need-conditions-solution set) 34 4.74 0.39 42 4.22 0.75 35 4.44 0.43III Justificatory calculations 34 4.57 0.41 42 2.89 0.94 35 3.87 0.61IV Traceability of the sequence of calculations 34 2.87 0.54 42 1.84 0.78 35 2.02 0.74V Summary and conclusions of results of the calculations 34 3.90 0.78 42 4.07 0.51 35 3.79 0.34

3 Definition

I Functionality and limits of functionality 34 3.77 0.87 42 3.89 1.08 35 4.81 0.55II Conditions of obsolescence 34 1.76 0.33 42 1.94 0.45 35 3.97 0.59III Geometrics (plans) 34 3.23 0.66 42 4.88 0.27 35 2.00 0.47IV Detailed engineering 34 2.12 0.68 42 4.75 0.48 35 1.52 0.53V Legal and contractual aspects 34 3.94 0.58 42 4.60 0.54 35 4.95 0.32VI Integrating focus 34 3.54 0.47 42 4.58 0.69 35 3.78 0.59VII Budgetary (works, running and maint) 34 3.98 0.66 42 4.50 0.41 35 4.31 0.53VIII Optional future expansion 34 1.83 0.62 42 3.42 0.68 35 3.87 0.97

4 Control of execution

I Definition of technical specif. 34 3.89 0.54 42 4.64 0.42 35 3.87 0.84II Construction methodology 34 2.74 0.54 42 4.34 0.57 35 2.02 0.41III Study of interferences 34 3.34 0.65 42 4.65 0.31 35 4.33 0.74IV Studies of coordination with other works 34 1.53 0.45 42 3.85 0.62 35 2.13 1.03V Management of waste generated 34 3.39 0.43 42 4.12 0.52 35 4.32 0.38VI Organization of the works 34 1.04 0.19 42 4.79 0.34 35 1.87 0.56VII Protocoliz hazardous and specia. tasks 34 3.15 0.42 42 4.32 0.41 35 3.10 0.58VIII Quality control plan 34 4.07 0.55 42 4.17 0.48 35 3.23 0.66IX Calculation of indirect costs 34 1.74 0.65 42 4.97 0.16 35 4.01 0.54X Forecast of evolution of certifications 34 1.87 0.74 42 4.54 0.52 35 4.78 0.31

5 Closure

I Sequence of the construction project 34 2.34 0.35 42 1.24 0.48 35 2.15 0.70II Development of the testing period (simulation of different scenarios) 34 2.87 0.65 42 4.07 0.80 35 3.84 0.62III Verification of the initial hypotheses 34 3.88 0.57 42 3.07 0.48 35 3.88 0.53IV Project As-built 34 2.26 0.76 42 2.07 0.78 35 3.04 0.45V Lesson learnt 34 2.01 0.64 42 2.25 0.27 35 1.57 0.57

P.B

.P

erezet

al./In

terna

tion

al

Jo

urn

al

of

Pro

jectM

an

ag

emen

t2

8(

20

10

)7

19

–7

31

723

Phase 1: Study of Alternatives

MultidimensionalStudy of Reality

Drafting ofConditions

Complete Definitionof the Problem or

Need

Assumption ofSimplifyingHypotheses

Sketches of Viableand possibly optimal

Alternatives

Analysis andComparison of

Alternatives

Reasoned choice ofthe most suitable

Alternative

I II III IV V VI VII

Impo

rtanc

eLe

sser

Gre

ater

Project Consultancy Construction firm Promoter / Administration

Fig. 1. Value curves of Phase 1: study of alternatives.

Phase 2: Pre-Definition

Definition of Environment(Multi-theme Cartography)

General Vision (of the wholeNeed-Conditions-Solution

set)

Justificatory Calculations Traceability of the Sequenceof Calculations

Summary and Conclusions ofResults of the Calculations

VIVIIIIII

Impo

rtanc

eLe

sser

Gre

ater


Fig. 2. Value curves of Phase 2: project pre-definition.


By contrast, the construction firm, in general, does nothave great expectations at this stage.

The results indicate that the Promoter is the firm with ahigher level of expectations for the first group of items. Atthis stage the problem is analyzed in detail to find suitablesolutions that meet the specific requirements of the client.The interests of the construction firm increase as the execu-tion process is fully defined.

In Phase 2 (pre-definition) of the construction projectmanagement process the interests of the three agents aremore similar than in Phase 1 (see Fig. 2). There is more dis-persion in the valuations of certain items. The Promotershows particular interest in the overall definition of theproblem, the problem solutions and the calculation esti-mates. On the other hand, the construction firm is alsointerested in these aspects as well as in the cartographicdefinition of the facility site (Item I).

