14th Annual PACE Research Seminar
Spring 2006
Partnering for Value Engineering
Sean Ehlers
Construction Management Option
Research:
Partnering for Value Engineering
Background:
Survey Utilization:
• Key
dates
Value
Engineering – methodical advance to improve the overall value
of a product and accompanying services
• Sources of VE suggestions
• Partnering – management tool to improve quality and program, to
• Satisfaction
orconfrontations
displeasure within
project
teamthus
interaction
reduce
between
parties,
enabling an open
and non-adversarial contracting environment
Research:
Partnering for Value Engineering
Survey Utilization:
• Key dates of design development
 when did VE occur?
• Sources of VE suggestions and their purpose
 cost cutting or adding value?
• Satisfaction or displeasure within project team interaction
• What are the attributes of successful VE?
Research:
Timing of Value Engineering
Chart #1. Teams in Timely VE Process
Designers – 22% good timing
78% poor timing
GC/CM – 40% good timing
60% poor timing
Overall – 29% good timing
71% poor timing
100%
Good Timing
Poor Timing
75%
50%
25%
Designers
GC/CM
Overall
Research:
VE within Document Development
Chart #2. Timely VE w/ Document Development
25%
25% DD – 15% good timing
0% poor timing
20%
50% DD – 8% good timing
0% poor timing
15%
75% DD – 8% good timing
23% poor timing
10%
100% DD – 0% good timing
23% poor timing
Good Timing
Poor Timing
5%
25% Docs
50% Docs
75% Docs
100% Docs
Research:
Adding Value or Cutting Cost
Chart #3. Adding Value vs. Cost Cutting
Designers – 25% add value
75% cost cut
GC/CM – 15% add value
85% cost cut
Overall – 80% add value
20% cost cut
PE @ Rathgeber/Goss Associates –
“owner, developer, and GC are all from
the same company, 95% of their
decisions were made with the point of
adding value”
100%
Adding Value
Cost Cutting
75%
50%
25%
Designers
GC/CM
Overall
Research:
Sources of VE suggestions
Chart #4. Sources of VE Suggestions
50%
Designers – 22% Owner
22% Architect
28% Engineer
28% GC/CM
Owner
Engineer
Architect
GC/CM
40%
30%
GC/CM – 10% Owner
26% Architect
16% Engineer
48% GC/CM
Mechanical Engineer – “I add
unnecessary items which an be
removed during the VE process, so
we look like we are contributing”
20%
10%
Designers
GC/CM
En
vi
ro
Be
nm
in
en
g
t
R
G
H
es
oo
on
pe
d
es
ct
C
tR
ed
om
el
m
at
un
io
ns
ic
at
hi
Te
io
ps
n
am
w
i th
w
i th
In
Ti
no
...
m
E
el
xc
R
y
es
lu
Di
si
sp
ol
on
ut
u
s
io
te
n
R
M
e
C
so
ee
on
lu
tE
tri
ti o
bu
ve
n
tio
ry
on
n
f ro
e'
s.
m
..
Ev
er
y
Pa
M
in
rty
im
iz
e
W
as
te
Tr
us
ti n
g
Strength of Agreement
Research:
Project Team Interaction
Chart #5.
Strength of Agreement for Team Characteristics
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
Designers
GC/CM
Overall
Project Team Characteristics
Research:
Partnering for Value Engineering
Final Observations/Recommendations
• Designers and GC/CM’s are in agreement that VE timing is poor
and the earlier suggestions are best
• Overall aim of cost cutting and a noticeable difference in
sources of VE suggestions may cause dissemination between
project teams and their goals
• The problem is not so much partnering, but the overall
mechanics of VE
Research:
Partnering for Value Engineering
Comments?
or
Suggestions?