Alkizim, A O and Green, S (2005) Robustness in value engineering. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
Current value engineering practice tends to emphasize value for money from a functional requirements point of view, seeking 'optimal' solutions to design problems that are assumed to be static and well-defined. Requirements however change with time. Supposedly optimal solutions are frequently outflanked by changing circumstances. Designs therefore ought to have an element of robustness, such that should circumstances change, they are versatile enough to adapt. This paper describes an ongoing PhD research which starts with the contention that a design with an element of 'robustness' enhances the value of a finished product. It is proposed that robustness analysis be incorporated into the value engineering methodology to facilitate/enhance robustness into a design so as to attempt to 'future-proof' it in the face of alternative future scenarios.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | robustness analysis; scenarios; value engineering |
| Index terms: | face, value engineering, value-for-money, methodology |
| Subjects: | psychology, value management, evaluation, research methods |
| Topics: | Value Management, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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