The project designer plays a crucial role at this stage ashe has to make the problem solution provided by thePromoter converge towards a single solution that thedesign firm will have to materialize. It is then logical thatthe designer’s valuations are higher than those of the otheragents. In fact he shows great interest in the traceability ofthe project calculations (Item IV).

The real fact is that Spanish construction projects lack awell-defined presentation of the calculations in the projectdocument, which makes it difficult to trace the procedurefollowed in the calculation of certain project elements.

As shown in Fig. 3, in Phase 3, despite the dispersion ofthe valuations being lower than in the previous phases,there are more differences in the interests of the threeagents: the builder is interested in the detailed definitionof what is to be built and therefore highly valuates theitems concerning how the project is defined, the legal and

Phase 3: Definition

Functionality andLimits of

Functionality

Conditions ofObsolescence

Geometrics(Plans)

DetailedEngineering

Legal andContractual

Aspects

Integrating focus Budgetary(Works, Running

and Maint.)

Optional Futureexpansion

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

Impo

rtanc

eLe

sser

Gre

ater


Fig. 3. Value curves of Phase 3: definition.

Phase 4: Control of Execution

Definition ofTechnical

Specif.

ConstructionMethodology

Study ofInterferences

Studies ofCoordination

with otherworks

Managementof Wastegenerated

Organizationof the Works

Protocoliz.Hazardous

and Special.Tasks

QualityControl Plan

Calculation ofIndirect Costs

Forecast ofEvolution of

Certifications

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Impo

rtanc

eLe

sser

Gre

ater

Project Consultancy

Construction firm

Promoter / Administration

Fig. 4. Value curves of Phase 4: control of project execution.


contractual relationship and in particular the economicaspects and project management costs. The Promoter isinterested in knowing the limits of use of what he is goingto finance (Item I), fully defining the legal-contractualrelationship, budget distribution and future expectationsof the constructed facility. The technical specifications ofthe projects are of less importance. The designer must elab-orate a project document that satisfies the other two agentsand that adequately defines the relationships betweenagents and allows for the control of the project over thebuilder during project execution. In general, it seems thatthe project does not satisfy all the expectations of the Pro-moter or builder.

In Phase 4 (control of project execution) there is low dis-persion in the values. In general this phase follows thetrends of the previous phases, as shown in Fig. 4 (seeTables 3 and 4).

The construction firm highly values the items related toproject execution control. By contrast, the Promoterneglects these items and shows more interest in the aspectsthat either may affect the execution of the projected facility(Items I and VIII) or may cause unexpected problems thatthe firm will have to assume (Items III, V, and VII). ThePromoter also shows interest in the budgetary aspects(Items IX and X).

The designer has certain inertia as he acts accordingly tothe interests of the Promoter. Many are the aspects to bedefined in the construction project and if there are insuffi-cient resources for the correct design of the project, it mayhappen that the project is poorly defined. Since the projectis financed by the Promoter, his interests will prevail in thedefinition of the project and this is the reason why the Valuecurve of the designer is similar to that of the Promoteralthough it does not completely meet their expectations.

Table 3ANOVAs 1 and 2 (significance level a = 0.05).

ANOVA 1 (three stakeholder together) Fa, n � I, I � 1 = 3.10 ANOVA 2 (stakeholders 1 and 2) Fa, n � I, I � 1 = 3.98

X SSTR SSE I n MSTR MSE f f < F X SSTR SSE I n MSTR MSE f f < F

2.86 89.55 48.47 3 111 44.78 0.45 99.76 0 2.31 18.62 20.93 2 76 18.62 0.28 65.82 03.84 95.64 34.57 3 111 47.82 0.32 149.38 0 3.38 43.32 28.86 2 76 43.32 0.39 111.09 03.81 60.69 40.63 3 111 30.34 0.38 80.66 0 3.45 27.82 26.27 2 76 27.82 0.35 78.37 02.78 59.11 43.31 3 111 29.56 0.40 73.70 0 2.86 58.85 31.48 2 76 58.85 0.43 138.37 03.96 3.73 61.00 3 111 1.87 0.56 3.31 0 3.94 3.51 48.76 2 76 3.51 0.66 5.33 03.70 25.91 46.69 3 111 12.95 0.43 29.96 0 3.50 15.05 26.01 2 76 15.05 0.35 42.82 03.60 66.69 42.52 3 111 33.35 0.39 84.69 0 3.36 51.10 37.61 2 76 51.10 0.51 100.54 0

