<%BANNER%>

Implementing the Environmental Value Engineering Process in the Built Environment

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021343/00001

Material Information

Title: Implementing the Environmental Value Engineering Process in the Built Environment
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Johnson, Shanin Pierre
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The characteristics of the current Value Engineering (VE) process have similarities to the sustainability agenda. While VE seeks to provide a solution for a project that has the most value, sustainability looks to find or create solutions that provide the most value for current and future generations. Along with the ability of VE to adapt over time, these similarities allow for the possible integration of sustainability into the VE process. Our study provides a model that integrates a sustainable objective into a typical construction process. The model is an adaptation of a typical VE process ? represented in a diagram format. The EVE model provides a substantial study that can be a complement or, perhaps, a substitute for the current LEED certification process.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Shanin Pierre Johnson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Flood, Ian.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021343:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021343/00001

Material Information

Title: Implementing the Environmental Value Engineering Process in the Built Environment
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Johnson, Shanin Pierre
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The characteristics of the current Value Engineering (VE) process have similarities to the sustainability agenda. While VE seeks to provide a solution for a project that has the most value, sustainability looks to find or create solutions that provide the most value for current and future generations. Along with the ability of VE to adapt over time, these similarities allow for the possible integration of sustainability into the VE process. Our study provides a model that integrates a sustainable objective into a typical construction process. The model is an adaptation of a typical VE process ? represented in a diagram format. The EVE model provides a substantial study that can be a complement or, perhaps, a substitute for the current LEED certification process.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Shanin Pierre Johnson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Flood, Ian.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021343:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 IMPLEMENTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT By SHANIN JOHNSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEG REE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Shanin Johnson

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank God for everything I have and everything I have been able to do. I would also like to thank all of the faculty and staff for the School of Building Construction. I would like to especially thank Dottie Beaupied for all of her assistance throughout my entire graduate term. I am grateful to have had dedicated professors to help guide me through this research paper. Dr. Kibert, Dr. Flood, and Dr. Grosskopf. Also, for Dr. Isaa, who has taught, guided, and made it po ssible for me to complete this thesis and move on to the next phase of my life. My family and friends have been instrumental throughout my graduate experience. My Parents have instilled in me the desire to excel in everything I do. My brothers have support ed me as well. I need to thank my friends for providing moments of relaxation throughout a busy schedule. I thank everyone for the love and support they have given me.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 10 Construction Industry ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 10 Views on Sustainability ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 Sustainability vs. Sustainable Construction ................................ ................................ ............ 11 Environmental Value Engineering ................................ ................................ ......................... 11 Aim, Objective, and H ypothesis ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 Scope of Work ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 12 Contribution ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 13 2 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 14 3 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 16 Construction Industry: An Overview ................................ ................................ ...................... 16 Sustainability ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 Sustainability Defined ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 17 Sustainability as a State versus Sustainability as a Process ................................ ............ 18 Socioeconomic Considerations ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Value Engineering ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 20 Value ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 History ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 22 Current VE Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 25 Value Engin eering and Sustainability ................................ ................................ .................... 34 4 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS ................................ ..................... 37 Prestudy Phas e ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 37 Information Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 43 Beginning the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 43 Functional Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 43 Value ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 44 Speculative Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 45 Analytical Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 48 Outside Sources ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 48 Life Cycle Cost Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 48 Weighted Constraints and Idea Weighting ................................ ................................ ...... 50

PAGE 5

5 Proposal Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 50 Preparation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 50 Presentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 52 Implementation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 52 Report Phas e ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 52 Future Projects ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 52 Impact on Sustainability ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 54 5 CASE STUDY: HOTEL ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 56 Building Requirements ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 56 Project Team ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 57 Description of EVE Workshop ................................ ................................ ............................... 57 Information Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 57 Functional Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 57 Speculative Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 58 Analytical Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 58 Proposal and Report Phase ................................ ................................ .............................. 58 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 70 Value Engineering vs. Environmental Value Engineering ................................ ..................... 70 Viability of Environmental Value Engineering ................................ ................................ ...... 71 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 71 7 RECOM MENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 72 APPENDIX VALUE ENGINEERING TASK FLOW DIAGRAM ................................ ............. 73 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 78

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1. Four kinds of value ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20 3 2. Criteria for evaluating value ................................ ................................ ................................ 21 3 3. Job plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 26 3 4. Synopsis of value engineering methodology. ................................ ................................ ......... 27

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1. Sustainability arises from the interactions between social, ecological and economic systems ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 18 3 istribution ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 4 3 3. Relation of age to creativity ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 30 4 1. Task flow d iagram. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 38 4 2. Cost reduction potential vs. cost to change ................................ ................................ ............ 39 4 3. Cost impact of principal disciplines ................................ ................................ ....................... 41 4 4. Prestudy phase task flow d iagram. ................................ ................................ ......................... 42 4 5. Information phase task flow d iagram. ................................ ................................ .................... 46 4 6. Speculative p hase task flow d iagram. ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 4 7. True cost ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 49 4 8. Analytical phase task flow d iagram. ................................ ................................ ....................... 51 4 9. Proposal phase task flow d iagram. ................................ ................................ ......................... 53 4 10. Report phase t a sk flow d iagram. ................................ ................................ .......................... 55 5 1. Hotel: first floor l ayout. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 56 5 2. Form 2: function a nalysis. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6 0 5 3. Form 3: b rainstorming. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 6 1 5 4. Form 4: preliminary idea c omparison. ................................ ................................ ................. 6 2 5 5. Form 5: s ummar y cost breakdown for a s olution. ................................ ................................ 6 3 5 6. Form 5 : summary cost breakdown for a s olution. ................................ ................................ 6 4 5 7 F orm 6: life cycle cost analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 64 5 8. Form 7: criteria w eighting. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 6 5 9. Form 8: analysis m atrix. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6 7

PAGE 8

8 5 10. Form 9: executive b rief. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 8 5 11. Form 10: summary conclusions and j ustification. ................................ .............................. 6 9

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction IMPLEMENTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE ENGINEERING PROCES S IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT By Shanin Johnson August 2007 Chair: Charles Kibert Cochair: Ian Flood Major: Building Construction The characteristics of the current Value Engineering (VE) process have similarities to the sustainability agenda. While VE see ks to provide a solution for a project that has the most value, sustainability looks to find or create solutions that provide the most value for current and future generations. Along with the ability of VE to adapt over time, these similarities allow for t he possible integration of sustainability into the VE process. Our study provides a model that integrates a sustainable objective into a typical construction process. The model is an adaptation of a typical VE process represented in a diagram format. The EVE model provides a substantial study that can be a complement or, perhaps, a substitute for the current LEED certification process.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Construction Industry Construction industry, like other sectors of the economy, is at present an inefficient and wasteful activity that creates human habitat in a manner generally focused on profitability without consideration of its long term impacts (Kibert 1999). In most industrial countries, the built environment accounts for over 30 percent of the extracted resources and generated energy that is used. The natural environment provides many of the resources that are necessary for t he construction process. For example, the land that is built on, the fuel to construct and maintain the building, water, and waste disposal are all provided by nature. At the same time, the construction process negatively impacts nature in several ways: di srupting the balance of nature, destroying the habitat, generating waste, creating pollutants, and altering the balance of natural systems. Views on Sustainability In light of the relationship between the built environment and the natural environment, a qu estion arises. Can we continue to increase (in population) and consume (at the present rate) without completely depleting our resources? Several opinions have been presented while attempting to answer that question. Two views that fall on opposite extremes are the anthropocentric view and the gaia view. The position of the anthropocentric view is that the purpose of nature is for human use, and when problems arise, humans can use their minds to find a new material, process, or system to compensate for whate ver nature cannot provide. On the other hand, the gaia view suggests that the earth itself is a living system and that humankind is in fact destroying this system through land development, extractive industries, polluting transport and industry, throwaway attitudes, and a general disregard for nature (Lovelock 1988). Although there is not a definitive answer to the question, both of these completely opposite views seem to

