Showing papers on "Value engineering published in 1994"

Constructability related to tqm, value engineering, and cost/benefits

Abstract: Recently, constructability has received considerable attention from researchers and practicing engineers. Constructability has been defined as the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project objectives (“Constructability” 1986). This paper discusses the evolution of constructability and how programs have been developed to bring design and construction closer to the level of integration once achieved by the master builder. There is a great deal of discussion among industry professionals as to how constructability is related to total quality management and value engineering. This paper conceptually describes these interrelations. In addition, the paper presents a framework to measure costs and benefits related to constructability. By providing owners with this framework, the parameters will be visible and defined, thus removing skepticism as to the measurement process as well as enabling more consistent and uniform re...

Partnered Project Performance in the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Abstract: : This thesis analyzes the performance of partnered military construction (MILCON) projects in the U. S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). Partnering in construction usually involves formation of strategic alliances, or agreements between owners and contractors to work together for extended periods over several consecutive contracts. Although federal procurement regulations prohibit establishing long-term relationships, NAVFAC has been successful in partnering on a project-by-project basis. There has been only one previous attempt at quantitatively measuring their success in this area. However, because of the limited time in which NAVFAC had been involved in partnering at the time of the study, the small sample size rendered the results inconclusive. This thesis compares the performance of 39 of the 41 projects NAVFAC has completed as of May 1994 with a similar sample of non-partnered projects. The criteria used are cost change, change order cost, claims cost, value engineering savings and duration change. Conclusions and recommendations are presented based on the results of the analysis

Don't just optimize - unbundle

Abstract: Improving the current automotive distribution system is no longer enough. The time has come to restructure it completely CARMAKERS HAVE GOOD REASON to focus their efforts in the 1990s on distribution. Thanks to fundamental changes in the role of automotive distribution, the existing system has for a long time not met the market's needs. The result: industry stress at both dealer and OEM(*) level, coupled with notable dissatisfaction among customers. One way to resolve this conflict is to optimize the current system. Long-term success, however, will require a more radical approach, centered on unbundling and rescaling the four or five key functions within the overall distribution system. Deciding to pursue the unbundling path represents a major strategic choice for any carmaker, but there are steps it can take to ease what will be a very difficult transition. Weighing costs and benefits There is much to be gained by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the channels that move cars from manufacturers to consumers. True, there are plenty of reasons not to open this "Pandora's box." First, the system seems, at least on the surface, to be working well. Moreover, other OEM challenges -- such as taking costs out of manufacturing and accelerating product development cycles -- have been more pressing in this period of tough competition and considerable overcapacity. Finally, the system has been awkward at best to tinker with. Dealership principals tend to be independent entrepreneurs with strong views, and any manufacturer's efforts to improve efficiency or effectiveness have to work through thousands of distribution points. This area is thus a lot "messier" to work with than, say, one's own manufacturing facilities, where the managers work for you rather than for themselves, and where the issue is confined to a few dozen locations. There are even more reasons, however, to take action to reform the typical automotive distribution channel. An enormous amount of money is, after all, tied up in distribution: dealer margins and incentives, advertising allowances, floor plan financing, and numerous other charges can add up to 30 percent of the cost of a new car. Small slips in this area can ruin years of hard work in other parts of the business. An error in positioning downstream inventory in the delivery system might cost, in extra carrying charges, much more than the savings from a year-long value engineering project in product design. Furthermore, as other parts of the carmaker's business system are being overhauled to squeeze out excess cost, the opportunities to increase distribution efficiency become more salient -- as is evident when one compares the relatively slow rate of improvement in carmakers' sales productivity with the rapid rise in their manufacturing productivity. Buying decisions Distribution reform obviously affects not only the cost side of the profit equation, but revenue too: our research reveals that a consumer's sales and service experience with a dealer can influence his or her decision to purchase the same make next time by as much as 40 percent. For luxury cars, the figure is 60 percent or more. As all carmakers improve their product quality to much the same standard and incorporate similar technologies and features into their vehicles, the degree of dealer influence will probably climb still higher. Such trends weaken the product's ability to differentiate the brand, thereby increasing the burden on the channel to do so. Thus downstream distribution performance can today offer greater leverage, on revenues as well as costs, than the upstream areas of design and production that were the focus of carmakers' efforts in the 1980s. Why is this true? Why has distribution become the next best place for carmakers to direct their competitive energies? The underlying cause is that the typical Western car distribution system has not evolved to keep up with changes in the commercial realities of the car business -- changes so slow that industry participants may not even have noticed them taking place, but so sweeping that they are fundamentally "changing the game," making the current distribution system effectively obsolete. …

How do Integration and Data Models Add Value to a Project

Abstract: Integration has been at the forefront of research agendas of universities and restructuring efforts of companies in the past few years. However, we are still lacking a common understanding of what integration is. Maybe more importantly, there is little discussion and evidence of the value integration adds to a project. Integration is generally seen as good per se. However, the somewhat slow transformation from the current fragmented project delivery process to a more integrated process seems to belie that assumption. This paper identifies current ways of organizing projects, the traditional value adding process, and accounting systems in place today as the major barriers to the implementation of more integrated project delivery systems. If we are not able to overcome these barriers it will be difficult to measure the value and justify the adoption of integration technology in the AEC industry.

An Examination of the Effectiveness of Partnering in Navy Construction Contracts

Abstract: : This thesis presents an analysis of the effectiveness of partnering of construction contracts in the U. S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Partnering is a contract administration tool designed to foster open communications between contracting parties and avoid the traditional adversarial relationships that have become the standard over the past years. Implementation of partnering is done on a project by project basis since acquisition regulations do not allow for long term relationships between private contractors and the federal government. Successes reported in partnering have all been subjective and based on individual project performance. This thesis compares project performance of partnered and non-partnered projects. Criteria of comparison include cost growth, incidence of claims, response times for various contract requirements, value engineering savings and end of project contractual issues.

Way to handle energy costs in value engineering studies

Abstract: Life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis is an integral part of the development phase of a value engineering (VE) study. Many aspects of LCC have been well developed and are regularly applied during VE studies. However, there are some components embedded within LCC analyses that are more difficult to complete than others because they have not been widely discussed in professional publications and presentations; this makes them very time-consuming to investigate. In addition, some aspects require expertise from outside the field of cost engineering that may not be readily available. One of the most difficult LCC components to assess is energy costs. This article shows how energy costs are used in VE studies and discusses how they are derived. 9 refs., 2 tabs.