MEDICIÓN DEL NIVEL DE SATISFACCIÓN DEL CLIENTE

In reporting the death of Silicon Valley cofounder William Hewlett in 2001, the news media were quick to acknowledge the unique corporate culture he and David Packard created in 1939. Their busi-ness philosophy, called the “HP Way,” is a people-oriented approach with decentralized decision making and management by objective. The tenets of the Hewlett-Packard philosophy are respect for the individual, contribution to customer and community, integrity, teamwork, and innovation. To a value engineer these are familiar characteristics embodied in the value methodology. They represent the way value practitioners view their work and help explain why the value process for solving prob-lems is so successful.

Value engineering (VE) is often misunderstood. Even though VE enjoys a half-century of history as a successful technique for improving the value of projects, products, and processes, there remains a vague understanding in the engineering community of what VE is and what it can accomplish. The history of value improvement work dates back to the 1940s when Lawrence Miles, working for

∗“Understanding Value Engineering” by Roger B. Sperling, CVS. Copyright 2001 by IIE Solutions. Reprinted with minor editing by permission of IIE Solutions. Minor edits have been incorporated. None affect the meaning of the original article and are clearly reflected by brackets ([]) to enclose additions and by triple periods (...) to mark omissions.

Copyright © 2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Click here for terms of use.

General Electric, developed value analysis. Miles’ concept evolved out of the need to redesign GE’s products because of shortages of critical raw materials during World War II. The U.S. military then named the process value engineering, embracing it in their quest to eliminate unnecessary costs of defense systems. Expanding use of VE in the public and private sectors followed in the United States and abroad. Mandated VE studies now save billions of dollars of public funds and corporate VE pro-grams assure the competitive edge in the private sector.

The search for better value is based on the VE job plan . . . an organized, step-by-step problem-solving methodology. This systematic process, beginning with the . . . information [phase], is the same regardless of the item under study. It is carefully designed to analyze functions of a project, product, or process before moving to the [idea generation] and evaluative phases. The final . . . phases, [development, reporting, and implementation] . . . complete the protocol. All phases must be com-pleted in an orderly way to achieve optimum results.

3.2.1 Value Has a Definition

The definition of value,

Value = ,

is a key to understanding value engineering. Improving value means enhancing function, reducing cost, or both. Therefore, it’s necessary to consider the function of an item—what its purpose is—

before value improvements are suggested.

For example, when studying a mousetrap for cost reduction, suggestions for making minor mod-ifications to the existing mousetrap (e.g., use a plastic base) can be made. However, after value ana-lyzing the function of the mousetrap—to kill mice—alternative ways to kill mice (e.g., use poison) can be suggested. Clearly, these are two different creative thinking paths: The first leads to small changes while the latter has the potential for large changes. The unique approach of function analy-sis is the essential precursor to the search for creative alternatives. Understanding what work an item is intended to do must precede the search for better value alternatives.

This is what makes VE unique and gives it the power to achieve surprising value improvements.

Failure to understand the functional approach of VE leads to a false conclusion that VE is merely a cost-cutting exercise. Unfortunately, many studies are conducted in the name of value engineering in which the function analysis phase of the VE job plan is omitted. This overenthusiastic leap from the information phase to the [idea generation] . . . phase (skipping the function analysis phase) defeats the very goal of value studies, which is to improve value, not just cost. Table 3.1 (“Wastewater diversion facility”) illustrates this point. In the information phase of this study, the team received instructions from the design manager not to change the project’s location. But by moving the facility to a new loca-tion, it was possible for the team to more than double the capacity of the system for the same cost and within the same footprint. Management was pleased and surprised that VE worked so well because expectations for this initial VE study were low—only minor cost-cutting ideas had been anticipated.

3.2.2 A Team Process

Value studies rely on the synergy of teams to solve a common problem. Typically, mixed-discipline teams, with some members having prior knowledge of the item under study and some without, are used in value studies. The individual strengths of every team member are melded into a dynamic team that achieves sometimes startling results. Trained and certified team facilitators work with diverse teams and stimulate synergist behavior that allows them to find solutions that may have been over-looked.