PAGE 11

11 exist at the same time. While humans are clearly damaging the natural environment, tec hnological advances have helped humans adapt. Buildings have a negative impact on the natural environment throughout their entire life cycle: from the design to the demolition of the final product. When green building practices are put into place, the resu lts are constructed buildings that are healthier for the environment and healthier for people. As the awareness of the condition of our natural environment increases, green building, or sustainable construction, practices have gained more attention. While there are several definitions for sustainability, most encompass one basic goal. The goal of sustainability services provided by the ecosystems and naturally occ urring sources of energy (solar, geothermal, tidal) without reducing the availability of these goods, services, and energy sources for future generations. Numerous sustainable strategies can be used to achieve that goal; however, most projects do not imple ment the strategies. Sustainability vs. Sustainable Construction However, there is an important distinction between sustainability and sustainable construction. Susta inable construction refers to the actual process that sustainability is achieved by. Although will be used when referring to specific sustainable measures. E nvironmental Value Engineering An established process, known as value engineering (VE), is a tool that could potentially be used for implementing sustainable construction practices into projects. The purpose of value engineering is to eliminate or modify a nything that adds cost to an item without contributing to its required function. It is also used to modify an aspect of a project in a way that it enhances its

PAGE 12

12 required function without excessive addition to its cost. The end result after using the value e ngineering process is to increase value. This may include cost cutting, but the focus is not to cut costs by making smaller quantities, or by using cheaper materials. Arguably, sustainability seeks to utilize methods and materials with the most value for t his generation and future generations by taking the natural elements into account. The VE process provides an established process that can be modified to accomplish the objective of sustainability. Aim, Objective, and Hypothesis Value engineering has succe ssfully assisted in the decision making process over time by conforming to the concerns of the times. This re orientation of VE to adapt it for the consideration of the environmental aspects of construction is called environmental Value It is present day practice to use the term engineer ing when referring to cost cutting. Often it is sustainable construction that is the first to be removed. However, as more concern arises in the area of sustainability, ther e is potential for integration of the sustainable issues into VE. The objective of this study is to adapt the current VE process to allow for the integration of sustainability. This Environmental Value Engineering (EVE) process will allow projects to be ev aluated taking sustainability into consideration. There will be opportunities to integrate sustainability into the typical VE process. This will allow for the creation of the EVE process. When used appropriately, the EVE study will produce alterative solut ions to typical construction elements. Each of the alternates will take sustainability into account. Scope of Work This study will include an overview of the construction industry, exploration of sustainability, and an investigation of the Value Engineerin g process. The VE process will be

PAGE 13

13 examined in detail in an attempt to investigate the opportunities for the integration of sustainability. As far as sustainability is concerned: definitions, perceptions, and socioeconomic considerations will be taken into account. For value engineering: the history, value, and the VE process will be considered. Contribution The EVE process will have the potential to become a significant asset to the sustainability initiative. While it may be implemented as a complement to the LEED certification process, it may also be used as a financially feasible alternative to the LEED process. The LEED process provides a substantial method of rating sustainable buildings in the U.S.; however, critics have described the program as a scor ecard or checklist that does not maximize the sustainability effort. The EVE process will be able to strengthen the limitations of the current process.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY This study examine d both sustainable construction practices and the value engineering process for synergies that appear to exist on the surface. Dr. Charles Kibert a professor at the University of Florida has done research in this ar ea. Along with Roudebush and Waller, he has published an article, Environmental Value Engineering (1991) which explores the possibilities of integrating sustainable measures into the value engineering process. Using this article as a foundat ion, the goal of this study was to modify the current value engineering process to create an environmental value engineering model. First, the research for this study determined the necessity for sustainable efforts in the construction industry. The characteristics of the construction industry through history were investigated. In addition to the characteristics of the construction industry, changes in the balance of the ecosystem were explored as well. Furthermore, the direct impact that the built environment has on th e natural environment was examined. Next, the current value engineering process was evaluated. The steps that were investigated in detail are as follows: 1. Information phase understanding the problem. 2. Speculation phase explore better solutions. 3. Analytical phase evaluate alternative suggestions and choose the best. 4. Proposal phase recommend the idea. 5. Report phase ensure that it worked out as planned and record for future reference. After determining the typical value engineering metho d, each phase was studied in an attempt to find suitable areas for the integration of sustainable ideas. After exploring the steps of each phase, a model was derived to illustrate how the process would perform if the sustainable

PAGE 15

15 qualities were implemented. After all the phases were addressed, the full environmental value engineering model was developed. Finally, research was conducted to determine the factors that affect implementation for both sustainable construction and value engineering. All of the i nformation garnered in this study was used in subsequent chapters of this report. By carefully examining what is already known with respect to the combination of sustainable construction and value engineering, a legitimate attempt at producing a process f or environmental value engineering was made.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Construction Industry: A n Overview Responsible construction firms, therefore, are encouraged to address the poor public and political image of the industry by trumpeting any new achievements. This is particularly relevant as, pr Myers 2005 ). Because of the reputation the construction industry has built up over time, several companies are using every opportunity to enhance their image. Concerns about the env ironment and dwindling resources have made sustainable construction a popular means of achieving such recognition. In taken on a greater significance. The industry not only helps to determine the nature, function and appearance of our towns and countryside, it contributes to the formation of communities and has significant environmental impacts (SBTG 2004). The increase in concern for the environment has cau sed many people to take a look at several aspects of the construction industry. Some companies have made serious changes to the way they operate. Of those companies, some are making changes solely to benefit themselves. The problem for investors and consum ers, however, is to differentiate between those who approach sustainability as a PR exercise and those who are genuinely committed; a line needs to ( Myers 2005 ). One of the problems with sustainability efforts is the fact that the people have to believe in what they are doing. If a person does not believe that what they are doing will have a positive impact on the environment, they will not understand the value of what they are doing.

PAGE 17

17 Sustainability Sustainability has been defined in several different ways. The term sustainability has been adopted to promote balance between the need to continue in business, but does not seek profitability at the expense of the envir Myers 2005 ). The Brundtland Report provides a definition that seems to capture the essence of sustainability as it pertains to the construction industry. Sustainability Defined The Brundtland Report definition of sustainable deve lopment 1987), provides a complex direction that juxtaposes current behavior with long term survival. Kibert (1999) highlights the two co ncepts that must be brought to an acceptable balance: (1) the fair and just intergenerational allocation and use of natural resources, and (2) the preservation of biological systems function across time. The construct of human society designed to allocate and provide resources to people is the economy, which, at least for the production of material goods, depends almost entirely on nature for its energy and physical inputs. Sustainability relies on economic considerations as well as social and ecological co nsiderations. Figure 3 1 illustrates this point. Despite ongoing scientific and political debate regarding specific definitions of sustainability, the term has proven to be a useful organizing concept for exploring the relationship between social, economic and ecological systems, their current conditions, and trends (Floyd et al. 2001). It is difficult to define sustainability with a single definition because it involves values that are different between groups and over time. Sustainability is a human valu e, not a fixed, independent state of social, economic, and ecological affairs. It requires human

PAGE 18

18 Figure 3 1. Sustainability arises from the interactions between social, ecological and economic systems (Floyd et al. 2001). judgment about t he condition or state of a set of tangibles. Inherent in sustainability is our positive valuation of tangibles that we wish to persist in time and space (Floyd et al. 2001). Sustainability as a State versus Sustainability as a Process In pure systems theor y, a system is either sustainable or it is not (Allen and Hoekstra 1994). This system will break down if an element or function is removed. On the other hand, st ate towards which we strive; and consequently, the idea of sustainability as a process has development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of chan ge in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological (WCED 1987). Although a purist would uphold the view o f sustainability as an absolute state, several others would view sustainability as a process.

