The Performance Based Studies Research Group (PBSRG) is a group of researchers and educators that have developed the Best Value Approach [BVA] which can be implemented on individual projects or organization wide. The approach, which is based on leadership principles, drives accountability and efficiency through the use of measurement. The PBSRG integrates with organizations, educates their personnel, and facilitates the implementation of the approach.
During the past 20 years, our research group has been refining the BVA that enhances the way that organizations operate. The underlying concepts are simple:
Our documentation has shown that our Best Value Approach applies to any level of organization, within any industry. The details of the BVA are adaptable, allowing it to be used within the restraints of bureaucracy and legislation. Results of the BVA include:
The Best Value Approach has been utilized in the procurement and project management of construction and services. It has been developed over the years and the approach has many hybrids that have surfaced such as Best Value Procurement or BVP. The BVA process provides clients with a tool to identify and select the Best Value vendors for their projects, based on performance instead of just lowest price. Unlike other Best Value methods out there, BVA also has mechanisms to measure the vendor’s performance throughout the duration of the project. BVA was identified not only as a Best Value procurement system, but a methodology to measure output and minimize risk. This system emphasizes the preplanning and risk management aspects.
In the 28 years that we have been developing and implementing the Best Value Approach, our results have shown that the fundamental concepts and methods have applied to the projects and organizations in every industry that we’ve been invited to work with thus far. Here are some of our numbers:
2000+ Projects Procured
$6.5 Billion of Projects Procured
98% Customer Satisfaction
64 Licensed organizations Best Value Vendor is the Lowest Cost
9.0/10 Client Rating of the Best Value Process
9.1/10 Client Rating of Contractor/Vendor
41 Industries Where Our Model has been Tested
Implemented in 10 countries, 33 states Vendors in our Past Performance Database
The Best Value Approach consists of three main phases: Selection, Clarification and Execution by Risk Minimization. To learn more about the Best Value Approach, go to our YouTube Channel and watch this video»
The Best Value Approach (BVA) is a new supply chain management approach that assists organizations in the delivery of services from procurement to closeout. It was developed by Dr. Dean Kashiwagi in 1991 at Arizona ...
02 February, 2022
A large organization was introduced to the Best Value Approach (BVA) in 2017. After reviewing the documentation and results of BVA, the client was interested in running a test-project using the BVA. The organization...
13 September, 2021
The Alpha Program is a professional certification program which is operated by The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) W117 working commission. The Alpha Program has been collecting, inspecting and documenting the performance of roofing......
01 October, 2017
Introduction In 2017 a Middle Eastern Company began implementing the Best Value Approach (BVA) in the outsourcing of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) program to replace their manual and semi-automated business processes with a single system. The project has completed......
10 January, 2017
Date of Work: 2009 – 2016 Background: The State of Oklahoma started implementing PIPS/PIRMS in 2009. The State was introduced to it at a NIGP meeting, where the State’s architect, John Morrison, heard Dr. Kashiwagi. The State’s construction and properties......
21 March, 2016
In 2014, a United States state agency began implementing the Best Value Approach (BVA) in their Waste Quality Department as a replacement to their traditional approach of procuring and managing projects. ...
15 May, 2014
Date of Work: 2006 – 2013 Background: Ray Jensen, the Associate Vice President for University Business Services at Arizona State University, was introduced to the PIPS process in 1996. At the time Ray Jensen and ASU decided that their process......
21 March, 2013
Date of Work: 1997 – 2012 Background: PBSRG has worked with the following United States federal government organizations: U.S. Coast Guard (2003-2005.) U.S. Corps of Engineers (2007-2009.) U.S. Air Force (2007-2009.) Federal Aviation Administration (1997-1999, 2003-2005.) U.S. Army Medical Command......
21 March, 2012
The article goes over the work that was done with the Best Value Approach during the Olympics when they were hosted in Utah. The results were staggering but not enough to continue ...
21 March, 2011
Date of Work: 2008 – 2010 Battleship Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico USAF Project; Procurement Agency: Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District Lessons Learned Conclusions of Albuquerque COE District Legal counsel Richard Toten: “He and the team saw the implementation......
21 March, 2010
Schering Plough is recognized as one of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies in the world and procures about $57.3 million worth of services a year. Although most of the services they outsource are standard functions, due to the nature of their business, a minor error could potentially have a large impact in ...
