The next step is to identify which of the functions contains a value mismatch, or in other words seems to have a high contri- bution to the total project cost in relation to the function that it performs. Following on from this the creative phase will concen- trate on these functions. Worth is defined as ‘the lowest overall cost to perform a function without regard to criteria or codes’. Having established the worth and the cost the value index can be calculated. The formula is: value = worth/cost. The benchmark is to achieve a ratio of 1.
The FAST diagram illustrated in Figure 2.15 is characterised by the following:
● The vertical ‘scope line’, which separates and identifies the
highest level function – the task or mission – from the basic and Table 2.3 Example of cost allocation to function
Element: 2G Internal Walls and Partitions Elemental cost: £430 283
Function Cost (£) 3.1 Indentify patients 12 000 3.2 Maintain records 30 000 3.3 Study diagnosis 25 900 3.4 Increase availability 6 900 3.5 Maintain hygiene 7 000 4.1 Refer patient 45 000 4.2 Treat patient 56 000 4.3 Process records 40 000 4.4 Circulate people 60 889 5.1 Counsel patient 26 605 5.2 Reduce stress 4 989 5.3 Protect privacy 38 000 6.1 Comfort patient 34 000 6.2 Appear professional 43 000 £430 283
supporting functions. It is pivotal to the success of a functional analysis diagram that this definition accurately reflects the mis- sion of the project.
● The division of functions into Needs or Basic functions – with
these functions, the project will not meet client requirements and Wants or Supporting functions (usually divided into the four groups previously discussed). The project could still meet the client’s functional requirements if these wants are not met or included.
● The use of verb/noun combinations to describe functions.
How? Why?
Needs – Basic functions
Cost % £000’s 1. Assess condition 28 3.5 2. Diagnose illness 140 17.7 Task or mission
Wants – Supporting functions
3.1 Indentify patients 5 0.7 3. Assure dependability 3.2 Maintain records 80 10.0 3.3 Study diagnosis 3.4 Increase availability 3.5 Maintain hygiene Identify Treatment 4. Assure convenience 4.1 Refer patient 4.2 Treat patient 4.3 Process records 4.4 Circulate people 5. Satisfy user 5.1 Counsel patient 5.2 Reduce stress 5.3 Protect privacy
6. Create image 6.1 Comfort patient 6.2 Appear professional
Figure 2.15 Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram for Cancer Treatment and Research Clinic.
● Reading the diagram from the left and asking the question ‘how
is the function fulfilled?’ provides the solution.
● Reading the diagram from the right and asking the question
‘why?’ identifies the need for a particular function.
● The right-hand side of the diagram allows the opportunity to al-
locate the cost of fulfilling the functions in terms of cost and percentage of total cost.
Therefore, the FAST diagram (Figure 2.15) clearly shows the re- quired identified functions of the project, together with the cost of providing those functions. What now follows is the meat of the work- shop – a creative session that relies on good classic brainstorming of ideas, a process that has been compared by those who have experi- enced it to a group encounter session, the aim of which is to seek al- ternatives. The discussion may be structured or unstructured – Larry Miles was quoted as saying that the best atmosphere to conduct a study was one laced with cigarette smoke and Bourbon, but in these more politically correct times these aids to creativity are seldom employed. The rules are simple. Nobody is allowed to say, ‘That won’t work’. Anybody can come up with a crazy idea. These sessions can generate hundreds of ideas, of which perhaps 50 will be studied fur- ther in the workshop’s Evaluation phase. Those ideas will be revisited and some discussion will take place as to their practicality and value to the client. Every project will have a different agenda. The best of the recommendations are then fully developed by the team, typically on day 4 of the workshop, and studies are carried out into costs and through life costs of a proposed change before presentation to the client on the final day. It is an unfortunate fact of life of the classic 5-day workshop that the team member tasked with costing the rec- ommendations has to work into the night on the penultimate day. Finally, a draft report is approved and a final report is written by the team leader. In addition to the above procedures risk assessment can or, as is thought in some circles, should be introduced into the process. As the value analysts go through and develop value recom- mendations they can be asked to identify risks associated with those recommendations, which can either be quantitative or qualitative. And if brainstorming sounds just a little esoteric to the quantity surveying psyche, take heart; the results of a value engineering work- shop usually produce tangible results that clearly set out the costs and recommendations in a very precise format (Figure 2.16).
The question is often asked are there projects that are beyond value management? The answer is most certainly – yes. There are
many high-profile examples that flaunt the drive to lean construc- tion and these mainly fall into the category of projects for which making a statement either commercially, politically or otherwise is their primary, their highest order function. Flyvbjerg in his book
Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition cites several
examples of international megaprojects that have developed their own unstoppable momentum.
PROJECT
Cancer Treatment and Research Clinic
VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL
Eliminate return duct to ventilation system
DATE
ITEM No H14 OR IGINAL PROPOSAL:
Each room has a return grille and ductwork connecting back to a return fan.
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Eliminate duct return system on individual floors and provide an above ceiling return plenum.
ADVANTAGES:
More available ceiling space
Balancing of return system is simplified
DISADVANTAGES:
Plenum rated cable, tubing and pipe required
May be acoustic transmission problems in walls
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST – 15 Years COST
SUMMARY INITIAL COST
PER ANNUM LIFE CYCLE – PV @ 6% TOTAL LIFE CYCLE COST OR IGINAL PROPOSAL £149 450 £4 000 £38 848 £188 298 VE PROPOSAL £86 000 £2 000 £19 424 £105 424
Figure 2.16 Costs and recommendations of the value engineering proposal.