PAGE 19

19 Socioeconomic Considerations The idea of a minimum versus maximum approach to sustainability provides another ustainability means that the environment should be protected in such a condition and to such a degree that environmental capacities (the ability of the environment to perform its various functions) are maintained over time: at least at scales sufficient to avoid future catastrophe and at most at scales which give future generations key to achieving sustainability as preserving the current level of resources for futu re generations, others believe that their use of resources will need to be compensated by improved substitutes. Hardoy et al. (1992) and others state that this maximal sustainability perspective may also require improvements or restoration in environmental quality if the current environment is already degraded. For sustainability, economic definitions and discussions have raised a variety of different points. Natural capital is one of the main points of discussion. Water, vegetation, soil, and wildlife mak e up what is known as natural capital. The means of achieving sustainability is to ideally to invest enough to increase the available surplus (Toman et al. 1998 ). When applying sustainability to natural resources, the nonrenewable resources present a problem. There is not a sustainable method for harvesting nonrenewable resources; therefore, these types of resources should be preserved. However, it has been accep ted that they may be harvested as long as there is a substitute. This substitute will compensate for the future generations.

PAGE 20

20 Value Engineering Value The goal of a value engineering study is to achieve true values for the owner. The value may come in the f orm of removing unnecessary costs to the project, or it may come in the form of providing a more workable product that would decrease the costs of owning and operating the facility (Zimmerman 1982). Value may seem to be a term that has a clear cut definiti on, however, there are actually several different kinds of value (see Table 3 1). Use Value is a value received from the delivered function. It usually represents the properties and qualities which perform a function. Esteem Value encompasses our emotional regard for the item which we are purchasing. Exchange Value is the amount that we are willing to accept in trade for an item. Sometimes this amount is expressed in monetary terms, or it is a defined product or a certain quality that is acceptable in trade for other items. Cost Value is the amount of money that we are willing to incur to produce an item. The cost value of a construction project would be its actual construction cost. Table 3 1. Four kinds of v alue (Zimmerman 1982). 1. Use Value 2. Esteem Value 3. Exchange Value 4. Cost Value

PAGE 21

21 Other types of values are also used to assess the social qualities of our society. These values are often in abstract form and are difficult to quantify (Zimmerman 1982). When evaluating value, there are several c riteria that may be considered (see Table 3 2). The criteria used to determine the value of a product must be judged by the purchaser, by each individual, by the owner and partially by the design firm involved in the project. These factors will vary in imp ortance depending upon the owner and his terms of ownership (Zimmerman 1982). Table 3 2. Criteria for evaluating v alue (Zimmerman 1982). 1. Initial Cost 2. Energy Cost 3. Return in Profit 4. Functional Performance 5. Reliability 6. Operability 7. Maintenance Ability 8. Quality 9. Salability 10.Regard for Esthetics and Environment 11. Owner Requirements 12. Safety

PAGE 22

22 History Shortages of materials and labor during World War II led to the introduction of several substitutes. In some cases, it wa s noticed that the substitutes were an improvement when compared to the original. The management of the General Electric Company noted that often to the first systematic process to make improvements in a product; he called his system value analysis. Although value engineering has its origin in the manufacturing industry, its methodology has were adapted to other productive processes, the name was changed to va lue engineering. Today the two names value engineering (VE) and value analysis (VA) are used synonymously In simple term s, VE is a systematic approach to obtaining optimum value for every dollar spent. Through a system of investigation, unnecessary expenditures are avoided, resulting in e. The goal is to increase the value of a product or project through a systematic process. In contrast to costcutting by simply making smaller quantities or using fewer or cheaper materials, VE analyzes function or method by asking such questions as: What is it? What does it do? What must it do? What does it cost? What other material or method could be used to do the same job? Lawrence Miles explains exactly what value analysis is, and wha t it is not, in an excerpt from his book:

PAGE 23

23 Value analysis/engineering is an organized, creative approach which has for its purpose the efficient identification of unnecessary costs, i.e., costs which provide neither quality nor use nor life nor appearance n or customer features. Value analysis is not a substitute for conventional cost reduction work methods. Rather, it is a potent and completely different procedure for accomplishing far greater results. It improves the effectiveness of work that has been conv entionally performed over the years, as it fills in blind spots. Quite commonly 15 to 25 percent, and very often much more, of the manufacturing costs can be removed by effective application of the teaching of value analysis. Too often in the past, an ende avor to remove cost without the use of professional tools for accomplishing the project has resulted in a lowering of quality. Therefore, it must be clearly understood from the start that accomplishing better value does not mean reducing quality to a point where it is lower but may just get by. No reduction whatever in needed quality is tolerated in the professional grade of value work. Experience shows that quality is frequently increased as the result of developing alternatives for accomplishment of the u se of esteem functions VE uses an organized approach to isolate the elements having the greatest bulk of unnecessary costs, with the objective of developing lower initial step to identifying the u

PAGE 24

24 has been applied to several different areas of research involving a significant number of element s. The law shows that for any area, a small number of elements (20%) account for a great percentage of the costs (80%). In this case, it can be determined that a small number of elements will account for a great percentage of the unnecessary costs. Figure 3 2 shows the graph that Figure 3

PAGE 25

25 Current VE Model After identifying the high cost areas, it is essential to form multidisciplinary teams. The reason for its imp ortance is that more and better ideas tend to be generated, greater consideration is given to the total impact of decisions on both the facility and costs, and improved sonal stake in a particular design, it may be hard for them to detect areas of unnecessary cost. Therefore, all members should be knowledgeable about the system, but they should have no previous association with the design being studied. Also, each team sh ould have one member from each of the major disciplines that will have an impact on the project. These members will provide valuable information from several different perspectives. Once the appropriate team has been selected, the VE job plan can be applie d. There are several different variations of the function centered VE job plan. There are job plans that have five, six, or even eight phases (see Table 3 3). For this study, a prestudy phase will be followed by a five phase job plan model. As shown in Tab le 3 4, this f ive phase VE job plan model includes : the information phase, speculative phase, analytical phase, proposal phase, and final report phase. Prestudy phase The prestudy phase provides an opportunity to set up the study for a successful outcome. This phase should be an orientation meeting that includes the owner, designer and value consultant for the study. At this meeting, the value engineering team coordinator should outline the entire value engineering process (Zimmerman 1982). Schedule, projec t background, project constraints, and cost and energy information are among some of the topics that are discussed in detail during the prestudy phase.

PAGE 26

26 Table 3 3. Job p lan (Zimmerman 1982). EPA Six phase Job Plan 1. Information Phase 2. Creative Pha se 3. Analytical Phase 4. Investigation Phase 5. Recommendation Phase 6. Implementation Phase Standard Five Phase Job Plan 1. Information Phase 2. Creative Phase 3. Judgment Phase 4. Development Phase 5. Recommendation Phase GSA Job Plan Eig ht Phase Job Plan 1. Information Phase 2. Functional Analysis 3. Creative Phase 4. Judgment Phase 5. Development Phase 6. Presentation Phase 7. Implementation Phase 8. Follow up

PAGE 27

27 Table 3 4. Synopsis of value engineering methodology.

PAGE 28

28 28 Informa tion phase The information phase of the VE job plan involves defining the project, obtaining background information that leads to the project design, limitations on the project, and a sensitivity to the costs involved in owning and operating a facility. Th e purpose of this phase is for the VE team to gain as much information and knowledge as possible on the project design (Zimmerman 1982). During the information gathering certain questions must be answered: 1. What is the item? 2. What does it do? (define the fun ction) 3. What is the worth of the function? 4. What does it cost? 5. What is the cost/worth ratio? 6. What are the needed requirements? 7. What high cost or poor value areas are indicated? Considerable effort, ingenuity, and investigation are required to answer these qu estions questions, the members of the VE group are able to get a better understanding of the problem. Functional analysis. The next part of the information phase is functional analysis. The basic function is the primary purpose of the design. It is that function which must remain to do Functional analysis can be broken into thr ee parts. First, the function of the item or design has to be defined using two words a verb and a noun. Second, the worth of the basic function must be determined. Worth is defined as the lowest cost to perform the basic function in the most elementary