21 March, 2008
Date of Work: 2006 – 2007 Background: In the fall of 2006 PBSRG contracted with Entergy Corporation to implement best value procurement into their facilities group capital projects program. Entergy is an integrated energy organization that provides electricity to the......
21 March, 2007
In 2005, the University of Minnesota Capital Planning and Project Management (CPPM) partnered with the PBSRG to increase the efficiency of the delivery of construction for the University’s Twin Cities Campus. In 2007, after 2 years of testing, UMN-CPPM made the PIPS......
15 October, 2005
In 2004, the City of Peoria, AZ implemented the PIPS Best Value process to determine if they could increase contractor performance and accountability from what was seen under the low-bid award process. The process was first tested on various types......
20 October, 2004
In 1997, the State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS), began implementing the PIPS process. Tired of the complaints they received on the traditional low-bid projects, DAGS was looking to increase the performance of their outsourced projects......
12 January, 1997Assumption that traditional approach was flawed
– Entire supply chain was non-transparant
– Concepts were inaccureate and caused problems
Procurement was identified as an issue (MDC)
Owner was identified as an issue (MDC)
Engineer/Facility Manager thought procurement was the problem
Procurement was done right, but engineer/projectmanager is a problem
Project management is a bigger problem than procurement
– Projectmananagement divided into two: Identification and utilization of expertise and allowing expert to preplan.
Identification and utilization of expertise is humanistic problem (automate)
– Number of experts are few
– Number of personnel who could identify and utilize expertise are very few
Vendor has the best opportunity to identify and utilize expertise
– BVA is headed for automation
– BVA is semi automation
An arrangement in which all elements and resources are positioned to be utilized in the most optimal way. An expert aligner is a true leader.
Assignment of personnel by vendors is dictated by business principles of making a profit and meeting the buyer’s expectations. Higher paid experts should not be sent to environments where they are being directed, managed and controlled. Experts should be sent to outsourcing owners which allow the higher paid experts to proactively plan and mitigate the risk that they do not control. Experts, who are higher paid, finish projects faster, with greater quality and do it cheaper and faster due to their expertise.
The Best Business Practice (BBP) is what the majority of businesses attempt to do to efficiently complete their work. BBP are the more traditional methods to be efficient. IMT states that most people are blind and resistant to change, and use decision making,direction and control practices to become more efficient. BBP coexist with the price based marketplace.
The Best Value Practice (BVP) is when management, direction and control are replaced by expertise. BV practice includes the minimization of risk that the expert does not control. The BV approach is to use performance metrics, create a “win-win”, use a supplychain approach and create a transparent environment. BV practice increases value and minimizes cost.
A high competition, high performance environment in which users consider both performance and price. It is when the buyer selects a vendor or item for “the best value for the lowest price.” The best value is when the vendor delivers a high performance service for the lowest price and gets paid for the service as soon as possible. All other transactions are considered non-value added transactions or costs, and are minimized. Other requirements of best value include transparency, win-win, minimal approvals, expert determines scope and controls the project (user releases control of the project) and communications are minimized.
A criteria in the PIPS procurement selection in which the evaluation committee does not have access to the names of the proposers for the documents which they are evaluating and rating.
An administration that is too large in employee and customer size for transparency, win-win and minimized communication. The nature of its size always results in an increase of excessive procedures, required approvals, red tape/security checks and routines. These characteristics foster an environment of reactivity, confusion, and inefficiency. siness Agility
Phase 2 in the PIPS process. This phase takes place after the Best Value Vendor has been prioritized and identified. This is the phase that the best value vendor clarifies their proposal in detail with a easily understandable executive summary, scope, detailed schedule, risk that the vendor does not control and how the risk will be minimized, answering all technical questions of the client and creates a weekly risk report including a milestone schedule and a risk management plan.
Minimal experience, unable to preplan, lacks ability to predict outcome of the project, focuses on their own technical risk because that is all they can see.
Experienced, pre-plans, ability to see project from beginning to the end, can predict outcome of event, minimizes their scope to their expertise and focuses on risks that they do not control, because they have no technical risk due to their expertise.
