I have seen Value Engineering (VE) mentioned often in some of the topics.
So what is it?
A Value Study is the formal application of a value methodology to a project in order to improve its value.
This application is also referred to as value engineering,value analysis, value planning, or value management.
For purposes of this standard,the subject of a Value Study whether it is a product, process, procedure, design, or service will be referred to as the “project.”
SAVE International Value Standard, 2007 edition
By reading the attached doc, VE sounds useful. But too often VE is seen as just a nice name for cutting cost right down to the bone.
Where do you stand?
This table is a simplified version of the one in the VE document attached.
It shows the "right" and "wrong" way of doing Value Engineering.
| Characteristics | "right" VE | "wrong" VE |
|---|---|---|
| SCOPE |
|
|
| VALUE ACHIEVEMENT |
|
|
| TIMEFRAME |
|
|
| FACILITATORS |
|
|
| TEAM MEMBERS |
|
|
| WHO IS INVOLVED |
|
|
| TECHNIQUES |
|
|
| CREATIVITY |
|
|
| PROJECT SIZE SUITABILITY |
|
|
Do you agree?
As I said, if you know what you're doing, VE can be beneficial, but it needs to be applied intelligently.
Anyone who just replaces a product with another one that costs less and says they're doing VE is fooling themselves.
'Whole life cycle' of a product is what is missing in VE. By reducing cost and inevitably some quality, you are reducing the longevity of the overall development. Will a building be more cost effective if it is cheaper but needs to replaced/refurbished in 20 years or is it better for a building that costs a little more but lasts 50+ years?
These are the questions that need to be raised in a time when waste is to be reduced why are we constructing buildings that will decay quickly.
Who is the investment for? A developer will not be using the buildings once they are built so is no longer liable for the longevity of them. The investors are the people who buy them....
The era of 'the disposable' is all around us, be it furniture (IKEA) or clothes (Primark), changing how you dress or where you live more frequently than when a few decades ago all of these things cost more.
@nazart I have to disagree with Ikea being associated with 'disposable'. In fact just to quote some well-known consumer brands, IKEA, Travelodge, Ryanair are great examples of value products and services.
I have an IKEA desk at home. To me it's a clear case of a product that fulfills its function at the best possible price.
Often the point of VE is looking at what these companies give you for what you pay, and comparing them with companies that are more expensive. Not always is a higher cost justified.
@CM76 I understand what you are saying but in true VE fashion
Value engineering is used to solve problems and identify and eliminate unwanted costs, while improving function and quality. The aim is to increase the value of products, satisfying the product’sperformance requirements at the lowest possible cost.
IKEA is great for value and function but it still doesn't satisfy the true meaning of VE. MDF is much cheaper than solid wood, is greatly used by IKEA and has a lifespan of 5-7 years. These can easily be damaged by water, chipped veneers etc. whereas wood may be expensive and will last decades maybe even centuries. This brings up the point of the life span of any product once again.
Buildings are very much developer led, where profit margins have a massive influence to quality or longevity of a building.
What you see is just the aesthetic (the selling point) and until the use of the building (the daily wear and tear) you will not see the 'cracks' or problems.
By then it's too late, you as a consumer are invested in a product that wasn't built to last.
This article brings up a valuable point. It is a race to the bottom when it comes to winning bids and getting the job. This is the beginning of the downfall of VE.
How else can the contractor fulfil the construction of a building without cutting the costs and using materials that may be cheaper but do not have the same quality.
I think Dame Judith Hackitt is right about being skeptical of VE.
I've been trying to read the 'Building a Safer Future' and I'm only on chapter 2.
Key principles underpinning dutyholder responsibilities
2.14 This review’s objective (in placing greater clarity around specific roles and responsibilities) is different from the CDM Regulations, albeit complementary. The review’s objectives are to ensure that every building is:
- procured, designed and constructed in such a way that the key building safety requirements18 of the Building Regulations (and all other key aspects of those regulations) are sufficiently prioritised throughout;
- designed and constructed so that everyone involved in delivering the building work has the information, instruction and skills they need to carry out their jobs in support of this overall aim; and
- designed and constructed to facilitate the ongoing safe management of the building by future building owners/residents once occupied
This is what annoys me, in a traditional building contract the architect takes on the role of contract administrator to make sure that all elements of the building process are looked at and completed to standards, quality and within budget, but in D&B contracts the whole process is flawed. I understand that it reduces the risk for architects not having a supervisory role but wouldn't construction be better (although more expensive) if the contracts were changed?
This is what annoys me, in a traditional building contract the architect takes on the role of contract administrator to make sure that all elements of the building process are looked at and completed to standards, quality and within budget, but in D&B contracts the whole process is flawed. I understand that it reduces the risk for architects not having a supervisory role but wouldn't construction be better (although more expensive) if the contracts were changed?
Hello,
You can't take on the responsibility of a multi-million pounds project unless we're talking about larger firms. Though I am not a big fan of D&B you can design, be novated and see the project through to the end.
With traditional contracts you increase your risk and liability, which generally is not an issue in smaller projects, but in bigger ones your risks go up, in which case it makes more sense to go D&B. There is also more scope for VE if done well.
Regards,
J. White
I understand that the Building Safety Bill intends to put more responsibility/liability on the Principal Designer which inevitably will change attitudes to D&B but only time will tell if there are improvements.
I read the article above in Constructionnews.co.uk about Dame Hackitt's views and what surprised me was the remarks from Paul Hyett (former RIBA president)
Architect Paul Hyett, an expert witness at the inquiry, said in a written submission that “the UK construction industry has been orientated with an emphasis towards cost and value-engineering at the detriment of safety”.
and then when asked further regarding VE
Though asked by counsel for the inquiry whether he thought the term ‘value-engineering’ had become a euphemism for cost-cutting by 2012, the former Royal Institute of British Architects president changed tack slightly and said: “Many design-and-build contractors are highly competent and highly responsible and will interrogate a design with great effect and find cheaper but not worse […] less expensive ways of doing something. That is value-engineering, and that’s very useful, and I don’t want to give an answer that would dismiss the good quality work of many, many good design-and-build contractors.”
As a former RIBA president you would think that he would make a clear argument regarding the good or bad values of VE and how they are being interpreted within the construction industry.
This is why architects are having a difficult time making their place in construction. If the leaders of the RIBA cannot make firm decisions how do they expect the architects to respond.
These are very significant subjects that impact the built environment and are only discussed when something tragic happens.
This is why architects are having a difficult time making their place in construction. If the leaders of the RIBA cannot make firm decisions how do they expect the architects to respond.
I don't think this is about us having a hard time making our place in construction. I think it's the way that the industry is shaped at the moment and the architects role has become less and less relevant.
As an institution, the RIBA is supposed to be "driving excellence in architecture". To do that they should be a stronger voice in bringing about a more cohesive communication between the disciplines instead of sitting back and pontificating.
The role of the architect ideally is supposed to be able to bring the team together and discuss the best way to maximize value (which is how VE actually works). No single discipline knows everything. This is where team discussions can be beneficial to the project.
© 2020 – 2024 arqnetwork - All rights reserved.