3.38 28.17 58.34 3 111 14.09 0.54 26.08 0 3.28 26.91 34.35 2 76 26.91 0.46 57.96 04.47 5.12 34.37 3 111 2.56 0.32 8.05 0 4.48 5.14 28.08 2 76 5.14 0.38 13.54 03.78 54.72 54.43 3 111 27.36 0.50 54.29 0 3.73 53.63 41.77 2 76 53.63 0.56 94.99 02.24 21.93 53.19 3 111 10.97 0.49 22.27 0 2.36 20.16 34.57 2 76 20.16 0.47 43.15 03.92 1.55 34.67 3 111 0.78 0.32 2.41 1 3.99 0.55 30.74 2 76 0.55 0.42 1.32 1

4.16 23.01 83.09 3 111 11.50 0.77 14.95 0 3.83 0.27 72.80 2 76 0.27 0.98 0.28 12.56 107.46 23.73 3 111 53.73 0.22 244.53 0 1.85 0.62 11.90 2 76 0.62 0.16 3.83 13.37 162.12 24.87 3 111 81.06 0.23 351.95 0 4.06 51.73 17.36 2 76 51.73 0.23 220.45 02.80 232.87 34.26 3 111 116.43 0.32 367.08 0 3.44 131.42 24.71 2 76 131.42 0.33 393.64 04.50 18.18 26.54 3 111 9.09 0.25 36.99 0 4.27 8.28 23.06 2 76 8.28 0.31 26.56 03.97 23.21 38.65 3 111 11.60 0.36 32.43 0 4.06 20.55 26.81 2 76 20.55 0.36 56.72 04.26 5.16 30.82 3 111 2.58 0.29 9.04 0 4.24 5.14 21.27 2 76 5.14 0.29 17.88 03.04 79.96 63.63 3 111 39.98 0.59 67.85 0 2.63 48.03 31.64 2 76 48.03 0.43 112.33 0

4.13 15.22 40.85 3 111 7.61 0.38 20.12 0 4.27 10.69 16.86 2 76 10.69 0.23 46.92 03.03 110.57 28.66 3 111 55.29 0.27 208.35 0 3.54 48.64 22.94 2 76 48.64 0.31 156.88 04.11 34.13 36.50 3 111 17.06 0.34 50.49 0 4.00 32.61 17.88 2 76 32.61 0.24 134.93 02.50 113.26 58.51 3 111 56.63 0.54 104.52 0 2.69 102.27 22.44 2 76 102.27 0.30 337.20 03.94 16.69 22.10 3 111 8.34 0.20 40.78 0 3.76 10.13 17.19 2 76 10.13 0.23 43.59 02.57 303.85 16.59 3 111 151.92 0.15 988.81 0 2.92 267.19 5.93 2 76 267.19 0.08 3333.7 03.52 37.67 24.15 3 111 18.83 0.22 84.22 0 3.74 26.01 12.71 2 76 26.01 0.17 151.39 03.82 19.44 34.24 3 111 9.72 0.32 30.66 0 4.12 0.19 19.43 2 76 0.19 0.26 0.72 13.57 202.88 24.91 3 111 101.44 0.23 439.87 0 3.36 198.23 14.99 2 76 198.23 0.20 978.43 03.73 183.77 32.42 3 111 91.89 0.30 306.05 0 3.21 135.45 29.16 2 76 135.45 0.39 343.77 0

1.91 27.16 30.15 3 111 13.58 0.28 48.64 0 1.79 22.99 13.49 2 76 22.99 0.18 126.12 03.59 29.46 53.25 3 111 14.73 0.49 29.88 0 3.47 27.36 40.18 2 76 27.36 0.54 50.39 03.61 17.28 29.72 3 111 8.64 0.28 31.39 0 3.48 12.47 20.17 2 76 12.47 0.27 45.74 02.46 19.50 50.89 3 111 9.75 0.47 20.70 0 2.17 0.69 44.01 2 76 0.69 0.59 1.15 11.94 8.98 27.55 3 111 4.49 0.26 17.60 0 2.13 1.09 16.51 2 76 1.09 0.22 4.91 0

726P

.B.

Perez

eta

l./Intern

atio

na

lJ

ou

rna

lo

fP

roject

Ma

na

gem

ent

28

(2

01

0)

71

9–

73

1

Table 4ANOVAs 3 and 4 (significance level a = 0.05).