An inaccurate idea that an individual can take away another individual’s free will by forcing them to think, to feel or to act a certain way. IMT and KSM support the idea that an individual cannot control another individual or entity, but that every individual has complete control over their own actions. If a person believes in control, they must also believe in chance, and will practice in blaming others and not being accountable for project failure caused by their actions. (See IMT Manual for more support)
An action taken by an individual when they perceive potential multiple outcomes to an event. Decision making identifies that an individual does not understand the initial conditions, and requires the individual to use their own personal experience to identify the initial conditions and the future outcome. Decision making increases risk. When someone makes a decision it is because they cannot identify dominant information that dictates the future outcome. Therefore, decision making is based on information that they do not understand. Decision making increases risk.
An individual who maximizes their risk by making decisions when they do not have enough information to identify or predict the future outcomes (see “Decision Making”).
Is an overall statistical aggregate of all consolidated projects with Weekly Risk Reports (WRR) in an organization. The DR prioritizes the company’s entire project database (Projects with WRR’s) by risk. It keeps track of all deviations in cost (budget), time (schedule), future risk and any other unique measurements.
A truth. A principle that is so simple, apparent, relevant and important, that it can predict the final outcome. Everyone will be motivated to do the same thing because they can understand the dominant information and see into the future. Dominant information results in consensus. Dominant information identifies the future outcome, and motivates everyone to reach the same conclusion. Dominant information is often in terms of numerical measurements. Dominant communication is in terms of metrics that predicts a future outcome.
The 4th filter in the Selection Phase 1 of the PIPS process. Period of time given to the evaluation team to verify vendor submitted ratings are dominant and that the potential Best Value vendor’s submitted cost is either within client budget stipulations or has a justifiable reasoning for being outside of the cost parameters.
Anything that happens that takes time. An event has initial conditions, changing conditions throughout the event and final conditions. The event initial conditions dictate the final conditions due to the natural laws that dictate how conditions change over time. All events have been observed to have only one outcome. Hindsight verifies that events can happen only one way. The event model proves that no one can influence, change or control the event or any of the event participants to change the final conditions to something that is not related to the initial conditions. Every event initial condition is unique based on time and location.
Phase 3 in the PIPS process. This phase takes place after the signing of the contract. The awarded Vendor shall be expected to upkeep a Risk Management Plan (RMP) and a Weekly Risk Report (WRR) throughout the life of the contract. This phase was previously known as Management by Risk Minimization.
A simple explanation of the service the identified best value vendor/contractor is delivering and how they will deliver the service. The explanation includes how the performance of the vendor will be measured, and the risk that the vendor does not control and risk mitigation. It is created by identified best value vendor in the Clarification phase.
A person who is proficient and specialized in a certain skill, practice or service. Their knowledge base and experience allows them to accurately predict future outcomes. Experts do not have technical risk. The only risk they have is the risk that they do not control. Experts always think in the best interest of the buyer and will identify and mitigate the risk that they do not control.
The end result of an event. Controlled by the initial conditions and natural laws.
Industry model is based on perceived competition and performance. Divides the industry into four different environments: price based, best value, relationship based or negotiated, and unstable environment due to no competition or performance. This is also called the Service Industry Structure (SIS) or the construction industry structure (CIS) models. The model explains that the price based environment has poor performance due to the wrong party doing the talking (the buyer directing the expert vendor on what to do.) In the best value environment, the best performing vendors identify what can be done, write their own contract, and manage their own project. The biggest difference between price based and best value is that the owner controls in price based, and the vendor controls in best value.
The measurement of information (initial conditions and natural laws) that will predict the future conditions. It is the use of deductive logic, common sense, and dominant information to predict the future outcome. IMT is authored by Dean
Kashiwagi and developed in the Kashiwagi family home. Integration “Integration” (or “integrating”) refers to any efforts still required for a project team to deliver a product suitable for release as a functional whole.
The sum of all factors and information (initial conditions and natural laws) that make up the beginning of the event. The more initial conditions that can be perceived and measured, the more accurate the prediction of the final conditions. Every set of initial conditions is unique due to time and location.
2nd filter in the selection phase. Most important filter to identifying a vendor’s capability. Identifies if vendor’s personnel have a vision of the project/service and can minimize risk they don’t control. Experts have Type A characteristics.
A mechanism where dominance or radical extremes are used to minimize decision making in understanding the difference between Type C, RS characteristics and Type A, LS characteristics. KSM is a problem solution mechanism. KSM was developed in the Kashiwagi family home.
