Engineer Javed Khan is a BOETT-registered engineer, researcher, and project management professional whose work focuses on improving cost certainty, value delivery, and governance in Trinidad and Tobago’s construction sector. With over a decade of academic and practical engagement in Value Management (VM), his research bridges the gap between theory and real-world application, offering structured, evidence-based solutions to one of the industry’s most persistent challenges—cost overruns.
Drawing on postgraduate research conducted at The University of the West Indies and Arden University, and informed by an in-depth case study of a local construction firm, Engineer Khan has developed a practical VM-driven framework tailored to the local construction environment. His work integrates functional analysis, life-cycle costing, stakeholder alignment, and modern project controls such as Earned Value Analysis, demonstrating measurable improvements in project performance.
In this interview with the BOETT, Engineer Khan shares insights from his research, explains how Value Management can be effectively implemented by engineers and contractors, and outlines the cultural, organisational, and policy reforms needed to improve project outcomes in Trinidad and Tobago. His perspectives are particularly relevant for engineers, contractors, policymakers, and public-sector decision-makers seeking sustainable, value-based approaches to infrastructure delivery.
Q1. What motivated you and your co-authors to undertake this research on Value Management (VM) as a strategy to mitigate cost overruns in Trinidad and Tobago’s construction sector?
My motivation for this research stems from a long-standing academic and professional engagement with Value Management (VM), beginning over a decade ago. My first formal exposure occurred during my MSc in Project Management at The University of the West Indies in 2013–2014, under the supervision of Professor Kit Fai Pun. At that time, I examined VM as a mechanism for reducing cost overruns in Trinidad and Tobago’s construction industry. The findings were encouraging and demonstrated that structured VM methodologies had strong potential to improve project performance locally.
Nearly ten years later, while pursuing my Master of Business Administration at Arden University under the supervision of Dr Hassaan Khan, I had the opportunity to revisit and extend this work. What made the research particularly compelling was that many of the same challenges identified a decade earlier—poor estimating, weak project controls, stakeholder misalignment, and the absence of structured cost-management frameworks—had not only persisted but, in some cases, intensified.
Reconnecting with Professor Pun allowed me to merge my earlier academic foundation with fresh empirical evidence drawn from an in-depth case study of a local construction firm. This continuity enabled the research to move beyond theory and explore how VM could be practically implemented as a process-driven strategy tailored to Trinidad and Tobago’s construction environment.
Ultimately, the motivation was twofold. First, there was a strong commitment to addressing a persistent national issue—cost overruns—that continues to undermine project delivery, organisational performance, and client confidence. Second, the research aimed to contribute to the development of localised engineering and project management knowledge, positioning VM not merely as an imported best practice but as an evidence-based, implementable solution for local firms.
Q2. Based on your analysis of local construction practices, what do you consider the most persistent causes of cost overruns in Trinidad and Tobago?
The empirical analysis of the case company, supported by a broader review of industry practices, revealed five recurring causes of cost overruns in Trinidad and Tobago’s construction sector.
The most dominant factor is poor estimating and budgeting. Many projects begin with inaccurate cost estimates due to inadequate scoping, insufficient risk allowances, and limited use of reliable historical cost data. In the case study, poor estimating was present in almost every project that exceeded its budget, particularly in refurbishment and design-build projects.
A second major factor is price volatility in materials and equipment. The sector’s reliance on imported materials exposes projects to exchange-rate fluctuations and sudden price increases. Estimates often lack realistic escalation provisions, leaving budgets vulnerable.
Thirdly, weak project management controls contribute significantly. The absence of structured tools such as Earned Value Analysis (EVA), robust scheduling, and continuous performance monitoring means that cost and schedule slippages are often detected too late for effective corrective action.
Another persistent issue is low bidding to secure work, especially in competitive public-sector procurement. Contractors frequently submit unrealistically low bids to win contracts, creating structural budget deficits from the outset and making overruns almost inevitable.
Finally, poor stakeholder alignment and scope management play a critical role. Limited early engagement with clients and weak value planning often result in unclear briefs, scope changes, and rework, all of which drive costs upward.
Q3. Why have traditional cost-control measures not been sufficient to prevent overruns, particularly in public-sector projects?
Traditional cost-control measures in Trinidad and Tobago tend to be reactive rather than proactive. They focus primarily on tracking expenditure after costs have been incurred, rather than shaping value, scope, and function early in the project lifecycle. This limitation is especially pronounced in public-sector projects.
Firstly, cost control is often introduced too late. Many public projects lack rigorous front-end planning, functional analysis, and long-term cost consideration. By the time cost overruns become visible, the opportunity to influence outcomes is already constrained.
Secondly, conventional methods focus on expenditure rather than value. They rarely question whether specific functions are necessary, whether alternative materials or methods could deliver the same outcomes more efficiently, or whether the design is optimised for purpose.
Thirdly, public-sector projects often suffer from fragmented delivery structures, with weak integration between design, procurement, and construction. Without early collaboration and structured VM workshops, misalignment and scope discrepancies are common.
Another critical weakness is the limited use of performance-based monitoring tools such as EVA. Reporting typically focuses on costs to date rather than productivity, earned value, or performance trends, resulting in late detection of problems.
Finally, procurement systems that prioritise lowest-price tendering encourage underpricing rather than best value, while limited life-cycle thinking leads to decisions that appear economical initially but generate higher long-term costs.