ANOVA 3 (stakeholders 1 and 3) Fa, n � I, I � 1 = 3.98 ANOVA 4 (stakeholders 2 and 3) Fa, n � I, I � 1 = 3.98

X SSTR SSE I n MSTR MSE f f < F X SSTR SSE I n MSTR MSE f f < F

3.39 23.61 41.91 2 69 23.61 0.63 37.75 0 2.89 89.81 34.10 2 77 89.81 0.45 197.54 04.45 7.07 18.81 2 69 7.07 0.28 25.16 0 3.70 88.98 21.48 2 77 88.98 0.29 310.76 04.30 4.31 18.18 2 69 4.31 0.27 15.89 0 3.70 56.29 36.82 2 77 56.29 0.49 114.67 03.18 21.64 37.39 2 69 21.64 0.56 38.77 0 2.30 7.88 17.76 2 77 7.88 0.24 33.31 04.08 0.34 18.34 2 69 0.34 0.27 1.24 1 3.87 1.62 54.90 2 77 1.62 0.73 2.21 1

4.03 0.56 28.29 2 69 0.56 0.42 1.32 1 3.59 22.04 39.09 2 77 22.04 0.52 42.29 04.13 0.17 12.20 2 69 0.17 0.18 0.95 1 3.31 45.65 35.23 2 77 45.65 0.47 97.18 0

3.13 13.97 44.07 2 69 13.97 0.66 21.24 0 3.73 1.62 38.26 2 77 1.62 0.51 3.17 1

4.59 1.55 11.31 2 69 1.55 0.17 9.20 0 4.33 0.93 29.35 2 77 0.93 0.39 2.38 1

4.22 8.45 18.20 2 69 8.45 0.27 31.12 0 3.38 18.49 48.88 2 77 18.49 0.65 28.37 02.45 12.46 28.24 2 69 12.46 0.42 29.57 0 1.93 0.62 43.56 2 77 0.62 0.58 1.07 1

3.85 0.21 24.01 2 69 0.21 0.36 0.58 1 3.93 1.51 14.59 2 77 1.51 0.19 7.76 0

4.29 18.66 35.26 2 69 18.66 0.53 35.45 0 4.35 16.29 58.11 2 77 16.29 0.77 21.03 02.87 84.25 15.43 2 69 84.25 0.23 365.85 0 2.96 79.33 20.14 2 77 79.33 0.27 295.44 02.62 26.10 21.89 2 69 26.10 0.33 79.90 0 3.44 159.67 10.50 2 77 159.67 0.14 1140.5 01.82 6.21 24.81 2 69 6.21 0.37 16.77 0 3.14 200.83 19.00 2 77 200.83 0.25 792.89 04.45 17.60 14.58 2 69 17.60 0.22 80.85 0 4.78 2.36 15.44 2 77 2.36 0.21 11.46 03.66 0.99 19.13 2 69 0.99 0.29 3.48 1 4.18 12.32 31.36 2 77 12.32 0.42 29.47 04.15 1.88 23.93 2 69 1.88 0.36 5.26 0 4.41 0.69 16.44 2 77 0.69 0.22 3.17 1

2.85 71.79 44.68 2 69 71.79 0.67 107.66 0 3.65 3.90 50.95 2 77 3.90 0.68 5.74 0

3.88 0.01 33.61 2 69 0.01 0.50 0.01 1 4.26 11.41 31.22 2 77 11.41 0.42 27.42 02.38 8.94 15.34 2 69 8.94 0.23 39.06 0 3.18 103.61 19.04 2 77 103.61 0.25 408.21 03.84 16.91 32.56 2 69 16.91 0.49 34.79 0 4.49 1.97 22.56 2 77 1.97 0.30 6.55 01.83 6.21 42.75 2 69 6.21 0.64 9.73 0 2.99 56.95 51.83 2 77 56.95 0.69 82.41 03.86 14.92 11.01 2 69 14.92 0.16 90.78 0 4.22 0.77 16.00 2 77 0.77 0.21 3.61 1

1.46 11.88 11.85 2 69 11.88 0.18 67.17 0 3.33 164.13 15.40 2 77 164.13 0.21 799.25 03.13 0.04 17.26 2 69 0.04 0.26 0.17 1 3.71 28.65 18.33 2 77 28.65 0.24 117.23 03.65 12.17 24.79 2 69 12.17 0.37 32.89 0 3.70 17.01 24.26 2 77 17.01 0.32 52.59 02.88 88.89 23.86 2 69 88.89 0.36 249.63 0 4.49 17.74 10.96 2 77 17.74 0.15 121.36 03.33 146.07 21.34 2 69 146.07 0.32 458.66 0 4.66 1.11 14.35 2 77 1.11 0.19 5.79 0

