Publications

As we all know, Value Engineering and Value Analysis (VAVE) can be applied to products, processes, and services to improve the value to the purchaser, user, and/or the provider. This paper focuses on the development and production of products and equipment that are either sold to and used by customers (i.e. computer, digital camera, copier, etc.) or used within the context of a process or service provided to a customer (i.e. instrumentation, printing press, CNC machining center, etc.).

The $600M 15km Hanlan Feedermain project is Peel Region’s largest-ever infrastructure initiative. The new feedermain is intended to address aging infrastructure and unnecessary risk by introducing a greater measure of redundancy in the system for operational and maintenance purposes, and to provide additional capacity. A separate 1200mm watermain providing additional capacity to accommodate intensification of the Mississauga City Centre area was also included in the scope of the project.

Activity Based Costing is a powerful tool that focuses on the management of activities as a route to improve both performance and the value received by customers. Value Analysis is a technique that helps identify and clarify user needs and develop alternative ways to meet those needs. It is the use of Function Analysis that makes Value Analysis unique from other problem solving techniques. Combining Activity Based Costing with Function Analysis significantly improves the chances of a successful outcome with ABC.

In today’s rapidly changing, complex, and global environment, the ability to create value through innovative products and services, faster and more profitably than competitors is a matter of survival and sustained success. That goal and objective of sustainable value creation and retention can be achieved only by implementing simultaneously  Value Engineering, Lean and Six Sigma methodologies that share common scientific methodology based Structure.

So what exactly should go on a risk register. Typically time is limited for identification of risks and more importantly time is even more limited in the future for reviewing and managing the risks.  Once a risk gets on the risk register it should be reviewed, and in particular on a public project, any subsequent change in the wording, change to the impact or change to the likelihood all could have serious ramifications if it gets in the public domain.  So it’s important to be conscious from the outset that the risk register should naturally capture the important issues but not perhaps be so comprehensive as to create a “rod” for the projects back for ever more that the project staff cannot maintain. 

What requirements are needed for software affecting a broad spectrum of users across an organization? How do you keep most of the users happy most of the time and spend the budget on the most beneficial functionality? How do you educate users on the trade-offs that may need to be made to meet varying needs? How do you make an IT project successful?  How do you select what on-going enhancements should be made to the software.  Value analysis was used to help answer these questions for two software solutions with different business histories and challenges. This presentation will discuss how value analysis and it’s principles assisted in the development of the RFPs, lead toward successful IT solution implementation and supports decisions for on-going maintenance of the IT solution.

VE has been used plenty to develop and improve products, to improve infrastructures and construction projects, as well as to optimize business processes. But the industrial processes can also benefit from the VE advantage: why are these steps necessary? How are they achieved? What else can be done?... A short presentation will explain how to use the methodology in such a context of the Mining industry and transformation industry. A typical functional diagram will be presented. Then, a few heavy industry processes will be presented with before and after situations.

It is generally recognized that managing a project ought to be conducted by a series of well-­‐established and defined processes. Despite application of project management systems, even with due consideration of managing risks, projects still go awry and value is lost. For example scope increases, cost overruns, schedule delays and general stakeholder dissatisfaction are indicative of lost value.

See also: Shishevan_Phillips_Integrated_VM_Greater_Performance_Gains.pdf

A VE study was undertaken in 2014 for the Parliament Hill West Block project which showcased VE to the federal government as a successful management tool. The project dealt with an over budget project that required Treasury Board approval to proceed if it could not be delivered on budget. The VE methodology was used to refocus the design team, contractor and client user groups on their performance requirements. The success of the study resulted in a project that could meet the current budget and avoided schedule extensions to request additional funding. Mr. Taylor will describe the success story and the continued efforts to engage Treasury Board to adopt VE in their update of policies.

