No abstract

Best Value Procurement (BVP) and Target Value Delivery (TVD) are registered to be increasingly applied in construction, and in some cases, also in the same project. The purpose of our paper is to address these two concepts theoretically and empirically to see if challenges occur when combining BVP and TVD. We deduce the proposition from a theoretical analysis: Best Value Procurement (BVP) is inconsistent with the Target Value Delivery (TVD) approach. We have examined a theoretical-oriented case study of a Norwegian highway construction project. Data was gathered by document analysis, direct observation, and semi-structured interviews. One finding was that BVP did not hinder the client from being a proactive actor and solution enabler in collaboration with the general contractor team. The study shows a lack of alignment of joint project development with a BVP and TVD structure. BVP has proved good results in projects using transactional contracts. However, in projects based on a relational contract, a more direct dialogical procurement approach may be more productive. The paper contributes to the literature by pinpointing conceptual and empirical counterproductive differences when combining BVP and TVD.

To succeed with projects, we need to understand and manage uncertainty. Uncertainties impact a project’s cost, time, and quality performance. The project’s front end is challenging for decision makers due to the high level of uncertainty. This paper identifies the most common uncertainties and their origin in the pre-project phase of large road projects. It also analyses the changes in these factors over 20 years. Document studies collected information about uncertainty factors identified in the early phase of 90 large road projects. The research strategy was explanatory, and data were collected from quality assurance reports from a population of large Norwegian road projects. The project cost varies between USD 30 million and over USD 2 billion. Then, 15-factor groups were established for categorising uncertainties. This study shows a rise in uncertainty factors with operational origins and a decrease in uncertainty factors with strategic and contextual origins over the last 20 years. Identifying and understanding common uncertainties and their origins provides policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with useful insights for policy revision and investment decision making and facilitates a proper focus regarding uncertainty analyses in the front end of road projects.

PurposeUncertainty management (UM) in projects has been a point of attention for researchers for many years. Research on UM has mainly been aimed at uncertainty analyses in the front-end and managing uncertainty in the construction phase. In contrast, UM components in the design phase have received less attention. This research aims to improve knowledge about the key components of UM in the design phase of large road projects.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopted a literature review and case study. The literature review was used to identify relevant criteria for UM. These criteria helped to design the interview guide. Multiple case study research was conducted, and data were collected through document study and interviews with project stakeholders in two road projects. Each case's owners, contractors and consultants were interviewed individually.FindingsThe data analysis obtained helpful information on the involved parties, process and exploit tools and techniques during the design phase. Johansen's (2015) framework [(a) human and organisation, (b) process and (c) tools and techniques)] was completed and developed by identifying relevant criteria (such as risk averse or risk-taker, culture and documentation level) for each component. These criteria help to measure UM performance. The authors found that owners and contractors are major formal UM actors, not consultants. Empirical data showed the effectiveness of Web-based tools in UM.Research limitations/implicationsThe studied cases were Norwegian, and this study focussed on uncertainties in the project's design phase. Relevant criteria did not cover all the criteria for evaluating the performance of UM. Qualitative evaluation of criteria allows further quantitative analysis in the future.Practical implicationsThis paper gave project owners and managers a better understanding of relevant criteria for measuring UM in the owners and managers' projects. The paper provides policy-makers with a deeper understanding of creating rigorous project criteria for UM during the design phase. This paper also provides a guideline for UM in road projects.Originality/valueThis research gives a holistic evaluation of UM by noticing relevant criteria and criteria's interconnection in the design phase.