2.25 0.62 20.70 2 69 0.62 0.31 2.02 1 1.70 15.94 26.11 2 77 15.94 0.35 45.80 03.36 16.23 27.01 2 69 16.23 0.40 40.26 0 3.96 1.02 39.31 2 77 1.02 0.52 1.94 1

3.88 0.00 20.27 2 69 0.00 0.30 0.00 1 3.48 12.63 19.00 2 77 12.63 0.25 49.86 02.65 10.49 25.95 2 69 10.49 0.39 27.10 0 2.56 18.11 31.83 2 77 18.11 0.42 42.68 01.79 3.34 24.56 2 69 3.34 0.37 9.11 0 1.91 8.90 14.04 2 77 8.90 0.19 47.56 0

P.B

.P

erezet

al./In

terna

tion

al

Jo

urn

al

of

Pro

jectM

an

ag

emen

t2

8(

20

10

)7

19

–7

31

727

Phase 5: Closure

Sequence of the Constructionproject

Development of the TestingPeriod (Simulation of different

scenarios)

Verification of the InitialHypotheses

Project as Built Lesson learnt

VIVIIIIII

Impo

rtanc

eLe

sser

Gre

ater


Fig. 5. Value curves of Phase 5: project completion.


In the context of the present study, the construction pro-jects follow the same pattern: project quality is close to thePromoter’s interests but the project does not clearly defineall the aspects that the construction firm considers relevant.Thus, during the execution phase the builder must specifyand fully determine certain aspects that were only superfi-cially indicated in the project. This fact has two conse-quences: the construction firm assumes project designfunctions not corresponding to it and the control of thebuilder’s activities is lower than it should be during projectexecution.

In the phase of project completion (Fig. 5) is when thehighest loss of value of the project document occurs. ThePromoter is interested in proving that what has been builtworks (Item II) and meets its client’s needs (Item III), andthen it needs fully defined project documents for the correctexploitation of what has been built (Item IV).

In this last project phase it is important for the construc-tion firm to test and check the end product, to deliver theproduct to the Promoter and to finish the contractualrelationship.

In the project completion phase little importance is usu-ally given to revision and feedback of the projected prod-uct, probably due to inadequate management of thepartial delivery times, which results in an overlappingbetween the end of a project and the starting of a newone.

Items I, IV and V related to using feedback for futureprojects (Garsden, 1994) are at low levels. The projectshould always count with an adequate final phase of pro-ject completion that included project revisions in order toimprove future results and expectations (Pulaski and Hor-man, 2005).

In “design and build” contracts, one of the three stake-holders does not exist (usually the project consultancy) andhis curve of value does not exist in the strategy canvaseither. The curve of the Stakeholder that assumes the func-tions of the stakeholder that does not exist (generally the

construction firm), have, for every item, the most restrictiveexpectation (the higher punctuation) of both curves ofvalue that now he represents: his habitual curve and therole who has substituted.

7. Discussion

The most important conclusions that can be drawn fromthe analysis of the value curves have been discussed aboveduring the description of the value curves of the differentproject phases, with particular attention to Spanish con-struction projects.

Additionally, we can mention two other relevant obser-vations. First, the sections and aspects of the constructionproject document are defined and specified to meet theinterests of the financing agent rather than to elaborate awell-balanced project. Great efforts are made to meet thequality needs of the Promoter whereas the items only rele-vant for the construction firm are poorly defined in the pro-ject document.

The consequences of all this is that certain areas of theproject are resolved by the construction firm itself in theabsence of a sufficiently defined project. Paradoxicallyenough, although the construction firm allocates moreresources to overcome the lack of information, its benefitsmay even be higher since the control of the other twoagents decreases during the phase of project execution.As a result, the budgetary distribution varies in the detri-ment of the Promoter.

Secondly, there is no feedback during the project lifecycle in its final phase.

Research in the field of knowledge management indi-cates that most of the Knowledge existing in this fieldresides in the minds of construction experts (Pulaski andHorman, 2005). The “As-built” project and the effectiveuse of this experience in a form suitable for sharing withthe members of the project organization and the other par-ticipants in the process should serve to anticipate future


requirements and thus better meet the interests of all theagents.

