Talk:Value engineering

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

What perceived links are there between Systems Thinking & Value Engineering? Paul

While the article focuses on Value Engineering in Manufacturing (where the methodology originated) it has long been used in the Design and Construction industry to achieve best project value by purposefully aligning program, design and cost. A team reflecting the technical disciplines involved in designing the project analyzes project functions, their cost and customer acceptance of function performance to find value mismatches. A value mismatch is an opportunity to improve the project through design changes or scope modification acceptable to the client or users. Proposed changes frequently include those which may cost additional money in order to increse client and user project acceptance. The focus on function allows the team to see the design in a different light and to pose questions regarding whether materials and scope are appropriate to fulfilling owner requirements expressed by the functions.

For example, a recent Value study of the design for a new rapid transit station eliminated part of the fare collection concourse and associated structural steel framing supporting it for a savings to the project of several hundred thousand dollars. The team was led to recommending this change by concentrating on the functions of the space defined as "Collect Revenue," "Create Ambience" (the space is on the second level and looks out over the tracks, and "Improve Safety." The first two functions were maintained when the concourse was shortened and the last actually improved by reducing the area to be patrolled by security and eliminating blind spots which could not be seen by the customer service assistant stationed at the fare array. 70.131.28.13 19:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no citations here. The "US environmental species restoration for the Black Footed Ferret" study in particular needs one.

To play devil's advocate, "In Japan (the land where manufacturing engineers are most valued)" could be construed as POV (what proof is there that japan=Manufactland?).

Also, woah, does the US really mandate this? That's stupid because nothing in this paradigm seems to encourage building quality products for the future. Kousu 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV: "Japan (the land where manufacturing engineers are most valued)" Parenthetical comment should be removed. Bratling 00:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is linked from the BBC economics editor [1] though I think his article is substantially better. 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I had an experience managing a VE department at a production corporation for several years. before starting any new projects, I searched what where the results of similar departments at other businesses in the same country. I was surprised to what I found. It seems that in each case after coming with very impresive projects, the departments had the tendecy to fade away, sometimes in a matter of a few month.

Understanding that in order to succeed long term as a VE manager you need more than supply a formula for organising your creativity, enabled me to mantain that department. I will not go farther into this, as this requires a long explanation. But something to think about: When I learned the bassics of VE, I found it to be so simple and logical, that I could not understand why it is not the natural method of work for any intelligent engineer, who never heard about VE? I may have found some answer to that. [email address removed]

Let me add to this subject. As a VE practitioner for 25 years, there are some issues to be resolved when doing a VE study. Those issues are related to the level of change. Ve is truly a simple process. The difficulties that are encountered are the results of trying to change direction. I emphasize the word "change". Depending on the significance of the "change" the level of change approval must be as high as the degree of the "change". Often times, VE studies are conducted at a relatively low level within an organization. Consequently, the approval of the "change" is limited to that level. A significant recommended "change" at a low level often results in disapproval. Hence, conducting a VE study on a $100,000,000 project requires the attendance of those capable of making any change to the cost of the project. If you place the VE study at the level of the CEO, you can obtain better results than if you placed it at a sub-organization. Usually VE is a bottom up process. That is a difficulty in a top down organization, unless sanctioned or requested at the top. Some of our studies required changes which required congressional change. These changes are severely impeded by organizational elements because approving such changes could upset the downward flow of appropriations or a change to the system. This could have serious consequences, and often results in the disparaging of VE studies. ..an activity often referred to as "Damage Control". In such cases, VE studies are often relegated to lower levels of the organization. The basic problem is that VE employs common sense. Common sense does not necessarily conform to organizational structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.35.176 (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems implicit that "more bang for the buck" seems like value, yet the word "function" doesn't fully explain what determines value. For example, I may have one bullet in a gun, and bullets quite effective against a target and are cheap, so "value" is also high. Yet once that value is expended or superceded, I have no more bullets. Perhaps something else comes around of better value than bullets, so its value changes over time. Somehow a sense of overall concept of value or function over a life-cycle needs to be considered. Value is not something so easily measured. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese usage of VE and VA seems to vary from that of the US. In Japan, VA is different from VE. For those who read Japanese, see the web page http://okwave.jp/qa/q2925884.html The Japanese Wikipedia article on VA does not seem to reflect this common Japanese usage. It seems to explain the English usage. In Japan, VA is holding performance constant while reducing cost, while VE is increasing performance by increasing cost. It might be good to include in the article an explanation of this difference across cultures. --Westwind273 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "increasing performance by increasing cost?" Where does the article say that? Obviously, one of us is missing something. Mike Hayes (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the English article nor the Japanese article currently says this. What I am saying is that this is my experience with the actual meaning as used in Japanese business. I admit I do not have a source right now for this claim, but I posted with the intention that there might be others who have noticed this cross-cultural difference, and perhaps jointly we could find some sourcing. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Westwind First of all, there isn't a clear definition of value analysis in the article, so that would be a good starting point. Comparison of the two terms makes sense. And, it would be fine so say that term value analysis is used differently in Japan.

It's been quite awhile since I've studied this, but I may still have a book around that can help. I can also scout around a bit on the internet.

I think it's going to be harder, though, to find the difference in the definition of value analysis in Japan. Do you have an idea where to start with that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one book that might be a good starting point [2] with a number of pages found in the query. See what you think. By the way, I have a TQM, process improvement background, including use of Six Sigma. Please ping me if you want to pick this up.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.54.84.146 (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More recently, Value Engineers also help identify and quantify the value a customer gets from a product or service. It can be part of the sales or purchasing processes. The focus of the article on cost cutting is makes it incomplete. -RobinLampert (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]