Is part of the “Project Capability” package in Filter 1, Phase 1 (Selection Phase). The LE submittal enables vendors to differentiate themselves by making claims or statements on their capability and supporting the claims with verifiable performance metrics. Without the metrics, the statements and claims are not dominant, require trust and faith of the selection committee members, and will receive a “5” rating for not being dominant.
See “Price Based.”
Any personnel who use decision making, direction, control and rules to govern or motivate others to meet the expectations of an organization. Management or managers usually are Type C, and use management, direction and control [MDC].
The traditional management paradigm of trying to force someone to do something they are not capable of doing.
Standards that are used to identify the minimum acceptable level of quality. Minimum standards are usually someone’s perception of “what is allowable.” Because it is subjective, and requires interpretation, minimum standards usually result in decreasing quality. Minimum standards usually have no proven relationship with proven performance. They are subjective and usually allow the majority of manufacturers, materials and people to participate in an industry.
An industry quadrant that provides high performance with low competition (nontransparent, lower value and decreasing performance over time.) It involves the client and supplier developing a relationship in which they build a contract
based on trust. This type of selection has been diminishing, because it is difficult to sustain in the competitive worldwide economy due to its lack of competition and a perception that it is not the best value.
A model where the vendor is the offerer and the owner/buyer is the acceptor of the offer. The vendor, being the expert, identifies exactly what they are going to do and how they will mitigate the risk that they do not control. It is where the vendor is the expert and the buyer wants what the expert can deliver based on their requirement. The client ensures the vendor has a quality and risk management control program and is using it. This contracting model minimizes the need to manage, make decisions, direct, control and do owner inspections.
A model in which the buyer identifies what they think they want, also known as “intent.” Vendors/contractors will propose scopes that will bring the buyer the most value for their intent. The buyer will then choose the vendor who
brings them the most value for their budget.
A model that minimizes risk by hiring expert vendors and having the experts clearly identify the unique initial conditions, predict the final conditions, deliver the project requirements and identify and mitigate the risk that the expert does not control through transparency. In the new risk management model the owner/buyer does quality assurance (ensuring that the expert is using their risk management program.) The new risk management model does not use management, direction and control [MDC] to minimize risk.
Model which removes the sharing of risk and assigns the risk to a singular party, generally the owner. An expert vendor minimizes their scope until their scope contains no risk. Communication is minimized to the language of metrics. Experts will minimize decision making.
The owner who understands they are “not the expert.” The outsourcing owner uses best value (BV) PIPS to identify the BV vendor, then transfers the control of the project to the vendor, and forces the vendor to preplan, identify and mitigate risk that they do not control, and increase value and quality by minimizing project time and cost deviation.
The owner who feels the vendor is not technically competent enough and that their project is different from anything the vendor has done in the past. A partnering owner has an issue with control and does not want to turn over the control of the project to the vendor.
PPI is metrics which show a vendor or individual’s past performance. It is a optional submittal requirement in BV PIPS Pre-Qualification Phase. PPI can also be used to describe a vendor’s performance and competitive advantage.
The worldwide leader in the development of Performance Information Procurement Systems and Performance Information Risk Management Systems (PIPS), the optimization of the supply chain and the expert in
identifying industry structure and solving industry issues. PBSRG services clients, industry and academic units across the United States and around the world to implement PIPS and solve the issues dealing with the delivery of services.
BV PIPS is a licensed and copyrighted delivery system created by Dean Kashiwagi in 1991, and modified and improved for the past 17 years. PIPS has four phases, four selection filters, and five selection criteria. PIPS is based
on the IMT deductive logic of minimizing the functions of decision making, management, direction, and control by requiring dominant information.
PIRMS is the use of the last two phases of PIPS, the Clarification Phase and the Execution Phase. PIRMS was first identified with the US Medcom research project to show that the paradigm shift is practiced more in the second two phases. The PIRMS does not require the use of BV selection.
The pre-qualification phase is an optional component in the Best Value PIPS process. It is used as a period of education and training in the best value approach, performance metrics and the use of performance metrics to increase competitiveness, value and transparency. A set of minimum criteria shall be identified for prequalification. However, vendors are not constrained to the minimum criteria. This can include past performance information (PPI), financial information, insurance and bonding information, and “similar type of work” metrics. The prequalification phase does not have to be run. Clients can start with Phase I, the Selection Phase.
