Target value design as a conditional tool system: How A3, CBA, and BIM enable value-driven decision-making in construction projects

Abstract

Target Value Design (TVD) is increasingly adopted in construction projects as a means of aligning design decisions with cost and value objectives. However, existing studies largely focus on philosophical principles, contractual arrangements, or isolated tool applications, providing limited insight into how value-driven decisions are operationalised in practice. This gap contributes to the widely observed variation in TVD outcomes across projects, even when similar tools are formally applied. The paper argues that such variation cannot be adequately explained by differences in technical competence or Lean maturity alone. Instead, it conceptualises TVD as a conditional tool system whose effectiveness depends on the decision environments in which its tools are embedded. The study adopts an interpretive analytical review based on a structured corpus of International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC) publications (1996–2025), complemented by practitioneroriented sources and documented project cases. It examines how core TVD tools - A3 reports, Choosing By Advantages (CBA), BIM-enabled dynamic cost modelling, and collaborative workshops supported by incentive mechanisms function not as standalone techniques, but as an interdependent decision-support system. The analysis shows that these tools derive their value-generating capacity from mutual reinforcement across cognitive, analytical, technical, and behavioural dimensions of decision-making. When governance conditions support early multi-actor engagement, shared decision authority, and value-based justification, the tool system enables iterative learning and proactive management of value under cost constraints. Conversely, under constraining governance regimes, the same tools tend to degrade into symbolic or compliance-oriented practices. By reframing TVD from a set of methods to a governance-sensitive decision infrastructure, this paper contributes to construction management research by clarifying why TVD does not transfer easily across contexts and by providing a basis for more nuanced evaluation of its application in practice.