There is a history of some organizations conducting “slash and burn” exercises while claiming to have conducted value improvement work. Some people think that value improvement work is all about scope reduction and cheapening the project. Others resist value improvement interventions claiming “it is too early” or we are “too busy” only to subsequently claim “it is now too late” to make changes. As well, the results of isolated value management workshops, while identifying lots of opportunities for value improvement, tend to be gradually eroded such that the forecast value improvement is not attained in practice. Continuity and consistency of a function-based, value and risk management approach is the key to success.
We recently presented at the combined SAVE International and Value Analysis Canada summit held at Niagara Falls, Canada. We are regular presenters at other venues worldwide. We advocate that:
(i) More, not less, rigor and time is required in value management work
(ii) Independent value assurance and performance assessment reviews are necessary to provide objective and balanced guidance,
along with continuity of approach, in avoiding sub-optimal delivery of program and projects
(iii) When conducted through a suitably analytical and consultative approach, change brought about by value improvement and risk
management work, will benefit the overall outcomes and stakeholder returns. Those who resist necessary change not only
impede progress but cause value to be lost to shareholders and society.
PLEASE LET US KNOW YOUR VIEWS ON THIS.
We have written a number of books on the topics of value management and assurance.
Most organizations depend on the accomplishment of projects as a source of service delivery, products, profits, or process improvements. To accomplish this, there is often a complex system of programs, priorities, policies, and practices that shapes the behaviors of organizations, managers and resources. This requires careful guidance and consistent coordination for maximum effectiveness. An environment of many projects can generate competing priorities for project resources and managers alike, and can make the requisite results difficult to achieve. There is great temptation for staff under budgetary and schedule pressures to circumvent exploratory, divergent thinking by converging too quickly on a set of solutions that has worked elsewhere.
According to authoritative sources, major declines in shareholder value can be attributed to limited project management capacity, supply chain inefficiencies and poor operational control. Similarly, a high proportion (up to 40%) of payroll is spent on non-value adding items. As well, it has been reported that only a very small proportion (2.5%) of organizations deliver their programs & projects on time, on budget, within scope and meeting the benefits expected by the business.
PLEASE LET US KNOW YOUR VIEWS ON THIS.