It is an environment where the owner controls the project. The owner and their representatives are the experts. Therefore, the submitted low price is the best value. The price based environment has high perceived competition and minimal quality and value. The price is the most important factor. Even when other factors are considered, if the other factors are subjectively rated, the owner who is priced based will award based on low price. Owners who award based on the low price do not understand the true value or cost of delivering a service or product. They gravitate to price because they are blind, the environment is not transparent, and the buyer is thinking in terms of “win-lose.” A price based buyer is Type C.
Using a linear matrix to take the weighted ratings from the selection committee to identify the best value vendor.
Filter 1 in Phase 1 (Selection Phase) of the PIPS process. This filter includes four mandatory submittals. The submittals are the Level of Expertise (LE), Risk Assessment (RA), Value Added (VA), and Cost. Schedule is not a selection criterion but can be requested during the selection phase.
The plan a client uses to ensure that the vendor has an effective quality control plan, risk management plan and weekly risk report (WRR).
The plan the vendor uses to ensure they are doing their work correctly.
This is a submittal that must be viewed and rated by the evaluation committee with a given numerical rating. The numerical rating is from “10” to “1”, which is dominantly good to dominantly bad. The submittals are in terms of claims and supporting measureable and verifiable performance information. If the supporting information dominantly shows high performance (high performance ratings from clients and low time and cost deviation rates on projects that are similar), the rating is high. If the claim is dominantly bad the rating is low. If the submittal lacks dominant metrics, the rater cannot identify if the vendor is a performer, and gives them a “5” or neutral rating.
The BV PIPS rating system is used in the selection phase. The rating system is based on the submittal of verifiable performance measurements supporting claims. If the claims are not supported by verifiable performance information the rating is a “5” or a neutral rating. If the claim is supported by verifiable high performance measurements the rating is a “10”. If the claim is supported by verifiable performance measurement showing poor performance, the rating is a “1”. Most ratings are between “5” and “10.” Even though it may be recommended to rate “5” and “10”, ratings in between can be given.
The stated or unstated needs for a projects success in a traditional owner controlled approach. In BV PIPS, the project requirement is called the project intent. It is also known as the initial conditions of an event. PIPS focuses on having the selected vendor/contractor identify the project requirements.
A simple explanation of the service the client is requesting and the client’s vision and simple explanation of how the service will be delivered. This explanation should be created and approved by PBSRG/BV Expert before BV PIPS is used on a project.
An unforeseen event or situation which the vendor does not control. All risk is the financial responsibility of the vendor.
The traditional explanation of the management of risk. This is an action of a Type C person. Risk is defined by IMT and PIPS as the risk that an expert does not control. Because there is no influence or control over other parties, risk can be identified and mitigated by making the environment transparent. The parties who cause the risk will be personally motivated to minimize the risk that they cause.
A living document created by the vendor during the Clarification Phase, which outlines potential risks for the project and their plans for mitigating the risks through transparency. The RMP is used throughout the life of the project in Phase 3 (Execution) as a living document, in which the RMP can be updated with new potential risks and risk mitigation plans.
The identification of how the risk will be prevented before it occurs, the creation of a transparent environment to expose risk creating actions to the individuals who are the source of risk and the documentation of the results. Risk mitigation does not include direction and control. Traditionalists confuse risk management with risk mitigation.
A part of the “Project Capability” package in Filter 1, Phase 1 (Selection Phase). This submittal is weighted and rated by the client’s selection committee. This submittal has a twofold agenda. It forces the proposing vendors to prioritize major risk
items that are unique to the project or service. It also provides a way for the expert vendor/contractor to differentiate themselves from the rest.
Any interface a vendor has with something that is out of their control (people, systems, weather, site conditions, etc.)
The vendor identifies the scope by what is “in their scope or responsibility” and what is “out of their scope or responsibility”.
Phase 1 in the Performance Information Procurement Systems (PIPS) process. It focuses on filtering through all potential vendor/contractors in order to find the best value vendor for the project.
There are four filters: project capability, interview, prioritization and dominance check.
The PIPS selection phase has five selection criteria: level of expertise, risk assessment, value added, price and interview.