PAGE 29

29 29 the cost will only be used for comparison. The determined costs, however, should be reasonable for the particular item. The final step is to calculate a cost/worth ratio. This ratio will give us a value for what we are paying for this item compared to the simplest design that will produce the same results. If [the ratio] is greater than two or three, poor value and high costs are indicated. The cost worth ratio gives an ind In the information phase the most important steps are (1) determining the basic and secondary functions of the items in the design and (2), relating these functions to cost and worth Isola 1974). All of the information for the functional analysis step will be recorded on a typical form Speculative phase During this phase of the job plan the principal question to be answered is: in what ways can the necessary function be performed? Thi s phase is designed to introduce new ideas to through creative methods. Because there is a negative relationship between age and cr eativity, as shown in Figure 3 3 it becomes necessary to train for creativity. Emotional blocks, such as the fear of making a mistake or of appearing foolish, must be creativity approaches, c lassified under free association techniques, are brainstorming and the

PAGE 30

30 30 Figure 3 3 Relation of age to creativity Brainstorming. The most commonly used method of the two, brainstorming, allows ea ch motivates the associative processes of the other group members. This phenomenon produces a ola 1974). This type of group participation has the potential to be negative as well. For example, if a participant criticizes an idea, this could cause other members to become less responsive resulting in less

PAGE 31

31 31 overall solutions. During the session the g roup is encouraged to generate the maximum number The Gordon Technique. The Gordon Technique is similar to brainstorming because it is a group that assemble s to generate ideas. This technique also encourages the unrestrained discussion of ideas. Unlike the brainstorming technique, however, in the Gordon approach only attempt to alleviate precondition thinking. The leader plays a prominent role in the Gordon technique. The leader will have to lead the group in the discussion and ask questions that will generate ideas. There is not a right or wrong technique to use. Whic hever technique is used should allow the group to produce a variety of alternate ways to perform the function. Analytical phase Now that there are a number of ideas generated from the speculative phase, there can be an analysis of each idea. The analytical phase is broken into a few steps including: initial weeding, general analysis, and detailed analysis. The initial weeding step is a necessary step to sort all of the ideas. It is simply the process of quickly checking over all the ideas for obvious infeas ibility. Infeasible ideas are crossed off the list. During the next step, general analysis, the ideas must be refined so that they can be evaluated. Ideas which obviously do not meet these requirements are dropped. Ideas having potential, but beyond the ca pability of our present technology, are put aside for possible discussion with progressive manufacturers. The remaining ideas are potentially workable and are This will prevent unnecessary analysis. The accepted ideas need to have the major components identified, a preliminary design, and an approximate cost. Advantages and disadvantages need to be assigned to these remaining ideas Each team member

PAGE 32

32 32 is assigned an aspect of the problem to investigate and determine whether th e disadvantages can be ranked so that time and other resources are used on the best ideas. Life cycle analysis. Now detailed analysis, or a thorough evaluation o f the best ideas, can begin. There are two important tasks that will be performed during this phase. First, a life cycle cost analysis must be developed. Second, a weighted evaluation must be performed. Because it is possible for a solution to have a lower initial cost and a higher overall cost, there must be a way to compare two solutions based on total cost. A life cycle cost analysis makes that possible. Before the life cycle cost breakdown, a summary cost breakdown is usuall y completed. Usually the dete rmination of initial costs is not difficult. However, in the area of total cost costs for a facility including: initial cost, maintenance, repair, and retro fittin g and refurbishing. Using another typical VE form and mathematical calculations, the life cycle cost, or total cost, can be determined Criteria weighting. In addition to life cycle costing, there needs to be an evaluation of weighted criteria durin g the detailed analysis phase. After selection of alternates on a cost basis other elements, not readily assigned dollar values, must be considered, e.g., aesthetics, durability, This is where some of the abstract value i s accounted for. Using a VE form the parameters are assigned numerical weight based on importance. Each parameter is compared to the other parameters and the one that is more important gets points. Because importance is subjective to personal preference, the group should use an acceptable method to find a consensus for the weight of each parameter. E ach proposed idea will be graded based on their ability to satisfy the selected parameters. That grade will then be multiplied times the

PAGE 33

33 33 previously assigned n umerical weight of the parameters. The sum of all those products will give each idea its score. The highest scoring idea gets the highest rank, and should be the idea that has the most promise for success. Proposal phase Through the analysis phase, the mos t appropriate alternate will be identified. Now, this idea must be proposed before it is accepted for the project. During this phase three things must be accomplished. 1. The group must thoroughly review all alternate solutions being proposed to assure that t he highest value and significant savings are really being offered. 2. A sound proposal must be made to management. The group must consider not only to whom it must propose, but also how to propose the solutions most effectively. The group must present a plan for implementing the proposal. This action is critical, for if the es for naught As part of the proposal phase, a final report will need to be drafted. A complete repo rt includes: 1. A brief description of the project studied 2. A brief summary of the problem 3. The results of your functional analyses, showing existing and proposed designs 4. Technical data supporting your selection of alternates 5. Cost analyses of the existing and proposed designs

PAGE 34

34 34 6. All associated data, quotations, and suggestions 7. Sketches of before and after designs, showing proposed changes clearly (plans marked to show proposed changes are generally acceptable) 8. A description of the tests used to evaluate your proposed design, and how the idea passed the tests 9. Acknowledgement of the contributions by others 10. A summary statement listing all the reasons for accepting the proposal, Final report phase As the VE process has adapted over time, a final report phase has been added. This phase is for tracking implementation and monitoring the proposed alternates. Actual construction costs should be monitored as they are incurred, a life cycle analysis should be performed for post occupancy, and energy consumption should be reviewed if applicable. This phase should reveal if expected savings were achieved, assumptions were correct or incorrect, if additional savings were made that were n ot planned for, and if other savings could have been achieved. This final phase is important for providing direction and useful information for future projects. Value Engineering and Sustainability the dollar. The optimal building project has as the measure of performance the initial project costs, the life cycle costs, and the time for completion of the project. The factors that determine a building project and its costs are as follows: 1. The purp oses and functions for which the building is intended

PAGE 35

35 35 perception of value in the building 4. The architectural systems and finishes specifi ed for the building, and the need for these systems and finishes to perform under operational conditions 5. The structural form and materials the need to maintain the building in stable equilibrium under all expected loading conditions 6. The heating, vent ilating, air conditioning, and public health systems specified for the building and the need to provide a comfortable environment to building users under operational conditions 7. The lighting, electrical power, and telecommunications systems specified for the building and the need to provide reliable and adequate services under operational conditions 8. Fire detection and fire fighting systems specified for the building, the need for these systems to function under all operational conditions, and the need to provide for evacuation of the building in an emergency 9. The method of construction, the ease of construction, and the time for completion of construction 10. The ease of maintenance, the replacement cycle of components, and maintenance requirements 11 The need for the investment in the building to show a profit (Omigbodun 2001).

PAGE 36

36 36 While all of these components are said to define a complete project, none of them make specific mention to the environment which will be altered. If the environment is not con sidered valuable, the environment never becomes part of the value engineering discussion. Although the traditional view is still supported, increased public awareness on sustainability issues has caused changes. The industry is beginning to realize that v alue is more complex than evaluating initial costs. The environment is now becoming an interest as far as value is concerned. When assessed carefully, sustainability efforts have proven to increase value. Not only an increase in value due to an improved e nvironment, but also an increase in value from money saved. Sustainability components have the potential to improve the quality, longevity, and profitability of a project. With a growing concern for sustainability issues, it is easier to envision a VE proc ess that takes the environment into account. There are several opportunities to implement sustainable efforts into construction projects; however, it is not commonplace to take that initiative. Alternative methods of delivery need to be developed before an increase in sustainable initiatives will occur.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS The environmental value engineering process is an adaptation of a typical value engineering process. The EVE diagram consists of a series of phases that are regulated by the results of the phases (see Figur e 4 1). Each phase is examined in more detail below. Prestudy Phase Forming the Team Before the EVE process can begin, there are a couple decisions that need to be considered. First, the team must be assembled. The fact that the EVE study will be performed by a team is a great benefit. The group members will have an impact on each other in a condition that will be an opportune moment to integrate sustainability. Because the team will be working together to increase project value, they can pull together to f ind the most effective ways to integrate possible sustainable ideas. For LEED projects, it is required to have a LEED certified individual on the project. be formed. In p articular, there is a need to establish the team(s) to undertake the study: Should be multidisciplinary, with knowledge in all areas to be studied. Should be at least one (ideally more) expert from the major area of review. Should be different personnel fr om those involved in the initial design and decision If these rules are followed, all EVE studies will have at least one LEED certified individual participating on the team. The LEED certified member(s) will not only satisfy the r equirement for an expert from that area of review, but they will also broaden the knowledge in the areas to be studied.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 4 1. Task flow diagram.