Lean has been around for a long time and has helped many organizations become more efficient in the way they conduct business.  This presentation seeks to introduce other Value Improvement Practices (VIP) that have been developed after Lean and how they also are supporting organizations to become more effective.  They will be briefly discussed and then compared to what I believe is the ultimate process to improve efficiency, performance, and cost which is the Value Methodology.  It has been around for over 60 years, but may not be as familiar to you as Lean, Six Sigma, Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, and TRIZ.  I have been trained and have used all of the above VIPs for most of my 43 years working in many global organizations such as General Motors, Valeo, TRW Automotive, and Whirlpool Corporation. Due to this experience, I will be able to make valid comparisons of these various tools to improve value, how they differ, and why I believe that the Value Methodology is the premier process to maximize efficiency.

 Value Engineering has long been established as a mature methodology for enhancing financial value of projects and processes worldwide and Jacobs has an impressive record of practicing Jacobs Value Plus (JVP) that has benefitted many of their clients.  Jacobs Sustainability Plus (JSP) has also shown great results in demonstrating their commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility, practiced through sustainable initiatives in all engineering work they undertake.  Sustainability is not just a ‘buzz’ word anymore and there is an increased awareness all over the world to see how major corporations are incorporating sustainability principles in their practices. However, there are some concerns and uncertainties that exist amongst the professional community regarding the practical application of Value principles to their ‘already tight’ projects. Many consider the process as just ‘cost-cutting’ or a scope reduction exercise. Integrated JVP/ JSP – ‘Value by Design’ as practiced in Jacobs helps close this communication gap by demonstrating the fact that a ‘Value Study’ is not just about reducing life cycle financial costs of the project, but it is an integrated, holistic approach of improving social and environmental benefits as well. This is important for all initiatives and projects as whatever approaches are being pursued, they should reflect the strategic intent of the owner/client and the greater good of the society.

Measuring and capturing results throughout business transformation is essential, but it’s not just about metrics and measurement. In KPMG’s experience, the achievement and sustainment of expenditure reductions and enterprise wide change is maximized when performance management is embedded in the transformation governance model. KPMG’s Value Management approach is designed to meet these critical requirements, leveraging global, collective insight (in the form of trends, value drivers, reference models, benchmarks, and leading practices) to accelerate and sustain business transformation.

Many organizations face a long list of projects ahead without an effective way to make decisions on which projects should receive resources. This study shows how detailed function analysis through the effective use of functional performance specification techniques in a workshop can be used to help a multi-divisional team work across business lines.  The study established a number of key performance indicators that could be used to prioritize expenditure and workload resource decisions.

The challenge of our time is: how can we protect the environment for future generations? Perhaps the most important recognition of “green thinking” is that mankind cannot be detached from its natural medium. Ecologically conscious thinking also marks a kind of paradigm change, while the spreading of environmental attitudes and keeping sustainability systematically in mind will put things in another dimension.

Sustainable thinking has become significant in business models. The business advantage closely linked to sustainability is green marketing, which in fact is a covert marketing solution. Businesses market their environmental protection activities such as enhancing non-polluting manufacturing processes or the reuse of materials.

The above-listed elements of sustainability are all based on different functions. The value analysis methodology helps systematically find the best value combination of new ideas and goals closely linked to sustainability. The lecture gives an insight to the use of function analysis in achieving green solutions. Value Engineering is one of the most powerful thinking techniques that can help us take care of the environment for future generations in a conscientious way.

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) requested that its design consultant for the “Park over the Highway” project, Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc. (CMT) conduct a construction staging workshop at the 50-percent-plans design stage. The purpose of the workshop was to improve constructability, shorten the schedule, and reduce adverse impacts on local users and stakeholders during construction, as well as to help forge a large, diverse group of involved agencies into a unified project team.

Around the world, public-private partnerships (PPPs) have been identified as a procurement method that drives value by providing improved public services at lower cost. Nevertheless, the merits of PPPs remain the source of heated debate. Against this backdrop, this talk discusses how PPPs can both create and hinder the creation of value, depending on how they are structured and executed.  PPPs create value when they drive innovative service delivery, spur lifecycle asset management, and appropriately spread project risks between the public and private sector partners. Conversely, PPPs weaken public value when they limit transparency and community engagement in decision-making, and limit government flexibility to make future plans. The talk concludes by highlighting strategies to manage these tensions and improve the value of future infrastructure projects.