A strategic plan is a long term plan to sustain the optimization of an event.
A group of people who have the same technical expertise. They have the same language and are difficult to understand by other people outside of their silo. They are detail oriented and feel comfortable with their “own.
Information that is detailed, that is understood by someone in that technical area and describes a system or capability and physical specifications.
The most commonly accepted and used contract type and delivery model where the buyer/client directs the expert vendors on what is required and how to deliver the deliverables. The buyer is the offerer and the expert vendor is the
acceptor of the offer. Normally the traditional contract model objective is to lower the price of the vendors. The resulting impact on value and quality is that the value and quality are minimized. This model requires Type C characteristics in all participants.
The most commonly accepted risk management model where the buyer controls the project and vendor. The buyer uses decision making, management, direction and control to meet their expectations. Traditional risk management personnel normally try to mitigate risk during the event.
A description of an environment where events, occurrences and levels of expertise are made simple and dominant allowing everyone to understand. As transparency increases, dominance, simplicity and consensus increase. As transparency increases, people are motivated to action and accountability increases.
Transactions are any work, communications, administration, paperwork etc. Transactions in best value have a negative connotation because its objective is to minimize transactions. The best value is where the vendor delivers great service, and gets paid for the service. Every other transaction is a non-value added transaction.
A part of the “Project Capability” package in Filter 1, Phase 1 (Selection Phase). This submittal is weighted and rated by the client’s selection committee. This submittal gives the vendors an opportunity to identify any value added options or ideas that may benefit the Client without being penalized for the additional costs. Prior to award, the client will determine if the value added items will be accepted or rejected.
Information the vendor provides to the client to support their claims and differentiate their ability to perform with other.
Is a concise report that documents project cost and time deviations, risk and the source of risk (i.e. why it deviated, how much it deviated in cost or time, planned resolution of the risk that caused deviation…etc.). It also includes the Risk Management Plan (RMP) that was created in the Clarification phase. The RMP will be updated as new risks occur or plans for potential risks are discovered.
The Best Value Approach is a method that can be used to improve the efficiency and performance of project delivery, project management, risk management, and teaching. BVA has been proven to work not only in the industry, but also in the education environment. The BVA originated from the dissertation of Dr. Dean Kashiwagi at Arizona State University in 1991. The method focuses on identifying and utilizing the expertise of experts. By natural law, experts are the only ones who can make it efficient and effective. IMT states that when a buyer [non-expert stakeholder] attempts to manage, direct and control an expert vendor [tells the vendor what to do] it makes it more difficult to identify and utilize the expertise of the expert vendor [the purchaser or buyer is too busy talking and directing]. The traditional purchaser believes that if they write enough details to the vendor, that any vendor will be able to understand what they are saying. This means that the purchaser or buyer can actually educate, change and control the vendor. By observation this assumption is false. BVA is the only approach that minimizes the direction to the expert. By definition the expert can observe the current situation and identify what needs to be done to meet the project objective. Those that do not have expertise, will attempt to do what the non-expert buyer/purchaser has directed. This increases the risk and cost of the project. The BVA is the only approach that accepts the vendors for who they are, identifies the vendor with the most expertise, and allows the vendor to use their expertise to increase the value and lower the project cost.
The BVA uses common sense and experience to identify and utilize expertise. There are many practitioners who are using the BVA. There are many owners who think they are using the BVA, but who do not understand the common sense and logic of IMT. These owners do not get the results of the BVA [faster procurement, better project execution [on time, on budget, high customer satisfaction]]. The BVA has been exposed to the United States, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Botswana, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, India and Australia. The BVA can be used in both private and public sectors and meets the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in the United States and the European Procurement Directive for all countries in the European Union.
The BVA is vendor centric, it utilizes the expertise of the expert vendor. Where the expert vendor preplans the entire project from beginning to end, simplifies the schedule and plans to allow non-expert stakeholders to understand, includes the functions of all stakeholders who touch the project and tracks time and cost deviation of the project using a weekly risk report (WRR). The WRR creates transparency and helps non-expert stakeholders to mitigate risk. The BVA does not believe that management, direction and control bring project success. Instead the expert vendor uses the WRR to create transparency and assist the non-expert stakeholders to minimize the risk they would normally cause through ignorance.