PAGE 39

39 Another decision that must be made is the decision of when to start the EVE process. It is important to note that this process should begin as early in the project development as possible. Figure 4 2 highlights the benefits of starting the EVE process early. If the process is started during the conceptual phase, there is a better chance for the most cost reduction as well as a Figure 4 2. Cost reduction potential vs. cost to change

PAGE 40

40 lower cost to make changes. The figure also shows that although feedback may be given in early project phases for subsequent projects, most of the VE stu dies are developed in the construction phase. This may be suitable for VE studies, but not for EVE studies. It is imperative that sustainability is instilled in the project in the early phases. While it is important to have LEED certified members and other members with knowledge in the area of sustainability on the team, there is a hierarchy within the team that delineates the amount of impact certain people have on the project (see Figure 4 3). The owner has the most influence on the project; therefore, it will be essential (for the EVE process) to ensure that the owner supports the sustainability aspects of the study. With a VE study, the concern for sustainability varies from project to project mainly following the interests of the owner. The goal of th e EVE process will be to limit this variability by ensuring that sustainability becomes infused in the process from the inception of the study. In some cases, the owner may not have knowledge in the area of sustainability or they may not be committed to im plementing sustainable ideas. In order for the EVE process to work, it will be up to the team members with knowledge of sustainability to identify sustainability needs as a target for the study. These individuals will have great opportunities, within the g roup structure, to encourage the owner to commit to sustainability initiatives. This phase may be the most crucial phase as far as integration of sustainability is concerned. At this point, the project will be broken down and examined for pertinent informa tion. If sustainability is not a predetermined goal for the owner, the importance of and prompt a commitment. If sustainability can be successfully integrated at this point, the

PAGE 41

41 systematic EVE process will ensure that it is carried throughout the process. The model for the Prestudy Phase is illustrated in Figure 4 4. Figure 4 3. Cost impact of principal disciplines office building

PAGE 42

42 Figure 4 4. Prestudy phase task flow diagram.

PAGE 43

43 Information Phase Beginning the Study Now that the appropriate team has been formed, the team can start the study with the information phase. The VE process begins with contemplation of some standard questi ons, and the EVE process will start out the same way. However, there will need to be additions to the traditional questions. The consideration of environmental effects in a VE framework requires some adjustment to the conduct of the traditional VE study. T o the three classic VE questions: What is it? What does it do? What must it do? might be added the question: How does it affect the environment (Kibert 1991) ? The last question is an example of a question that that will allow all the members of the team t o consider the environmental impacts of any decisions. Functional Analysis The functional analysis step in the information phase for EVE will practically remain the same as the VE process. However, the difference will be for the EVE study that sustainabili ty should always be accepted as a project goal. This objective should be presented to all of the team members so that everyone is on the same page. The basic and secondary function will still need to be identified. They will be described in the same format as well (noun and verb). Another difference will be found in the types of basic and secondary functions that are identified. More of the basic functions should reflect the sustainable initiatives of the study. Because the cost of primary functions are inc luded in the worth portion of the cost to worth ratio, the worth of the sustainable ideas will not be neglected or disregarded.

PAGE 44

44 Value In addition to worth, there will be a difference in perceived value between the VE and the EVE process. Both quantifiab le and abstract values are used to analyze construction projects. Often it is possible to quantify values relating to cost, but it is difficult to quantify or qualify other values unrelated to cost In a value engineering study, we do our primary investigatio ns centered around the cost and the price of the facility. The importance of abstract values and the final determination of the best alternative to recommend to the owner must, however, recognize factors other than cost (Zimmerman 1982). Often, this is not the case for VE studies. The abstract values are neglected and only the quantifiable values are taken into account. Kibert recognizes that environmental costs can be both intangible and tangible (abstract and quantifiable respectively) Environmental co sts might at first appear to fall into the category of intangible components in a VE sense. But these costs, just as building costs, embody tangible (easy to quantify) and intangible (difficult to quantify) components. Examples of tangible costs are the co st of the permitting process, the cost of disposal of debris resulting from demolition and site clearing, and the cost of design elements which are intended to minimize environmental impact. The intangible environmental costs associated with construction a re items such as the environmental costs of mining or other means of obtaining the raw materials, the cost of disposing of hazardous materials which are used and created, the generation of air and water pollution in the construction material manufacture, a nd the disposal cost of materials which cannot be recycled into other products (Kibert 1991).

PAGE 45

45 The inclusion of sustainability in a project has the potential to increase both tangible and intangible value. Tangible value such as, profit and life cycle cost can be increased by sustainable construction. An improved reputation, positive image, sense of responsibility, and appreciation are all intangible values that could potentially be gained. The i ntangible value gained through sustainable construction will ad d another dimension to the added value for the project While tangible value is generally realized over the course of a project, the intangible value has potential to continue even after a project is finished. It will be important for the team members to i dentify both tangible and intangible value not neglecting either. As far as sustainability is c oncerned, the team members should be sure to include regard for aesthetics and environment in the criteria for evaluating value. In the EVE study, the team mem bers must make a concerted effort to ensure that the abstract values are taken into account. The model for the Information Phase is illustrated in Figure 4 5. Speculative Phase For this phase of the EVE process, there will not be any changes to the steps o f the current VE process. Although there may be a difference in focus, the process itself will remain unchanged. Because of the consideration for sustainability in the previous phase, there will be potential for more sustainable construction ideas to be pr oposed. Similar to VE, the EVE process will utilize brainstorming or the Gordon Technique in order to propose alternate solutions for the project. The choice between brainstorming and the Gordon Technique will be made based on the project. The model for th e Speculative Phase is illustrated in Figure 4 6.

PAGE 46

46 Figure 4 5. Information phase task flow diagram.

PAGE 47

47 Figure 4 6. Speculative phase task flow diagram.

PAGE 48

48 Analytical Phase The analytical phase for EVE will begin much like the VE analytical phase. During this phase the ideas must be refined to meet the necessary environmental and operating conditions of the other ideas are discarded. Ideas with pote ntial will be examined more closely. They will then be listed with their advantages and disadvantages. Any available resources will be used to determine if the proposed alternates perform the required functions at a lower cost without sacrificing quality Outside Sources While the LEED certified professionals on the team will be a great asset during the analytical phase, there may be cases where outside help would be important. Outside consultants are common to VE studies, and EVE studies should take adva ntage of them when analyzing sustainable construction ideas. They will have a better understanding of the types of systems available, the cost of proposed ideas, and the feasibility of incorporating those ideas. Life Cycle Cost Analysis The next step in th e analytical phase is to perform a life cycle cost analysis. Life cycle costing (LCC) is a method to compute the total cost of an item. Total cost will take into account not only the initial costs, but also, the salvage and replacement costs, and any other annual costs can be compared for all of the proposals. This may be the strongest link between the current VE process and sustainability. Life cycle cost analys is is used in the evaluation of sustainable construction and VE studies; however, by this stage in the VE process sustainable proposals are

PAGE 49

49 not typical. This may be mostly due to the higher initial cost and/or the fact that sustainability was not taken int o account in the conceptual phase. Life cycle costing is arguably the best method we currently have for assessing the total cost explains how the LCC does construction projects. Accounting for the OEI would constitute a natural extension of the Life Cycle Cost Analysis technique as used in VE studies for evaluating alternative systems and trade offs ( Kibert 1991). Kibert uses an equation and a diagram to describe True Cost (see Figure 4 7). If an appropriate method for determining OEI could be established, this would significantly strengthen the EVE process. Figure 4 7. True cost (Kibert 1991).

