Project - "value engineering" references to cut project costs

[jamesbanda]

Dear all,

I am looking for some general advice on good references books,articles,links which accuractly sumerise value engineering principals. I am not really sure of a good start point..

We are going to employ a consultant to lead this effort on a project but i would like a better understanding of the process before we go out to tender..

comments most welcome...

 

[pennpiper]

I would suggest you get, not one consultant, but a lead consultant and a consultant from each of the major disciplines: Process, Civil, Structural, Piping, Electrical. Instrumentation, Procurement and Construction.
These "old Grey Hairs" should be able to give you lots of advice (suggestions). These suggestions should then be discussed by the actual project team before they write their individual and overall project Scope document.

 

[JLSeagull]

The phrase "value engineering" appears to be the politically correct term for outsourcing engineering services to low cost third world groups.

Another definition of "value engineering" could apply to engineering with regard to the installed and operating costs instead of lowest price components or fewest engineering hours.

For example - in the process industry it is not unusual to find piping changes where lines split or join with other lines. Valves look the same on 2D piping drawings. It is really visual if the block valves are selected the size of the larger line at a reducer instead of the smaller line. Selecting the larger valve could result from a concious decision for the larger bore. However, it would always look like indifference to the cost of the materials etc.

Another example for an engineering and construction company is minimal drawing content to reduce engineering time where the construction crafts cannot determine how to implement the design.

...

 

[amorrison]

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_engineering

 

[katmar]

James, Value Engineering is an excellent process and is really the essence of what we as engineers should be doing on a continuous basis. Do not think of it as the management flavor of the month. Learn what you can from the consultant you employ and take those lessons with you into the future.

When you read through the documentation it can be overwhelming with all the jargon - unfortunately the consultants have to make the procedure somewhat complicated to justify their fees - but the basics are very simple. The heart of the method is to distinguish function from action. The question to ask is "what is this item's function, or what must it achieve" rather than asking "what does it do".

This is best illustrated with an example. If you dismantled a 1980's computer keyboard you would have found dozens of levers, springs, switches and wires. If you asked the question "what does each component do" you could have got very detailed descriptions of the action of each sub-component. But the correct question to ask was "what must the keyboard achieve?" and the simple answer is "inform the computer which key has been pressed". If you dismantle a new keyboard you will find a printed circuit board and a sheet of molded rubber - and very little else. This achieves the required function at a fraction of the complexity and cost of the 1980's version.

Another example that is often used during training in VE is the simple wooden pencil. The graphite represents about 80% of the cost, but the last inch or so of lead is never used. So why put it there? By leaving it out you immediately cut 10-15% off the manufacturing cost without affecting the function at all.

I'm sure you will enjoy the process and I equally sure you will be surprised at the "obvious" improvements it highlights.

Katmar Software
Engineering & Risk Analysis Software

http://katmarsoftware.com

 

[SJones]

EN 12973 may prove to be a useful reference standard.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdo/

 

[elguero]

p. 106 of "Engineering Design for Process Facilities," by Scott Mansfield (McGraw-Hill, 1993) has a brief mention. There you will be directed to "Value Ananlysis in Design," by Theodore Fowler.

It sounds a littly "touchy feely," and can be perverted into such, but if well done, it can be highly beneficial, mostly in the design phase.

 

[epoisses]

Don't be surprised and annoyed if, after a value engineering session, you end up with a long list of unprobable ideas to add to your to do list, just be grateful for the one brilliant idea among them that will make you save considerable investment...

 

[RotaryG]

Brain storming by people not connected with the Project
Weeding out the obvious
Ball park life cycle cost estimation of plausible options
Select implementable options
Valuable if done during the early stages of the Project

Regards,

Guru

"Evolution rather than Revolution"

 

[jamesbanda]

thanks.

I aggree i think it will be very easy on paper to propose process simplifications..much harder in reality to actualy manager the unreliability added by those solutions...and meet project schedule be reworking designs effecively....

i think the key with a faciliator is to have someone that knows the detail not a 60 000 ft level perspective..consultant with no detailed engineering knowledge..

 

[RotaryG]

Value Engineering (VE) is collecting ideas from 'semi-knowledgeable' people. If we have a value engineering session with ‘experts’ and/or people intimately connected with the project, we get to do the things what they did/ preached earlier. At the same time, we can not have effective VE session with aliens. To strike the right balance is the key. This is easy to undertake, if a company is dealing with several ‘related’ projects teamed up with different people. In that event one project can have the VE performed by the members of the other project ……..

VE is nothing but having a FRESH look at key issues that have the potential to heavily influence the cost/quality and schedule…


"Evolution rather than Revolution"

 

[elguero]

A experienced designer told me when I was still learning the ropes: "Two heads are thicker than one."

What he was saying was that the back and forth discussion between two people produces more ideas than two individuals engaged in their own private thoughts. Add more people, get more synergy. Five people is probably optimum. Ten is too many. One slug can ruin the whole process, especially if he (she) is an "authority."