The VE process ensures that the ideas of each team member are considered objectively. When ideas are suggested for improving value, they are faithfully recorded without prejudice for later eval-uation. This suspension of evaluation is what allows value teams to generate many new ideas; not all

Function Cost

of them are of equal value but they are honored equally since a lesser idea can lead to a greater idea.

The relative values of all ideas are determined in the evaluative phase by a careful judgment process in which each idea is given a fair evaluation against specific stakeholder criteria.

Outside value consultants often are needed to augment in-house resources. They can provide technical experts to sit on value teams and trained team facilitators. Where proprietary designs are being studied, in-house staff is used exclusively. However, consultants are often needed to train the people who will be invited to form value teams and then facilitate them.

Table 3.2 (“Design process for transportation systems”) illustrates how two consultants, one a team member and the other the facilitator, helped a value team of in-house design professionals achieve significant improvements to their own familiar design process. The state highway design procedure under review was lengthy and complex. The consultant had worked on contracts for the agency and had a view from outside the organization. He was able to make suggestions for improve-ment that were developed into viable alternatives to shorten the processing of designs. The value

TABLE 3.1 Example VE Study No. 1: Wastewater Diversion Facility

Description of Project: Tankage and controls to allow retention and treatment of potentially hazardous wastewater prior to discharging it to city wastewater treatment plant.

VE Study Design: An in-house team facilitator worked with an in-house team of engineers, an architect, and one technical consultant.

Original Concept: Horizontal tanks, 50,000 gallons capacity, below ground level in a pit with piping and instrumentation.

VE Alternative Concept: Vertical tanks, 120,000 gallons capacity, mounted at ground level with piping and instrumentation.

Advantages: More than double the capacity for the same project cost without increasing the

“footprint” of the facility.

Disadvantages: No significant cost savings (but capacity increased); concern about odors at neighboring buildings.

Results: The VE alternative concept was adopted (increase of capacity welcomed); objections of close “neighbors” overcome by assurances odors would be controlled.

TABLE 3.2 Example VE Study No. 2: Design Process for Transportation Systems

Description of Process: State transportation departments’ design delivery system was complex and lengthy, as executed in 12 regional offices throughout the state.

VE Study Design: A team of in-house project engineers and project managers—plus one con-sultant design manager—was led by a concon-sultant team facilitator in one regional office.

Original Concept: The bottlenecks in the process for developing a design were not clearly understood; no remedies were apparent to reduce delays in putting projects out to bid.

VE Alternative Concept: The VE team applied the VE tools to the design process to identify the critical functions and problem areas; several dozen alternatives were developed to give spe-cific remedies for shortening project delivery time.

Advantages: Bottlenecks and redundancies were identified and specific solutions were devel-oped in detail, involving several different departments.

Disadvantages: Acceptance of the VE alternatives required extensive briefings to obtain the

“buy-in” from the many departments involved.

Results: Many of the VE alternatives were adopted in the regional office sponsoring the VE study and some were adopted statewide, trimming project delivery time by one month, improv-ing accountability, and levelimprov-ing the playimprov-ing field with the private sector.

methods allowed in-house staff to accept ideas from the private sector to enhance its process. Many schedule-shortening changes were adopted.

The most frequently asked question about VE is: What is the best time to conduct a value improvement study? The answer—anytime. However, the trend is to do VE sooner rather than later.

The use of VE after the original design concept is nearly ready for release is prone to develop antag-onisms between the stakeholders and the VE team. It is preferable to use VE sooner in the devel-opment process, allowing the design team and the value team to work in concert to explore—in functional terms—what the project, product, or process is intended to serve and generate a wide range of alternative concepts. VE is an excellent way to sharpen the scope of work on ill-defined projects.