A claim in the context of this presentation is the assertion of entitlement for compensation from one party of a Owners design or construction contract that the  Owner disputes. 

Achieving an appropriate balance of risk in any civil design and construction contract can be challenging under traditional design-bid-built or delivery strategies.  While alternative delivery strategies can be faster, more innovative and less costly than traditional approaches these benefits are not always realized. Design-build procurement is one of many project delivery tools and, when applied correctly, can lead to significant financial and schedule success.  When risks are "transferred" inappropriately, however, design-build or projects procured using non-traditional approaches can underperform and jeopardize use of this valuable strategy. Development of successful RFPs, contracts and project completion is dependent upon appropriate pre-RFP deliberation based on project-specific considerations.  Examples of competing design-build bids on small infrastructure projects will be used to illustrate several key issues that owners, engineers, and contractors may face. The combined experiences from multiple "mega" projects will also be used to illustrate keys to development of successful projects in the context of various value for money assessment approaches.

This presentation provides a brief overview of the Toronto light rail program and then explores the ways and means of delivering value and quality in linear Alternative Delivery projects. We will compare and contrast the traditional Design Bid Build model with Infrastructure Ontario’s Design Build Finance Maintain model in the context of driving value and quality through preliminary design, in-market, final design, construction and maintenance. We will then go on to examine how value and quality are being incented in two projects currently underway: Eglinton Crosstown LRT and the Ottawa Confederation Line.

AECOM and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) conducted a Value Engineering (VE) Study for the I-25/U.S. 34 Interchange in Larimer County. The study looked at capital cost improvements, improved

In addition to replacing the bridge over Whitemans Creek on Hwy 24 south of Paris Ontario, part of the project involved correcting the substandard vertical curves through the Whitemans Creek valley.  This included lowering the highway by more than 3 m in some locations.  One of the major concerns during design was how to manage the groundwater that would daylight during the foundations work and excavation without affecting Whitemans Creek itself, which is a sensitive pristine watercourse and a significant cold water fishery.

The Garden City Skyway is one of the largest structures in MTO’s bridge inventory, with 48 spans and a total length of 2.2 km.  The structure is located on the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW), a vital economic corridor carrying significant commercial and tourist traffic between the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Niagara Region and the USA.   The existing bridge deck is nearing the end of is service life and it is anticipated to require replacement by 2025.  A preliminary design study was initiated to determine a long term strategy to address the structural, traffic, safety and operational needs of this important structure.  Integrated Value Engineering and Schedule/Cost Risk studies were undertaken to review the short listed preliminary design concepts and support decision making to select a preferred solution.  The studies engaged a wide range of design and construction expertise, as well as key project stakeholders to identify a best value solution based on 100 year risk-based life-cycle costs.

Sound Transit is the transit agency overseeing the expansion of the transit systems, light rail and trains, in the Puget Sound region, including Seattle. VE studies are being conducted during the early planning stages of their projects including review of options for alignment and station locations. This presentation will discuss how this was applied to a couple of Sound Transit’s projects prior to finalizing the environmental document and evaluating project options. The discussion includes some of the benefits and challenges of doing VE early in the life of a project and lessons learned.

MMM undertook a VA study to review the TransCanada Highway Alignment in the vicinity of Tower Road east of Regina.  The base case design involved a tight horizontal curve on the TransCanada Highway, a complex interchange geometry and extensive property acquisition and the adjacent property owners (the City, the Rural Municipality, landowners, developers and adjacent businesses) were not in favor of the project as planned due to property and access concerns.  The VA assignment was undertaken to address the cost, road geometry access, property and safety concerns associated with the base case design.