If you are the owner, the identification and utilization of the expertise of expert vendors will reduce overall project cost by 30%, and projects will be delivered on time and on budget, with higher quality.
If you are an expert vendor, the expert will be able to preplan the project, mitigate the risk that normally reduces profit and increases project cost and increase customer satisfaction.
The BVA is not a new idea. It uses common sense and logic to utilize expertise to reduce cost. It is why owners attempt to hire vendor who know what they are doing. The BVA uses simplicity to minimize project problems. Most purchasing/owner stakeholders attempt to manage, direct and control vendors to minimize project risk. 25 years of experience and a number of longitudinal tests which used experts to create transparency, have identified the purchaser/owners as the source of 90% of all project cost and time deviations [see Medcom Study, State of Minnesota case studies, the initial $1B Dutch infrastructure fast track projects, the Arizona Department of Environment Quality study of professional services, the State of Hawaii three year test (1998-2001), the University of Hawaii [one project manager did 33 projects and the average PM load was 3 projects], the United Airlines tests and the Saudi Arabian Classification effort. The BVA is a paradigm shift, which uses efficiency [less effort] and effectiveness [better results] to solve the problem. This leads to a natural result which one purchasing person or project manager can do the work of ten traditional personnel. This raises a fear with many purchasing professionals who question their value and fear that their job may go away. The fear of purchasing and profession procurement personnel is very similar to the fear of the overall movement toward automation in our society.
It depends on the project. The overall performance of tests have led to reducing procurement time by 50%, and having a project execution of 98% on time, and on budget with 98% customer satisfaction. It is the duty of the owner to ensure that these results are met by hiring an expert Best Value consultant. This can be easily determined by requesting the performance information [on time, on budget, customer satisfaction] from the BV expert.
The BVA objective is to identify and utilize expertise to get the best value for the lowest cost. When traditional purchasing professionals attempt to manage, direct and control vendors by the use of a prescriptive contract, they are actually increasing the cost by increasing the complexity of the project. Best value experts simplify, minimize risk caused by non-expert stakeholders, and increase their profit by being efficient and effective. This lowers the overall project cost.
Go to the source documents created by the founder of the BVA which you will find on this website. Verify that the BV expert who is being utilized has performance information on BV projects that they have delivered. There are A+ and A BV experts who are listed on the website. However, it is critical to ask them to show their project execution performance [project finished on time, on budget and customer satisfaction.] there are many BV experts who have delivered the procurement but have not actually delivered the project. Owners beware to simply ask for the critical performance information.
It is a change of paradigm. It includes:
Owners should identify a simple objective and use observable characteristics that are defined numerically. These metrics should be understood by all.
The owner/purchasing people should not be thinking and making decisions [increase risk].
The BVA should be simple [faster, less work and easier].
The expert vendors should prove that they are expert on the unique project being requested [using simple metrics: how many times they have done this specific type of project, and use metrics to identify the difference between this project and their previous projects]
The BV expert vendor should then preplan and have a detailed project plan with cost, a simplified milestone schedule [defined by metrics] with cost, and a risk mitigation plan that identifies and manages risk that is created by the non-expert stakeholders.
The expert vendor should use a WRR to track project time and cost deviation to create transparency.
This is a change of paradigm that goes against traditional practices. This is very similar to utilizing expertise to simplify the delivery of services. It has the same impact of automation.
In all markets and industries. The greater the risk [poor performance] the more value of the BVA.
They can see into the future, make things simple, and mitigate risk by creating transparency to help non-expert stakeholders.
By understanding the principles of IMT and the principles of the BVA identified above. Remember, the more education one requires, the greater the risk that the person may not be capable of understanding.
The books are available at pbsrg.com and through local A+ licensed experts.
This website pbsrg.com is the original source of the BVA and IMT.
A+ experts are often giving education and exposure to the BVA.
An annual conference is held every year in January in Arizona by the founder of the IMT and BVA.
The biggest successes have been by the founder of the IMT and BVA over 25 years. The success has been documented to be observable. Other A+ experts who have project execution performance information have added to the database of expertise.
Saint Louis School (SLS) awards the 2016 Education Innovation Award to Professor Dean Kashiwagi (Class of 70′), the Performance Based Studies Research Group, KSM, and the Leadership Society of Arizona (LSA) for their donation of the “Leadership and Deductive Logic” course to SLS and continual support of the NCAA approved course. PBSRG has donated over $65,000 of intellectual property license rights, support services, electronic textbooks, course materials, and in-person teaching for the “Leadership and Deductive Logic” Class [2015-2016].