The opportunity of change lies precisely in this lastconsequence: feedback capabilities. Rather than trying toreduce the differences in the value curves of the agents,the project should provide a detailed description of the dif-

Score of the item Importance (%) Frequency Quality Need Detail

1 0–20 Never None None Negligible2 20–40 Hardly ever Low Low Low3 40–60 Regularly Moderate Moderate Moderate4 60–80 Almost always High High High5 80–100 Always Very high Crucial Very high

ferent aspects of the construction project accordingly to thespecific interests of each stakeholder. In other words, theproject document should represent a higher conceptual stepthat incorporates the needs of the three key stakeholdersinvolved in the process.

In this final phase of the project is when the mistakesmade, the undefined aspects or the deviations from theagents’ initial interests become more evident; thereforeit is important not to extend something apparently final-ized and to avoid as much as possible starting a newproject before assimilating the feedback for use in futureworks.

Appendix A. Annex 1: questionnaire

A.1. Introduction

The Universidad Politecnica of Valencia is developing astudy on valuation that includes the key stakeholdersinvolved in the design, planning and execution of construc-tion projects in Spain. The term “project” includes fromthe design and planning of the project document to the exe-cution of the facilities.

You have received the questionnaire because you belongto one of the three main agents involved in the constructionproject management process, namely an engineer of theadministration (or private Promoter), a Project Engineer,or an engineer of a construction firm.

The aim of the present questionnaire is that you, onbehalf of the interests and functions of the agent yourepresent (administration/Promoter, design firm or con-struction firm) and ONLY yours, valuate a set of items(using a scale from 1 to 5) according to the relative impor-tance of each item in the construction project managementand operation process.

Please indicate whether you have previous experience asone of the other agents of the process. Try to omit thisexperience in your analysis so that your answers ONLYrepresent the particular interests of the agent you are cur-rently working for. This is crucial to avoid biased resultsin the subsequent statistical data analysis.

A.2. Items

The items are grouped into five groups that represent thephases of definition, design and operation of the construc-tion project. Please rate each item from 1 to 5. The scoringscale corresponds to the following intervals:

Below is a description of the five groups and the items inroman numerals. Please carefully read the instructions ofthe set of items in a group before scoring the item. At theend you will find an answer sheet to write down your answers.

Here is a detailed description of the meaning of theitems. Although the checklist of items could be more com-prehensive, we consider that it suffices to correctly definean ideal construction project.

A.2.1. Group 1: study of alternatives

Item I. Multidimensional analysis of reality. It involvesthe technical, economic, physical, environmental, social,legal and political study of reality. As an illustration thisitem may include from the State of the Art of technology,pre-studies in the area, interviews to local people, study offuture demographic changes, and so on. It is a complex andvaried item.

Item II. Constraints. It consists of calibrating the condi-tioning factors, constraints and opportunities of the multidi-mensional analysis of reality, and listing them on the projectdocuments for further consideration during project design.

Item III. Comprehensive definition of the problem or

need. It defines the problem and tries to understand theproblem setting. The object of the project should be re-defined using the new data.

Item IV. Simplifying hypotheses. After the formulationof the problem, the initial hypotheses of the real worldare simplified to allow the use of standard analysis tools,models and techniques.

Item V. Feasible and optimal alternatives. It consists ofperforming estimations on the options that allow the mate-rialization of the construction that best solves the projectneeds.

Item VI. Alternative analysis and comparison. It consistsof comparing alternatives previously selected using theappropriate tool, for example, discrete multicriteria deci-sion analysis (MCDA). The decision analysis models andtools should be justified now in the documents.

Item VII. Justified selection of the best alternative. It con-sists of evaluating the potential alternatives by describingtheir advantages and disadvantages.


A.2.2. Group 2: pre-definition

Item I. Definition of the setting (multimathematical car-

tography). It indicates the need for processing the dataabout the future construction setting for further use duringproject execution. It consists mainly of the mapping of thesite as well as of all non-graphical data collected at earlierstages.

Item II. General view (of the set need-requirements-solu-

tion). It defines the goal and scope of the project, whichprovides a general view of the project or need and the goalsto achieve with the project.

Item III. Calculations. It includes the different calcula-tion techniques and tools that provide the specific data pre-sented in the detailed project documents.

Item IV. Traceability of the calculation sequence. It indi-cates the sequence followed in the calculations of a partic-ular project, both in the individual calculation documentsand in the general document, which will allow us to under-stand certain conclusions.

Item V. Summary and conclusions of the calculations. Itreflects how the physical reality of the projected work willbe in relation to the calculations performed.

