Value engineering can be applied at any stage of a project. It must, however, be borne in mind that greater benefits can be reaped when it is implemented in the earlier stages of the project. In the earlier stages of the project, there are fewer hard constraints, so there can be greater flexibility for adopting innovative alternatives. As the project proceeds, more constraints are added. Then, there is less flexibility for change, and greater costs will have to be incurred to make the necessary design changes.
Another consideration applies to the level of effort in the program. It is possible to apply VE extensively to every item in a project, but the amount of effort may not be recompensed in the same measure.
Alternatively, the 20 to 80% rule should direct the VE efforts. The rule is generally also applicable to the costs of a system or facility, meaning that 20% of the items of a facility contribute to about 80% of its total costs. By the same token, a large proportion of unnecessary costs is contributed by only a few items.
Thus, the efforts of VE should be directed at these few items too. yield significant cost savings. It is a traditional practice that designers adopt without challenging the owner’s requirements and architect’s specifications as given constraints from which they will begin to optimize their designs. These constraints,
however, can lead to poor cost and value ratios, and if left unchallenged, can lead only to suboptimal solutions. Similarly, in a process-type facility, the owner’s and process engineer’s specifications typically form the constraints.
In a project for the construction of a wafer fabrication multistory building, for example, the process engineer laid out their process plans for the various floors. The sub-fab facilities were arranged so precariously on one of the floors that the main fabrication area above this level could not be laid out symmetrically with respect to the building. As customary, this was presented as a constraint to the structural engineers and vibration consultants (of which the author was a member). The objective of the design was a waffle floor system that would ensure that the vibration level in the main fabrication area under ambient conditions would not exceed some extremely low threshold criteria (with velocity limits not exceeding 6.25 mm/s over the frequency range 8 to 100 Hz in the 1/3 octave frequency band). With the original layout, the design would demand some elaborate system of beam girders to take advantage of the shear walls at the perimeter (because no shear walls are allowed in any area within the perimeter) and still would suffer from unnecessary torsional rotation due to the eccentricity of the floor system. It was only after several deliberations that the process engineers finally agreed to modify their layout so that a symmetric design could be accommodated. This resulted in significant savings in terms of construction costs and improved vibration performance. It is common that the initial specifications conflict with the basic function of the design, which in this case, is a vibration consideration, leading to poor and expensive solutions, if left unchallenged.
Another consideration stems from the need to generate alternatives — the selection of the value engineering team. Just as the extent of solutions can be curtailed if some poorly defined constraints are left unchallenged, the scope of alternatives can also be severely limited if the value engineering team comprises only the same designers of the system. These designers become so intimate with their designs that they fail to detect areas of unnecessary costs. The approach is to form a multidiscipline team that cuts across the technical areas of the study, comprising one or two members in the major discipline with others in related fields. In this way, the alternatives tend to be wider-ranging and not limited by the experience of a single group. Greater consideration can also be given to the impact of these alternatives on the system as a whole. As with any program, the VE program has to be well managed with the support of top management in all practical ways. Visible support will entail their presence in many of the review meetings of VE projects, their support with the necessary budget and staff training and participation, and their time to discuss problems associated with the program and implementation of the alternatives. In the construction industry, it is usual to place the VE group with the purchase or design function of the organization.
The success of the VE program also largely depends on the leader of the VE group. Depending on the size of the program and the organization, he could be the Director VE, Value Manager, or simply the Value Engineer. Nevertheless, he must be able to follow organizational culture to gain acceptance from management and colleagues, yet has to have the necessary qualities to bring about changes for the better. His ability to control the dynamics of the group is important if he is to initiate and direct the program successfully. There are three other important considerations to initiate a successful VE program:
• Bring about an awareness of VE concepts and methodology within the organization.
• Select simple sure-winner projects as starters.
• Audit and publish the project after successful implementation with respect to both technical advantages and monetary savings.