Established to recognize members dedicated to IFMA and the facility management profession, the IFMA Fellowship Program creates an elite core of respected leaders who act as advisers to and ambassadors of the association. Being named an IFMA Fellow is the highest honor the association can bestow on a member. In 2012, Dr. Dean Kashiwagi became one of only 90 professionals that have received the distinction thus far. Kashiwagi was recognized for his “inspiring, engaging and tireless” FM education and research, which has spanned over two decades. Read more about this award
The Dutch Sourcing Awards are presented annually to the purchasing teams that have demonstrated the most impressive purchasing performance in the Netherlands over the past year. In 2012, Rijkswaterstaat won the award for Best Overall Procurement Effort as well as the Operational Excellence category. Under great political and social pressure, the organization has implemented Best Value Procurement on a billion dollar road network project. This sparked the growth of Best Value Procurement in the Netherlands.
In January 2012, The Minneapolis/St. Paul Chapter of IFMA presented its 2011 Facility Practitioner of the Year award to Tom Shultz, Director of Facilities for Intermediate District 287, for his use of the Best Value Model. Using Best Value, he was able to transform the way his organization selected and managed the construction of their new facility in New Hope. Rather than using the traditional price‐based procurement processes, his team used best‐value processes to select the highest performing contractors who had an affinity to identify and minimize risk.
The 2011 George Cronin Silver Award was presented to the State of Idaho for its Best Value Model. Idaho teamed with the Performance Based Research Studies Group in an effort to improve the success rate and decrease the risks associated with service contracts. Since implementation, the state has applied these Best Value practices to a variety of programs internally, has promoted their plan to at least two other states and has assisted Arizona State in transforming what started as a construction-focused process to a mainstream public procurement sector solution.
Each year, The International Facility Management Association recognizes groups and individuals who have made significant contributions to the facility management profession and the association. In 2009, their Distinguished Educator Award went to Dr. Dean Kashiwagi, for his numerous accomplishments in education and research during the past year. One significant accomplishment was receiving a Fulbright Scholarship to share his facility and project management practices with the people of Botswana, Africa.
The University of Minnesota (Capital Planning and Project Management Group) was awarded the 2008 Research Innovation of the Year Award by the CIB for their use of Best Value Model in the delivery and management of construction and design services.
The CIB Programme Committee awards the annual PC Commendations for extraordinary performance in the CIB Programme of Activities. In 2008, CIB Task Group 61, under joint coordination of Kashiwagi, was upgraded to a working commission in 2008 and attracted more new CIB Members than any other CIB Commission.
The Fulbright Program is one of the most prestigious awards programs in the world. The program operates in 144 countries and awards only 7,000 grants annually. In 2008, Dr. Dean T. Kashiwagi was awarded a Fulbright Scholar grant to lecture and conduct research at University of Botswana (Africa).
The Construction Owners Association of America has an annual Project Leadership Award that recognizes excellence in project management & promotes leadership, professionalism & excellence of owners & developers involved in the construction process. In 2007, the City of Peoria received the COAA’s highest award (Gold Award) for the success of the Rio Vista Recreational Center. This project was procured using the Best Value Model.
Every year, Fire Chief Magazine hosts a competition recognizing architects and fire departments for outstanding achievements in fire station design and construction. In 2007, The City of Peoria’s Jomax Fire Station #7 was the recipient of this award, judged by a panel of architects and fire service executives. The station is a modern 11,800 sq. ft., 3-bay satellite station, aimed at minimizing emergency response time with an efficient layout, and built with sustainable / green strategies and materials. This project was procured using the Best Value Model.
The CoreNet H. Bruce Russell Global Innovator’s Awards program showcases solutions, best practices & innovations in corporate real estate and workplace management. In 2005, Harvard University received CoreNet’s highest award for innovation for transforming their organization using the Best Value Model.
The Pono Technology Award is presented to organizations in Hawaii that have excelled at successfully implementing information technologies for the betterment of the enterprise. In 2001, the State of Hawaii was recognized for its innovation in improving productivity and performance using the Best Value Model.