Table 3.3 (“Manufacturing electronic circuit boards”) illustrates how the familiar assembly line operations for an electronic circuit board can be analyzed with VE to reduce component costs and manufacturing time. This study was not conducted at the early development stage of the circuit board but after it had been in production for some time. The purpose of the value study was to find value improvements to help regain market share for a highly competitive commercial appliance. Redesign of the assembly line to reduce move and wait times resulted from this study.

3.2.3 Success

Successful application of VE requires a commitment from top management and a dedicated staff to manage the studies. Without willingness by managers—both in the private and public sectors—to support the training of staff in value methods and to nurture the administration of an organized value program, the benefits of VE cannot be realized.

A full-time VE coordinator is the individual who organizes VE study teams and monitors their performance. The coordinator reports to the consultant on the performance of the team and summa-rizes the results of each study to the project manager.

Annual summaries of implemented VE study results are elevated to management, and VE suc-cesses are publicized to the organization.

Written descriptions of the VE process are inadequate to convey the energy and excitement that is inherent in value teams as they work to improve the value of projects, products, and processes.

One needs to be part of a VE team to experience the value methodology and to become infected with the value ethic.

TABLE 3.3 Example VE Study No. 3: Manufacturing of Electronic Circuit Boards Description of Product: Printed circuit board for a temperature controller in a commercial appliance was losing market share to new domestic and foreign competitors.

VE Study Design: A team of in-house engineers and procurement officers was led by two con-sultant team facilitators (no other outside assistance on proprietary design).

Original Concept: Printed circuit board with eleven components was assembled in eight manu-facturing steps; “move” and “wait” times were excessive.

VE Alternative Concept: Analysis of the component costs led to alternatives for procurement, and a study of the manufacturing processes revised the layout of the assembly line.

Advantages: Component prices were reduced to a small degree and the assembly time was reduced to a large degree.

Disadvantages: Plant layout had to be changed to achieve estimated savings in “move” and

“wait” times.

Results: Cost of components was reduced and cost of manufacture was reduced to reach the goal for a return to profitable, competitive pricing.

The value methodology fully embodies the five tenets of the HP Way:

• Respect. VE honors the ideas of its team members.

• Contribution. VE results in improvements to the benefit of owners and society.

• Integrity. VE maintains the integrity of the owner’s projects.

• Teamwork. VE relies on synergistic teams to produce surprising results.

• Innovation. VE develops alternatives from carefully evaluated creative ideas.

3.2.4 A Half-Century of Value Engineering

1940s. Lawrence D. Miles, an electrical engineer, developed value analysis (VA) as a tool for replacing scarce materials during World War II in General Electric’s manufactured products. New materials resulted in lower cost and improved performance, giving birth to the discipline of VA.

1950s. Value analysis—the study of functions of an item and its associated costs—was codi-fied as a creative team process to stimulate the elimination of unnecessary costs. Its use expanded to the U.S. Navy’s Bureau of Ships to analyze designs before construction, and it became known as value engineering (VE). The Society of American Value Engineers (SAVE) was founded in 1958.

1960s. The U.S. Department of Defense applied VE to military systems; VE expanded to military construction projects through the Navy Facilities Engineering Command, the Army Corps of Engineers, and commercial manufacturing in the United States. VE was embraced internationally in Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Italy, and Canada.

1970s. The Environmental Protection Agency began requiring VE for wastewater facilities valued at more than $10 million. Public building services began requiring it for construction management.

The U.S. Department of Transportation encouraged voluntary use of VE by state departments of transportation. Private-sector use expanded to communications, manufacturing, automobiles, chem-icals, building products, shipping, and design and construction projects.

1980s. VA and VE applications grew nationally and internationally to include hardware and soft-ware; systems and procedures; buildings; highways; infrastructure; water and wastewater facilities;

and commercial, government, and military facilities. There was increased use of VE early in the life of projects and products, which refined scopes of work and budgets.

1990s. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget required government-wide use of VA and VE on large, federally funded projects. The National Highway System Designation Act required VE on transportation projects valued at more than $25 million. SAVE International, “The Value Society,”

adopted its new name in 1998, with members in 35 countries.

2000s. The future of VE is bright as practitioners and applications expand worldwide.