Q4. How would you describe Value Management in practical terms for local engineers and contractors unfamiliar with the concept?
In practical terms, Value Management is a structured, collaborative methodology that ensures a project delivers its required functions at the lowest overall cost, without compromising quality or performance. It is not a cost-cutting exercise, but a disciplined decision-making framework.
First, VM helps teams clearly understand what the client actually needs. By clarifying project objectives, critical functions, constraints, and priorities early, VM reduces misunderstandings, unnecessary features, and scope creep.
Second, VM identifies the most cost-effective way to deliver those needs. Tools such as Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST), Cost–Benefit Analysis, Life Cycle Costing, and structured brainstorming challenge assumptions and encourage alternative solutions. These may include using local materials, simplifying construction methods, or eliminating non-essential features.
Third, VM supports stronger project control during execution. Techniques such as Earned Value Analysis allow teams to detect cost and schedule deviations early, enabling corrective action before overruns become embedded.
Q5. How did Earned Value Analysis (EVA) contribute to early detection of slippages, and how did the stratified sampling of 21 projects strengthen the study’s validity?
EVA was central to the pilot implementation, providing real-time, quantifiable indicators of project performance that traditional cost tracking failed to deliver. By comparing planned value, earned value, and actual cost weekly, EVA generated Cost Performance Index (CPI) and Schedule Performance Index (SPI) metrics that immediately highlighted deviations.
For example, early CPI and SPI values above 1.0 indicated favourable productivity and cost performance, while later minor deviations were detected quickly and corrected through adjustments to labour, procurement timing, and sequencing. Without EVA, these issues would likely have been identified only after costs had escalated.
The stratified random sampling of 21 projects significantly strengthened the research’s validity. From a population of 117 projects, stratification ensured representation across project types, durations, and cost bands. This avoided bias and produced a balanced sample reflective of the company’s overall operations, enhancing the credibility and applicability of the findings.
Q6. Were poor stakeholder management, inaccurate estimating, or weak budgeting more influential in causing overruns?
All three factors contributed, but inaccurate estimating and weak budgeting were the most influential. These issues were present in nearly every project that exceeded its budget, particularly larger projects above TT$700,000, of which 67% experienced overruns.
Stakeholder mismanagement was significant but often acted indirectly, creating unclear requirements and late changes that compounded estimating weaknesses. In practice, these factors reinforce one another: poor stakeholder engagement leads to unclear scope, which leads to inaccurate estimates and weak budgets.
Q7. How receptive were project teams and senior management to VM-driven processes?
Initial receptiveness was cautious but open. VM was unfamiliar, and some staff feared it would increase workload or slow decision-making. However, engagement increased significantly during the six-day VM retreat.
Teams responded positively to collaborative workshops, transparent cost–benefit discussions, and the practical insights provided by EVA. Senior management quickly became strong supporters once VM demonstrated its ability to address cost overruns, cash-flow challenges, and weak estimating.
The real turning point was the 5.3% cost saving achieved on the pilot project. This tangible result transformed skepticism into support.
Q8. What were the main implementation challenges, and how were they overcome?
Key challenges included limited familiarity with VM tools, resistance to change, inconsistent historical cost data, time constraints, and difficulty integrating EVA.
These were addressed through hands-on workshops, strong senior management support, use of real project examples, supplemental interviews to validate data, structured daily agendas, and simplified EVA templates with ongoing support. Demonstrating early wins was critical in overcoming resistance.
Q9. Could integrating VM into public procurement guidelines significantly reduce cost overruns nationwide?
Yes. The research shows that many public-sector overruns stem from weak early-stage planning, poor estimating, and lack of performance monitoring. Mandatory VM workshops or studies would improve project definition, enforce transparency, promote value-based decision-making, embed EVA as an early-warning system, and build national capacity in project governance.
Q10. What cultural or organisational changes are needed for VM to succeed?
Organisations must shift from reactive to proactive thinking, prioritising front-end planning. Collaboration must replace siloed working, data discipline must improve, and leadership must actively promote value over lowest cost.
Q11. What role should BOETT-registered engineers play in driving VM adoption?
BOETT-registered engineers should champion VM by leading early-stage planning, advocating evidence-based decision-making, ethically challenging waste, mentoring junior staff, and facilitating cross-functional collaboration.
Q12. What competencies are currently lacking among engineers for effective VM application?
Key gaps include advanced cost-estimating skills, proficiency in VM analytical tools, strong project planning and control capabilities, facilitation and stakeholder engagement skills, and a shift toward value- and life-cycle-based decision-making.
Q13. What are your primary recommendations for construction firms seeking to reduce overruns?
Firms should strengthen front-end planning, adopt VM as standard practice, implement robust project controls including EVA, improve stakeholder engagement, enhance data management, strengthen procurement planning, and shift from lowest-cost to best-value thinking.
Q14. What systemic improvements could result if government agencies adopt VM?
Over time, VM adoption would reduce overruns and delays, improve transparency and accountability, enhance infrastructure quality, strengthen procurement practices, build industry capacity, increase public confidence, and institutionalise continuous improvement.
Q15. As a BOETT-registered engineer, how does your work contribute to raising professional standards?
This work provides an evidence-based framework for improving cost control and value delivery, promotes value-driven decision-making, supports knowledge transfer and capacity building, and demonstrates leadership through practice—helping to raise standards and improve outcomes across the industry.Top of Form