Wao, J O (2014) Value engineering methodology to improve building sustainability outcomes. PhD thesis, University of Florida, USA.
Abstract
Optimum cost, performance and quality are the main drivers in building construction. Increasing and changing requirements of building owners have motivated significant quests for methods to improve the value of sustainable buildings. Methods that have been developed so far such as total quality management, quality function deployment or management by objective have not comprehensively addressed building sustainability outcomes. In fact, there is no value-focused procedure available to steer sustainable building construction. As a result, owners are not provided with adequate value for their buildings. Value engineering is a potential tool to achieve this goal. Therefore, the research aim was to develop value engineering methodology that can be used to improve building sustainability outcomes. The objectives were to develop a new value engineering model and to evaluate the new method with a case study building and expert opinions. The value engineering methods investigated involved conducting value analysis of building systems using conventional value engineering process, i.e., the value analysis standard E1699-10 as the baseline, and the alternative value engineering methods such as performance worth in the function analysis phase, neuro-linguistic programming in the creativity phase, and choosing by advantages in the evaluation phase. The methods were combined and investigated. It was hypothesized that the alternative value engineering methods would improve building sustainability outcomes. The research involved students performing value analysis of an academic and research building facility after being randomly assigned to different teams representing different value engineering methods and/or combinations. Students were surveyed about their opinions of the methods. Also, sustainability faculty experts evaluated the reports of the students relative to achieving building sustainability outcomes by using the LEED assessment checklist. The final stage involved presentations to value engineering practitioners who provided feedback through teleconference discussions and online surveys about the potential limitations identified in the conventional value engineering process and the alternative value engineering methods developed to counter the limitations relative to achieving improved building sustainability outcomes. The findings supported the hypothesis. A framework for modified value engineering methodology was presented to provide avenues that may be followed to achieve improved building sustainability outcomes.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Ries, R |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | sustainability; creativity; feedback; programming; quality function deployment; quality management; total quality management; value engineering; function analysis; case study; sustainable building; owner |
| Index terms: | creativity, case study, function analysis, owner, building sustainability, building system, quality management, quality function deployment, total quality management, value engineering, building construction, value analysis, survey, methodology, sustainable building, programming, practitioner |
| Subjects: | sociology, data collection methods, value management, engineering systems, sustainability and energy, evaluation methods, data science, research methods, sustainable construction, building construction, quality assurance, innovation and creative processes, financial analysis, practitioner, programming |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Cost Management, Research Practice, Quality Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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