PAGE 50

50 We ighted Constraints and Idea Weighting Although the OEI costs are not taken into account in the LCC process, there is an opportunity to recognize environmental concerns in this step. As mentioned before, the VE process allows for the proposals to be judged based on selected parameters. For the EVE process, some of the parameters should naturally reflect the fact that sustainability has been instilled in the objectives early in the construction process. The weight of each parameter will differ from project to project. Cost, construction duration, safety, and aesthetics are some of the typical constraints used in VE studies. Use of non hazardous materials, use of recyclable materials, and long life expectancy are some other parameters that could be added. The p arameters that take sustainability into account may not be weighted the highest on certain jobs, but they must not be neglected in an EVE study. A well constructed team should ensure that the sustainability parameters are considered and weighted appropriat ely. The model for the Analytical Phase is illustrated in Figure 4 8. Proposal Phase Preparation For the EVE process, the proposal phase will take a great deal of preparation. It is this phase that will determine the success of the entire EVE study. The su stainable construction proposals may contain materials and methods foreign to the owners, architects, and other members of management. Therefore, the team must investigate any relevant facts (before the presentation) so that they are able to convince the m anagement that the alternate proposals are indeed superior to the current design. It will be important to ensure that the proposals are safe and legal, as well as, constructible and financially feasible.

PAGE 51

51 Figure 4 8. Analytical phase task flow diagra m.

PAGE 52

52 Presentation The management team should already be prepared for proposals that consider sustainability because they went through the orientation phase. This will take some of the pressure off of the EVE team because they do not have to spend time explai ning the sustainability agenda. The specific proposals, however, will need to be sold to the owner and architect. In value engineering, the impact that proposals have on the schedule of completion is very important. A negative impact could be the differen ce between an accepted proposal and a rejected one. This may be amplified for EVE studies if a proposal calls for new technology. The team needs to be aware of this and present the reasons why the proposal should be accepted. Notifying the architect about certain proposals at an earlier stage may be beneficial as well. Implementation If a proposal with sustainable attributes is chosen, a detailed implementation plan will be necessary. Often there are specific requirements for manufacturing, installing, and maintaining sustainable products. The implementation plan will outline exactly what needs to be done in order to realize the potential savings. During the proposal phase, attributes of the alternative proposals, such as, social benefits, protection for the environment, and long term savings should be included with the cost information. The model for the Proposal Phase is illustrated in Figure 4 9. Report Phase Future Projects This phase is most important for studies on similar projects in the future. Actual costs and energy consumption should be tracked during this phase. By monitoring the performance of the

PAGE 53

53 Figure 4 9. Proposal phase task flow diagram.

PAGE 54

54 chosen alternate, it is possible to determine if the anticipated savings were realized. Thi s will be especially helpful when using a proposal with advanced technological features. Impact on Sustainability In addition to benefiting future projects, this phase provides the opportunity to benefit the sustainability agenda as well. Assuming that the chosen proposal has sustainable attributes, the final report will serve to educate owners, architects, builders, and others about sustainability. Furthermore, a successful result will potentially increase the use of sustainable construction. The model for the Report Phase is illustrated in Figure 4 10.

PAGE 55

55 Figure 4 10. Report phase task flow diagram.

PAGE 56

56 C HAPTER 5 CASE STUDY: HOTEL This case study includes an example of an EVE proposal for a hotel. The proposal is for an alternative roofing system with sustainable characteristics. Building Requirements The current program is a 3 star, multi story hotel. It is designed to be a Spanish style building with 28 30 rooms and/or suites, recreational area with swimming pools, private marina and boat access to the hotel with private docking. The building must meet Florida Building Code requirements and it should fit into the architecture of Ft. Lauderdale. Also, the project should be environmentally sensitive. The proposed construction budget is $2,125,000 The average rental rate is projected to be around $85.00 per room for one night. Because Ft. Lauderdale is a to urism is illustrated in Figure 5 1. Figure 5 1. Hotel: first floor layout.

PAGE 57

57 Project Team The EVE team was selected to be a multidiscipline team. This approach allows for a variety of perspectives and approaches to influence the study. The team coordinator was a LEED certified specialist. None of the members for this study took part in the designing of the project. The EVE team included the following members: LEED Certified Specialist Structural Engineer Mechanical Engineer Architect Construction Management Civil Engineer Description of EVE Workshop Every member on the team was given eight hours before the beginning of the study to review the plans, specifications, and the preliminary information on the project. The EVE study for this hotel was a total of 40 hours. The prestudy and orientation phases were coordinated to commence following the charrette process. Information Phase The EVE study followed the process previously described. The facilitator provided a description of the job plan and objectives. Then, the architect provided information about the project concerning the basis for the design and the factors that influenced t he design. Functional Analysis The team was able to consider the cost required to perform the functions of the hotel by using the functional analysis. With the lead of the specialist, the team evaluated the entire building to search for any potential chang es for the entire scope of the project. Next, a functional

PAGE 58

58 analysis was performed for the roof, which is one of the secondary components of the hotel (see Figure 5 2). The purpose of the roof is to protect the facility. The components that are basic funct ions will protect the facility. The worth is an estimated amount that the team decides upon. These are areas where cost can potentially be reduced. Speculative Phase Group and individual brainstorming sessions were led by the EVE facilitator. Several ideas were recorded for various aspects of the project. Figure 5 3 shows a list of some of the ideas for the roof component of the project. Analytical Phase The beginning portion of this phase was used to refine the list of ideas. The feasible ideas were ident ified and retained, while the other ideas were discarded. Ideas with potential were examined more closely, so that they could be listed with their advantages and disadvantages (see Figure 5 4). As shown in Figure 5 5 and Figure 5 6, a summary cost breakdow n was done for the top ranked proposals of the previous step. Next, the life cycle cost analysis was performed on the form shown in Figure 5 7. This gave a more accurate depiction of the total cost associated with each proposal. Lastly, the selected altern ates were evaluated against a specified set of criteria. The results were recorded on forms shown in Figure 5 8 and Figure 5 9. Proposal and Report Phase The last step of the EVE process is the proposal and report phase. An oral presentation was given to the owner and architect first. The EVE study found several areas with potential for cost savings. All of these findings were recorded to be submitted to the owner. The designer took the time to respond to each proposal. Figure 5 10 shows the written final proposal for the alternate

PAGE 59

59 roof system. The report phase will continue as data is collected for the actual savings from the alternate.

PAGE 60

60 Project: Hotel Item: Roof Basic Function: Protect Facility Date: Quantity Unit Component Function: Verb Noun Typ e Explanation Original Cost Worth Spanish Tile Shields underlayment S $ 87,500 Truss provides support P $ 32,280 $ 27,800 Sheathing supports tile P $ 11,000 $ 9,733 Water Proofing provides water resistance P $ 23,400 $ 18,360 Fascia enhance aesthetics S $ 3,000 Soffit provides ventilation S $ 1,842 Fasteners attaches roof P $ 250 $ 233 Figure 5 2. Form 2: function analysis

PAGE 61

61 Study Title : Roof Basic F unction: Protect Facility Team: EVE Team Generate as many ideas as possible to fulfill the basic function of the item understudy, or its components. Do not evaluate the ideas here at all. List everything, judge later 1 Flat Roof 2 Metal Roof Rainwa ter Harvesting 3 Green Roof 4 White TPO Roof 5 Canvas Roof 6 Copper Roofing 7 Bubble Tent Roof 8 Glass Roof System 9 Steel Roof 10 Hurricane Resistant Roof 11 Shingle Roof 12 Slate Roof 13 Thatch Roof 14 Habitable Roof 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Figure 5 3. Form 3: b rainstorming.

