Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 6(12), pp. 2470-2479, 18 June, 2011 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE ISSN 1992-2248 ©2011 Academic Journals Full Length Research Paper Integrating risk and value management using IRVM workshops: Case studies in infrastructure projects in UK Saipol Bari Abd-Karim 1 , David J. Lowe 2 , Hamzah Abdul-Rahman 1 , Chen Wang 1 , Imran Ariff Yahya 1 and Geoffrey Q. Shen 3 1 Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Malaysia. 2 Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK. 3 Faculty of Construction and Land Use, Hong Kong polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Accepted 20 May, 2011 In infrastructure projects, even though both value management (VM) and risk management (RM) are widely accepted as tools for effective project management, they have never been synthetically practiced. To combine the two processes within a single project is practical and logical when both methods share the same resources. Both VM and RM are systematic processes and involve a multi-disciplinary team in creative IRVM workshops. This paper attempts to examine the application of IRVM workshop to integrate RM and VM through case studies as a qualitative approach in four infrastructure projects in UK. Results show that even through the application of IRVM workshop is very much dependent on several factors such as time and budget constraint, complexity of project, and client’s requirement, it could effectively quantify the VM and RM approaches to increase the exercisability. Key words: Risk management, value management, infrastructure, project management, IRVM workshop. INTRODUCTION The opportunity of integrating value management (VM) in conjunction with the formal risk assessment and analysis started in 1993 when a city port authority required a value engineering (VE) effort that would be augmented with an application of a risk assessment (Dell‟Isola, 1997). In in- frastructure projects, both VM (including VE) and RM are well used (Weatherhead, 2006) and widely accepted as the best practice tools for effective project management (Griffin, 2006). Griffin (2006) argues that the issue is no longer about whether they should be used but whether the processes should be integrated. Furthermore, OGC *Corresponding author. E-mail: derekisleon@gmail.com. Tel: 03-7967 3203. Fax: 03-7967 5713. Abbreviation: APM, Association for Project Management, UK; IRVM, Integrating Risk Management and Value Management; OGC, Office of Government Commerce, Malaysia; RM, Risk Management; SAVE, Society of American Value Engineers; UK, The United Kingdom; VA, value analysis; VE, value engineering; VM, value management; WID, waste incineration directive. (2003) mentioned that VM and RM are interrelated tasks that should be carried out in parallel. According to OGC (2003), the application of VM will help client to identify the best way of meeting business need while RM is used to manage the risks associated with the solution that offers the best whole-life value to the business and should not be seen as barrier to innovation. The main idea for integrating RM and VM (hereinafter referred as IRVM) is to optimise value on a project. Dallas (2006) stated there is little point in going to great lengths to maximise the value of a project if significant risks materialise which impair its delivery, thereby destroying value, and a project in which all risk is avoided is unlikely to maximise value. Meanwhile, Paliokostas (2000) indicated that these techniques appear to be so compatible and complementary, so that continuing to use them separately could mean waste of time and resources. The OGC (2003) proposed that VM exercises are carried out first, to determine what exactly constitutes value to the business from delivery of a project. After that, the likely risks to occur to the preferred option are