Palmer, A; Kelly, J and Male, S (1996) Holistic appraisal of value engineering in construction in United States. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(4), pp. 324-328. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The use of value engineering in the United States of America has grown significantly in the last twenty years. Advocates of the system claim it is effective in reducing cost and improving the value of construction projects. Others however claim that in reality the technique is little more than traditional cost cutting by another name. This paper makes a holistic appraisal of value engineering as used in the United States of America's construction industry by investigating current theory and practice. It evaluates value engineering projects and calculates the savings achieved by them. It goes on to analyze the nature of those savings. It looks at four VE workshops and makes an appraisal of the technique. Finally it draws overall conclusions about the current position of value engineering in the United States of America.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction industry, workshop, United States of America, savings, construction project, appraisal, United States, value engineering |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, construction type, value management, industry analysis, factor and component analysis, production management, Geography |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here