It can be difficult to challenge tried and true design approaches and accepted wisdom with new ideas. A Value Analysis workshop provides a structured approach to problem identification and the development of alternative solutions. The VA process leverages creativity and can introduce new ideas that once accepted in a VE study can then be introduced on other projects. A Value Analysis and Risk Analysis (CRAVE) study of a proposed interchange upgrade to facilitate the planned rebuild of a nuclear plant complex resulted in new approach to the utilization of roundabouts at freeway ramp terminals. The new treatment for roundabouts was then considered for use on subsequent projects, leveraging the creativity from one project to other projects.

The Ministry of Transportation, Ontario (MTO) undertook a Value Analysis study for the proposed twining of the Trans-Canada Highway 11/17 east of Thunder Bay. The base case involved major electrical transmission line conflicts and challenging foundation conditions.  The Value Analysis study identified risks and mitigation measures along with providing costs for various alignment alternatives.  By involving the electrical utility as active participants during the workshop, both MTO and the utility were able to share their concerns and objectives, while working toward a solution that offered benefits to both parties.

Starting in 2009, the City began the process to design and construct a water treatment plant. In the beginning, it set several key goals for the project, including:

• Adopting a multi-barrier approach

• To meet or exceed GCDWQ, VIHA regulations

• To proceed with sustainable design objectives

• To minimize liquid discharge from the site

• Meet 20 year max day demand

• To achieve the lowest Life Cycle Cost

In support of the key objective of achieving the lowest life cycle cost, the City undertook two Value Engineering Studies under the direction of a Certified Value Specialist – one at completion of preliminary design; the second at completion of the 50% detailed design. The timing and results of the VE Study produced an extremely positive result on the project, in terms of operability, lower cost and preparation for future expansion. The VE Team, consisting of experts from across North America, were particularly supportive towards the project and enabled the City to realize great benefit, value and excellent return on investment for the Study.

Tenders were received that were significantly over the estimated cost, and the lowest bidder recommended conducting a further VE, or scope-reducing exercise to help trim the capital cost.

The presentation provides a brief overview of the project, including major ‘before and after’ changes, lessons learned about VE, and an Owner’s perspective on the value of Value Engineering.

Snow removal equipment often operates under the most adverse conditions when conspicuity is most important. Every effort is made by MTO and its contractors to keep highways safe and to provide efficient winter maintenance services.  Part of this effort of keeping the highways safe is continuous improvement in the equipment and methods used. This session will explain how MTO working with HDR used a Value Analysis workshop to improve the visibility of snow removal equipment.  MTO has a long history of success with the Value Analysis methodology mainly on highway design projects, but more recently they have moved into more process and business organization studies to harness more benefits from this tool. The study revealed that much of the “brand identity” that the public had associated with snow removal equipment in Ontario has been lost and whatever solution was to be selected had to re-establish a new brand identity.  The workshop results recommended that improved rear markings should be applied consistently to all snow removal equipment.  The workshop also was key in obtaining quick stakeholder buy-in to the revised design by actively involving the stakeholders in the process.

One intrinsic element of a VE Study is an identification of costs for the various elements of the project. The very definition of Value is Function/Cost. It is common practice that the Owner and/or the Engineer will provide an in progress cost to the VE team for information along with other contract documents including drawings, specifications, reports, analyses, etc. The VE Team then bases its Study on these documents as a “Base Case” to which all idea & recommendations are compared. How the denominator “Cost” element is addressed will vary reflective of the Facilitator’s perspective. Are costs to be “reconciled”? Are “cost corrections” to be offered? Will the Engineer’s cost be “validated”? So the question is: To what extent has the VE Team (Facilitator AND Team Members) assumed liability for the costing of items and can they be held responsible for any cost errors/inaccuracies of some implemented project recommendation that negatively impacts the financial viability of the project?

The success of a VE Study is largely determined by the composition of the project team. Typically, members are chosen for their prowess in their technical areas of expertise. However, another important team member should not be ignored; the stakeholder. Collaboration with stakeholders through Value Analysis results in better overall solutions to projects and a meaningful engagement with stakeholders.