A.2.3. Group 3: definition

Item I. Functionality and functionality limits. For theselected solution, indicate how it fits to the pre-establishedfunctionality requirements and in which situations it is nolonger useful or it is not clear that it will work (out-of-range values, non-considered scenarios, and so on).

Item II. Obsolescence conditions. It provides an estima-tion of the maturity date of the product as well as a descrip-tion of the situations in which the project object would beout of service because it is no longer profitable or for anyother reason. This item is fairly vague because it workswith hypotheses difficult to anticipate.

Item III. Geometry (planes). It comprises the detailedgeometrical description of the works.

Item IV. Detail engineering. It includes highly specializedstudies necessary for the correct operation of the project.

Item V. Legal and contractual factors (of the construc-

tion project). They define the procedural approachinvolved in the construction project management processand the contractual relationships between the Promoterand the builder.

Item VI. Integrated approach. All aspects of the projectare presented in a comprehensive manner. When a facilityis built, each of the elements involved in the process isaffected by different conditioning factors that must be con-sidered jointly. An illustration of a non-comprehensiveapproach is to describe preventive or environmental factorsin separate documents.

Item VII. Budgetary factors (execution, exploitation and

maintenance). The correct distribution of the budgetinvolves a high control over the execution of the worksand also a good description of what is to be built. The bud-get should be at least distributed as required by the builderfor supplier bidding. Additionally, the budget should con-

sider not only the execution of the works but also the esti-mation of the maintenance and service life costs of theconstructed facilities. The correct distribution of the budgetfacilitates control over the construction firm.

Item VIII. Future optional project extensions. It consistsof a document that at least briefly presents optional actionsthat would improve the construction in the future or duringproject execution. This involves substantial savings in thefuture.

A.2.4. Group 4: control of project execution

Item I. Definition of the technical specifications. Prior toproject execution the quality requirement of the differentcomponents should be indicated, specifying the maximumand minimum operational values.

Item II. Building approach. It includes the way of execut-ing the construction works in terms of the materials andhuman resources available. It should be defined in a waythat any builder with knowledge on the basic building tech-niques could be capable of executing the project only withthe help of the project documents.

Item III. Study of interferences. It studies the interfer-ences in the services affected by the works, e.g. traffic diver-sions, current operation, environmental resources managedby public and private organizations, and so on. Any aspectaffected by the construction of the works should be indi-cated in the project documents.

Item IV. Studies of project coordination effectiveness. Itmight be interesting to coordinate different constructionprojects to optimize resources. It is not necessary that theprojects be similar in nature although they should allowfor interaction so that all agents involved in the construc-tion process obtain benefits.

Item V. Waste disposal. Planning the way to dispose ofthe waste generated during the construction works.

Item VI. Work planning. It involves planning anddescribing the works and resources, risks, tolerances, etc.It should include permit and expropriation managementprocedures, minimization and correction of interferences,power and space resources necessary for the execution ofthe construction works, etc.

Item VII. Protocol of hazardous and specialized works.Hazardous works or complex works requiring specialattention should follow a protocol to minimize failures oraccidents.

Item VIII. Quality control plan. Detailed planning of allaspects related to the quality of the works.

Item IX. Estimation of indirect costs. At this stage thelevel of knowledge of the project should allow the estima-tion of the indirect costs of construction. The currentmethod is to use cost percentages that are justified laterduring the execution of the works, but previous managerialexperience could serve to provide more accurate estimates.

Item X. Anticipation of the evolution of the certifications.As a consequence of an adequate and detailed planning ofthe costs for budget distribution, not only for the Promoterbut also for the construction firm.


A.2.5. Group 5: project completion

Item I. Construction project plan. It is equivalent to pro-ject traceability during the phase of project construction. Itis convenient to write down the steps followed to design theproject because this would allow a deeper knowledge of theproject itself and thus solve future problems caused byerrors or omissions and even favour future systematic pro-ject design. This Item should also include the modificationstaking place during the execution of the works.

Item II. Project testing and checking (simulation of

different settings). The procedure to check whether the con-structed facilities meet the technical specifications indicatedin the project. When something is tested to check whether itworks adequately it is not enough to check that it worksunder certain optimal conditions but that it works whenthe conditions are less favourable and the estimated param-eters reach the limit values.

Item III. Verification of the initial hypotheses. It is relatedto the previous item. Checking that the initial hypothesesare correct or close to the real world is necessary; otherwisethe modelling process could be erroneous and then thebehaviour of the modelled element might not be whatexpected.

