How do you mitigate the risks of value engineering?

The evolution of Construction Value Engineering has been driven by the changing needs and demands of the construction industry, the growing importance of sustainability, technological advancements, and a shift towards a more collaborative and integrated project delivery environment. As the construction industry continues to evolve, Value Engineering will likely adapt further to meet new challenges and opportunities.

The procurement method selected for the project, such as design bid build, design build operate, engineer procure construct, separate design with construction management at risk have unique effects on the proper role and conduct of value engineering. The best potential for savings and efficiencies from VE occur when VE is conducted early in the project planning and design process. VE can be helpful in optimal scope development. Large projects can often benefit from multiple VE workshops during the planning, design, and even the construction processes, when they are properly focused.

In my experience there can be opportunities for VE during schematic design, by reviewing and comparing options for overall systems that can meet the projects’ goals, including building envelope, structural and mechanical systems and energy solutions that are all thought of as an integrated solution to the design. By thinking holistically the solutions can support each other. While you can review the project for VE opportunities at each phase, the other main phase where VE occurs is after construction documents are complete and bidding occurs. The price can come back higher than expected and at that point the items that could be value engineered without too much hassle are mainly the finishes.

I agree with the collaborative approach. In my experience, enclosure VE options often change how the assembly meets the design intent in a way that requires the re-design of adjacent assemblies. Because this involves multiple installers and trades, a team approach is critical. A classic example: you change the window system, and the new system has a different number of seals, or the seals are in a different location. To maintain air or water tightness, the air/weather-resistive barrier now needs re-detailing at the rough openings; additional flashings may be needed. Ensuring this is communicated and resolved before acceptance helps the team deliver on the promise of value.

As true VE can and should take the team back to decisions made during the programming phase of the project, all participants need to evaluate the options. This allows those brought on during the procurement phase to understand the why and what components matter the most. By such collaborating with the designers, all can reevaluate the more basic prior decisions and often combine components so that 1 + 1 = 3, in lieu of just searching for a minus. It takes talent and knowledge to facilitate such an event, and a team spirit to keep egos out of the decision making.

I agree with the collaborative approach. In my experience, enclosure VE options often change how the assembly meets the design intent in a way that requires the re-design of adjacent assemblies. Because this involves multiple installers and trades, a team approach is critical. A classic example: you change the window system, and the new system has a different number of seals, or the seals are in a different location. To maintain air or water tightness, the air/weather-resistive barrier now needs re-detailing at the rough openings; additional flashings may be needed. Ensuring this is communicated and resolved before acceptance helps the team deliver on the promise of value.

I disagree with VE in real life. Sounds great in theory, but in the real world, doors fall off Boeing aircraft. Overemphasis on Cost Reduction: In some cases, VE can lead to an excessive focus on cutting costs, which might inadvertently compromise critical aspects of design, materials, or manufacturing processes. This can increase the risk of failures, as seen in the 737 MAX situation where cost-cutting measures allegedly played a role in the flawed MCAS system. Complexity and Unintended Consequences: VE often involves simplifying designs or processes. However, in complex systems like aircraft, seemingly minor changes can have cascading effects and unintended consequences that are difficult to predict. This highlights the need for testing

I have been on projects where "Value Engineering" means "Lower the Cost" This may also mean lower the factor of safety. I would add to the definition of "Value Engineering" as: "Increasing the cost by a very small amount in order to increase the factor of safety by a large amount."

Do we have same design features from previous experiences? Does it works well after these years? Is it cost effective? How many percentage did we saved vs. the conventional? Here are some few questions that we have learned from our own experiences that support the risk of VE.

I have been asked to build facilities the “value engineered” the steel sourcing steel pipe with KSI over 450 and fabric that will last for only a few years. Trust and reputation are required before “value engineering” and understanding who benefits, the seller of the buyer