PAGE 62

62 Study Title : Roof Basic Function: Protect Facility Team: EVE Team List the most feasible ideas. Identify their advantages and disadvantages to determine where additional work should be done. Ide a: Advantages: Disadvantages: Rank: Metal Roof Rainwater Harvesting Has longer life duration Reflects heat away, saving energy Reduces portable water cost and storm water costs Can be noisy when it rains, needing noise barrier Initial cost for equipment increases construction costs Must be maintained frequently 1 Green Roof Can passively heat and cool the building Saves energy costs Must have a staff to maintain it Initial cost of construction increases 2 White TPO Roof Reflects heat away, saving energy Can withstand any uplifting from high winds; great for resisting hurricanes Not recyclable High initial installation cost 3 Habitable Roof Provides more usable space Provides great insulation, saving energy costs Must have a staff to maintain it High initial construction cost Structure of roof must be enhanced to support such loads 4 Figure 5 4. Form 4: preliminary idea comparison.

PAGE 63

63 Item Quantity Labor Material / Component Cons tr. Equipment Total Cost $ No. units Units meas. $ per unit total $ per unit total $ per unit total Metal Roof with Rainwater Harvesting Cistern 1 Ea 550 550 2250 2250 2800 Rainwater Collection Means 6 Ea 111 666 550 550 3966 Rainwater distribution System 1000 LF 2.33 2330 6.00 6 8330 Steel Panel with Zinc/Aluminum/Alloy 33,000 SF 1.17 38610 4.22 4.22 177870 Total Cost $ $42,156 $150,810 $192,966 Figure 5 5. Form 5: summary cost breakdown for a solution.

PAGE 64

64 Item Quantity Labor Material / Component Constr. Equipment Total Cost $ No. units Units meas. $ per unit total $ per unit total $ per uni t total Elastomeric membrane 33,000 (with new retail space) SF .84 27720 .99 32670 60390 15 TON 0 15.95 239.25 239.25 Drainage system 1000 LF 2.70 2700 2.75 5450 C atch Basins/Grates 6 Ea 92.50 555 268 2750 29 174 2337 Landscaping, roof 33,000 SF 2 66000 1 33000 99000 Total Cost $ $96975 $70267 $174 $167,416 Figure 5 6. Form 5: summary cost breakdown for a solution.

PAGE 65

65 Figure 5 7. Form 6: life cycle cost analysis.

PAGE 66

66 C RITERIA W EIGHTING S TUDY T ITLE : H OTEL R OOF (S ECONDARY L AYOUT ) D ATE : P ERFORMANCE C RITERIA : A. Initi al Cost B. Maint. Cost C Const. Duration D. Energy Efficienc y E. Life Expect ancy F. Aesthetics G. Recyclabl e Material H. W EIGHT (sum of scores) A. Initial Cost A3 A3 D2 E3 A4 G1 10 B. Maint. Cost B3 D4 E4 B4 G2 7 C. Const. Duration D4 E4 C3 G2 3 D. Energy Efficiency E1 D4 D3 17 E. Life Expectancy E4 E4 20 F. Aesthetics G3 0 G. Recyclable Material 8 H. Figure 5 8. Form 7: criteria weighting. Note: Preference Weights: Major: 5 4 Medium: 3 2 Minor: 1 No Diff: 0

PAGE 67

67 A NALYSIS M ATRIX S TUDY T ITLE : H OTEL R OOF (S ECONDARY L AYOUT ) D ATE : P ERFORMANCE C RITERIA A. Initial Cost B. Maint. Cost C Const. Duration D. Energy Efficienc y E. Life Expectan cy F. Aesthetics G. Recyclabl e Material H. Weight from Criteria Matrix 10 7 3 17 20 0 8 O PTION T OTAL & R ANK 1: Original Proposal : Spanish Tile Roof 8 80 6 42 9 27 2 34 7 140 1 8 3 331 2: Alternate #1 : Metal Roof with Rainwater Harvesting 3 30 3 21 5 15 7 119 9 180 9 72 1 437 3: Alternate #2 Roof 4 40 4 28 5 15 6 102 8 160 1 8 2 353 4: 5: Figure 5 9. Form 8: analysis matrix.

PAGE 68

68 V ALUE E NGINEERING P ROPOSAL : E XECUTIV E B RIEF S TUDY T ITLE : Hotel D ATE : P ROPOSAL : 1 I TEM : Roof S HEET : 1 of 2 Project: Current prog ram suggests a 3 star quality hotel, possibly multi story, Spa nish style building with 28 30 rooms and/or suites, recreational area with swimming pools, pri vate marina and boat access to the hotel with private docking, lobby, reception desk, lounge, kitchen facilities, and other necessities. Original Design: The current design calls for a W truss at 4ft on center with Spanish roof tile roof system. The ro of decorative fascia with aluminum soffit. Proposed Change: The new design calls for metal roof with rainwater harvesting system The rainwater harvesting syst em will require gutters and drainage into a cistern to collect the rain water for use later. The roof is a steel panel with zinc/aluminum/alloy. The fascia, sheathing, water proofing underlayment, aluminum soffit, and truss system will all remain the sam e. The plumbing will have a non potable water line for the toilets and urinals as well as the irrigation. This system will require either a pump or gravity fed system to pressurize the water to all of the locations in the building. Brief Implementati on Plan: The roof trusses, sheathing, fascia, and underlayment will remai n the same. The only difference will be the steel panel with zinc/aluminum/alloy and the addition of the rain water harvesting system This system will include inlets, external gutte r system and cistern for collecting and storing the water. Because the system will need a superior hydraulic head to supply building with water, t he plumbing will need to change to accommodate the non potable water for use in the restrooms A pump will als o be necessary in a pressure or gravity fed configuration C OST S UMMARY I NITIAL C OST O WNERSHIP C OST (NPV) T OTAL C OST (NPV) O RIGINAL D ESIGN 159,272 375,542 534,814 P ROPOSED C HANGE 278 908 202 865 4 81, 773 S AVINGS (119,636) 172 667 53,041 Figure 5 10. Form 9: executive b rief.

PAGE 69

69 P ROPOSAL C ONCLUSIONS AND J USTIFICATION S TUDY T ITLE : Hotel D ATE : P ROPOSAL : 1 I TEM : R OOF S HEET : 2 of 2 Advantages : The metal roof with rainwater harvesting system will have a longer life span than a traditional Spanish t ile roof. The light color of the aluminum reflects heat away so it will save the amount of energy used for cooling the facility. The rainwater harvesting system will collect and store non potable water which can be used for irrigation or in the toilets a nd urinals. The durability of the metal is far greater than that of the Spanish tile according to ASTM data. Tiles are also more prone to damage during hurricanes and strong winds. In this case, the metal roof provides superior protection. Additionally metal roofs do not require the same level of cleaning (i.e. pressured washing) required by Spanish tile roofs, so there are added O&M cost savings. The life cycle cost of this system is substantially greater than that of the Spanish tile roof after cons idering all factors. The roof will also weigh considerably less than the tile option and some of the structural elements may be able to be reduced in size, additionally decreasing overall cost. Disadvantages : The metal roof can cause greater levels of noi se during rain storms, but this can easily be overcome through proper sound attenuation or insulation. Another issue is the increase in construction cost associated with the metal roof compared to the Spanish tile roof. Conclusions : After comparing the two roofing alternatives, the metal roof with rainwater harvesting system provides the most value. The heat reduction (due to a light color roof) is projected to result in energy savings up to 30% compared to a dark colored roof. The water collected from the rainwater harvesting system will reduce the water consumption required for irrigation system and for restroom use. Compared to the original design, the roof will not need as much maintenance. This type of roof also provides environmental benefits. No t only because of the rainwater harvesting, but also because a recyclable material is used. The alternate provides savings of over $53,000 (this figure does not include the cost benefit that will result from energy savings). An additional bonus is the fact that the environment will benefit from this system. Implementation Plan : The design will remain practically the same as the Spanish tile system; however, some of the structural elements may be smaller since the weight will be decreased. This will lower t he cost. The metal roof will be applied over the same system as the original design with the addition of the gutter system and cistern, which will collect the rainwater to store it for future use. The plumbing will need some rework performed on all of the restrooms, but the pump installation will not create a significant delay. Everything else will remain practically the same. Figure 5 11. Form 10: summary conclusions and justification.