Item IV. “As-built” project. The “As-built” project hasmodifications, changes, adjustments and negative experi-ences during the execution process.

Item V. Feedback capabilities. Any feedback resultingfrom a Project should be documented so that all agentsinvolved in the process may learn from it. To check whatfailed and what worked correctly can be considered valu-able information in the future.

References

Austin, S., Baldwin, A., Newton, A., 1996. A data flow model to plan andmanage the building design process. Journal of Engineering Design 7(1), 3–25.

Chan, P.C., Scott, D., Chan, A., 2004. Factors affecting the success of aconstruction project. Journal of Construction and Engineering andManagement (ASCE) 130 (1), 153–155.

Chang, A., Chiu, S., 2005. Nature of engineering consulting projects.Journal of Management in Engineering (ASCE) 21 (4), 179–188.

Chinyio, E.A., Olomolaiye, P.O., Corbett, P., 1998. An evaluation of theproject needs of UK building clients. International Journal of ProjectManagement 16 (6), 385–391.

de la Cruz, M.P., del Cano, A., de la Cruz, E., 2006. Downside risks inconstruction projects developed by the civil service. the case of spain.Journal of Construction and Engineering and Management (ASCE)132 (8), 844–852.

Drucker, P., 2001. Essential Drucker. Butterworth-Heinemann, UnitedKingdom, 275 pp.

Drucker, P., 2002. The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review80 (8), 95–101.

Fernandez, A., 2005. Creatividad e Innovacion en empresas y organizac-iones. Ediciones Dıas de Santos, Madrid, 280 pp.

Garsden, B.R., 1994. Postconstruction evaluation. Journal of Construc-tion and Engineering and Management (ASCE) 121 (1), 37–42.

Huovila, P., Seren, K.J., 1998. Customer-oriented design methods forconstruction projects. Journal of Engineering Design 9 (3), 225–238.

James, D., Robinson, L., 2003. Clients versus contractor perspectives onproject success criteria. International Journal of Project Management23 (8), 622–629.

Kathleen, M., Harmon, M.J., 2003. Conflicts between owner andcontractors: proposed intervention process. Journal of Managementin Engineering (ASCE) 19 (3), 121–125.

Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 1997. Value innovation: the strategic logic ofhigh growth. Harvard Business Review 75 (1), 102–112.

Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 1999. Creating a new market space. HarvardBusiness Review 77 (1), 83–93.

Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 2002. Charting your company’s future.Harvard Business Review 80 (6), 76–83.

Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 2004. Blue-Ocean Strategy: How to CreateUncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant. Har-vard Business School Publishing Corporation, USA, 288 pp.

Leonard, D., Rayport, J.F., 1997. Spark innovation through empathicdesign. Harvard Business Review 75 (6), 102–114.

MacMillan, S., 2006. Added value of good design. Building Research andInformation 34 (3), 257–271.

Merchan, F., 2000. Manual para la Direccion integrada de Proyectos yObras. CIE Dossat 2000, Madrid, 432 pp.

Parfitt, M.K., Sanvido, V.E., 1993. Checklist of critical success factors forbuilding projects. Journal of Management in Engineering (ASCE) 9(3), 243–249.

Pellicer, E., Sanz, A., Catala, J., 2004. El proceso Proyecto-Construccion.Aplicacion a la Ingenierıa Civil. Universidad Politecnica de Valencia,Valencia, 488 pp.

Puddicombe, M.S., 1997. Designers and contractors: impediments tointegration. Journal of Construction and Engineering and Manage-ment (ASCE) 123 (3), 245–252.

Pulaski, M.H., Horman, M.J., 2005. Organizing constructability knowl-edge for design. Journal of Construction and Engineering andManagement (ASCE) 131 (1), 911–919.

Rui-Wamba, J., 1999. Las Empresas Consultoras. Revista OP. 48, 12–16.SEOPAN, 2003. Construccion Informe Anual 2002. Ancop, Madrid, 376

pp.Serpell, A., Fernando, L., 1998. Construction process improvement

methodology for construction projects. International Journal ofProject Management 16 (4), 215–221.

Shing-Tao, A., 2002. Reasons for cost and schedule increase forengineering design projects. Journal of Management in Engineering(ASCE) 18 (1), 29–36.

Tommy, Y., Fung, I., Tung, K., 2006. Construction delays in Hong Kongcivil engineering projects. Journal of Construction and Engineeringand Management (ASCE) 132 (7), 636–649.

analysis of construction projects by means of value curves

Documents