PAGE 70

70 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Value Engineering vs. Environmental Value Engineering The EVE process is a variation of the VE process that integrates sustainability. Each phase of the VE process has been altered to create the EVE model. In some cases, there is no d ifference in the actual steps taken within the phase; however, the sustainability objective becomes the driving difference between VE and EVE. For EVE the timing of the study is crucial. The EVE study needs to be started early in the planning of the projec t. If the early phases of the EVE study are starting in conjunction with the conceptual and developmental phases of the project, it provides the best chance for the most positive result. All of the phases are important to the integrity of the EVE process, but the prestudy and proposal phases are essential to the success of the study. The prestudy phase and orientation allows for the formation of the appropriate EVE team. This team should include members who provide a perspective of sustainability and knowl edge about sustainable construction. This is the phase where all of the team members, the owner, and the architect can plan for the direction of the project. If sustainability is implemented into the project at this point, the process itself will ensure th at the sustainability attributes are carried throughout the study. Because the EVE diagram was developed to ensure that sustainability is integrated into the project from the beginning, the model does not allow for movement to the next phase without first establishing that objective. The proposal phase is important because it will determine if all of the effort put into the study will go to use. The proposal must be well planned and executed. Any sustainable construction attributes will need to be presented in a clear and concise fashion. This will eliminate confusion and provide the best chance for an accepted proposal.

PAGE 71

71 Viability of Environmental Value Engineering The Environmental Value Engineering process does not guarantee that all (or even any) of the final proposals will contain items with sustainable characteristics. Just like the VE process, the EVE process will remain objective in an approach to determine the alternate that provides the most value. At the same time, every proposal (sustainable or n ot) will be scrutinized for their sustainable attributes. The probability that the EVE process will yield a sustainable result will vary from project to project depending on the owner, architect, and EVE team. While the EVE process does not guarantee a s ustainable proposal, a project with both an owner educated in sustainability and an appropriate EVE team, will be more likely to produce a sustainable proposal. This is due to the fact that the EVE study defines value by taking both quantifiable and abstra ct qualities into account. Proposals with sustainable attributes should be viewed as more valuable than proposals without them. Limitations Because the EVE study hinges on support for sustainability from the onset of the study, the process is limited to t he understanding of the participants. If a member of the team, the owner, or the architect is lacking information, they may resist the sustainable objectives. Also, the study may be significantly impaired if it is started too late in the building process. An increase in cost, an increase in construction project time, and a decrease in flexibility are a few of the problems that will negatively impact the chances for a sustainable result.

PAGE 72

72 CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS The Value Engineering process has been able to adapt to the changes in the industry over time. With more concern for the environment and sustainability, the VE process should continue to adapt. The EVE process is a step in the rig ht direction, but there is still research that can be done to improve the process. Although the diagram provides sufficient guidelines for the different phases, continued research could strengthen the process. First, it would be helpful to know the best w ays to stimulate an interest for sustainability. Because this process depends on an understanding of sustainable principles, it would make sense to understand why people take interest in sustainability. The diagram can be modified to take this into account during the prestudy phase. Next, there should be research to determine if owners would be interested in using the EVE process for their projects. Although, this type of model would have the greatest impact on a project that was not developed to consider sustainability, there may not be any interest to use the model for these projects. Further studies could provide information on owner interest and how to get them to support the EVE process. Also, it will be important to ascertain if current VE facilitator s are interested in considering sustainability in their practice. The results of the study will resolve whether current facilitators can be used or if it will be necessary to train consultants for the modified process. Finally, testing the process on vario us projects would highlight the practicality and usefulness of the EVE study. The EVE study can be tested along with a VE study on the same project. The tope ranked proposals can be compared at that point. This will show the differences and the similaritie s. Although the value of the proposals may be difficult to compare, the proposals can be compared to see which study provided the most cost benefit.

PAGE 73

73 APPENDIX VALUE ENGINEERING TA SK FLOW DIAGRAM

PAGE 74

74 (Zimmerman 1982)

PAGE 75

75 LIST OF REFERENCES Allen, T. F. H., Tainter, J. A., Hoekstra, T. W. (2003). Supply side Sustainability Columbia University Press, New York. 25, 229 234. Benson, K. Transactions, Global, 101. Bernstein, P G. (2005). Construction Specifier 58( 7 ), 57 62. Brown, T. C., and G. L. Peterson. (1994). Sus tainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an ecological approach to Land Management, Flagstaff, Fort Collins. Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 121(2), 126 129. Clarke, J. A. (1993). Building and Environment 28( 4 ), 419 427. 69(2), 6 8. Dammann, S and Elle, M. (2006). Environmental indicators: Establishing a common Building Research and Information 34( 4 ), 387 404. Publishing Company, Inc., New York. Dims Industry and Environment, 19(2), 19 22. Fedrizzi, R (1995). Going green: the advent of better buildings ASHRAE Journal 37( 12 ), 35. Floyd, D. W., Vonhof, S. L., Seyfan g, H. E., Heissenbuttel, J., Cantrell, R ., Stocker, L., Wilkinson, B., and Connaughton, K. (2001). Forest sustainability: A discussion guide for Journal of Forestry, 99(2), 8 31. Foss, R. (2001). T he changing face of building design and Construction Specifier 54( 7 ), 32. 53.

PAGE 76

76 Hardoy, J. E., Mitlin, D., and Satterthwaite, D. (1992). Environmental problems in Third W orld cities Earthscan, London. 16 17. Jacobs, M. (1991). The green economy: Environment, sustainable development, and the politics of the future Pluto Press, London. Kibert, C. (1999). Reshaping the Built Environment, Island Press, Washington D.C. Value World, 13(4), 1 5. Lovelock, J. (1988). The Ages of Gaia: A Biograph y of Our Living Earth, W.W. Norton & Company, New York. Master, R. C. (2004). Sustainable building design goes mainstream Specifiers can achieve Construction Specifier 57( 5 ), 40 48. Construction Management and Economics, 23(8), 781 785. 13. of Architectural Engineering, 7(2), 40 43. Hill Inc., New York. Pexton K (2002). Environmental Building News, Feature < http://www.buildinggreen.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/auth/article.cfm?fileName=110902b.xml > ( Sept. 8, 2006 ). Pulaski, M. H., Horman Michael J. and Riley David R. (2006). Constru ctability practices to Journal of Architectural Engineering 12( 2 ), 83 92. International Transactions, Morgantown, 161. Rwelamila, Management, 12(3), 157 164.

PAGE 77

77 SBTG (Sustainable Buildings Task Group). (2004). Better Buildings Bett er Lives ODPM, DTI & DEFRA, London. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131( 1 ), 23 32. Toman, M. A., R. Lile and D. King. (1998). Assessing sustainability: Some con ceptual and empirical challenges Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Great Britain. Zimmerman, L., and Hart, Glen. (1982). Value engineeri ng, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., New York.

PAGE 78

78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Shanin Johnson was born May 18, 1983 in Tampa, Florida. Shortly after, he moved to south Florida. It was in south Florida that he graduated from Stoneman Douglas High School, and was accepted into the University of Florida. As Shanin wo rked toward his degree in degree in Architecture, he interned for a construction company. It was after this internship that he knew he had to continue his educati on in construction. Along with a couple of internships, the Rinker School of Building Construction has prepared him with the book knowledge and hands on experience to begin a career in the construction industry.