HOW TO INSURE QUALITY AND CUT COSTS WITH CULTURAL INSTITUTION VALUE METHODOLOGY A CASE STUDY OF VALUE ENGINEERING ON A HISTORIC RENOVATION PROJECT AT THE SCIENCE MUSEUM OF VIRGINIA, USA
Walter Witschey, Ph. D. and Roger Wulff
The authors wish to thank the following individuals and organizations who have made significant contributions and provided valued input to this article - Kent Cooper, Principal, Cooper*Lecky-CUH2A LLP; Jack Parry, Deputy Director, The Science Museum of Virginia; John Hammond, Facilities Manager, The Science Museum of Virginia; The Science Museum of Virginia's Staff involved in this Study and Edward J. Nichols, CVS (Certified Value Specialist) and President, Edward J. Nichols & Associates, Inc. who has completed over 1500 Value Studies.
In a recent (1993) U.S. National Endowment For The Arts publication dealing with Museum Design and Planning it was stated that:
"Construction managers and owner's representatives can also provide a service called Value Engineering (through a Certified Value Specialist), making alternative recommendations to build comparable structures in a more cost-effective way than had been proposed by the designer or architect."
Although the above states only one of the many aspects and uses of Cultural Institution Methodology, it does point out one of the prime benefits of this methodology to your contributors, to the general public and to its users - cost-effectiveness.
This article will examine a recent Value Methodology Study conducted at The Science Museum of Virginia in the Fall of 1997 and offer some observations and conclusions by the individuals who participated in this study.
The Science Museum of Virginia is a large multi-site, state agency science center. An architecturally significant building, originally designed as a train station, serves as it's headquarters in Richmond, Virginia.
The Broad Street Station, designed by John Russell Pope in 1913, incorporates a harmonious blend of 2,500-year old classical forms in limestone and sandstone with the newest building materials of this century, steel and glass. The result is a Neoclassical Revival building now listed as a National Register Historic Site. Pope also designed the Jefferson Memorial, the National Gallery of Art, and the National Archives in Washington, among other structures.
From this facility, the Museum's staff of over 100 operate programs and exhibit galleries throughout Virginia. The Science Museum operates as a public-visitation site 363 days per year. Attendance exceeds 325,000 most years, and the patrons include families, school groups, and out-of-area visitors. Exhibit galleries, in the fashion of a modern science center, include Forces of Flight, Aerospace, Matter and Molecules, Illusions, Magic, and Science; Optics, Electriworks, Crystal World, Telecommunications, Computer Works, Night Visions, Harvesting the Sun, and Deep Ocean Space. Special purpose spaces include the RF&P Forum (a 200-seat flat floor auditorium), a 10,000 s.f. hall for visiting exhibits, and the Ethyl UNIVERSE Planetarium and Space Theater in a new wing, housing an Omnimax domed-screen theater (for IMAX and Omnimax films) with an Evans and Sutherland Digistar II planetarium projector. The Museum also operates the Virginia Aviation Museum in Sandston, Virginia, the Danville Science Center in Danville Virginia, and the Rice RiverCenter in Richmond, Virginia.
The physical facilities at the Broad Street Station are challenging, to say the least. The Museum Staff has not only been charged with implementing changes necessary for sucessful adaptive reuse of a landmark, but also has been responsible for correcting building problems due to deferred maintenance of the building for a period of two decades. For this task, a six-year three-phase plan to renovate the building was begun in 1976. In 1996, the twentieth anniversary of the plan, final funding was secured for the last half of the third phase. Work commences this Fall, 1998. This final $8 million 80,000 s.f. renovation project was started in a new state climate: one which mandated that value engineering be performed for all state-funded projects exceeding $5 million.
VALUE METHODOLOGY
"Construction managers and owner's representatives can also provide a service called Value Engineering (through a Certified Value Specialist), making alternative recommendations to build comparable structures in a more cost-effective way than had been proposed by the designer or architect." This is where one might find Value Methodology (Engineering) in the Museum World today - hidden within the internal design/construction process. Most museum professionals who have not played a significant role in any recent building or renovation project for their institution are not familiar with the Value Engineering Process or even with the term Value Engineering. The term "Value Methodology" is even less known within the Museum Community.
WHAT IS VALUE METHODOLOGY?
Value Methodology (also known as Value Engineering, Value Analysis, or in other nations, Value For Money) is a professionally applied, function-oriented, systematic, and objective team approach used to analyze and improve value in a product, facility design, system or service. It is a powerful methodology for solving problems and/or reducing costs while improving performance/quality requirements. By enhancing value characteristics, Value Methodology increases customer satisfaction and adds value to your project. Value Methodology can be applied to any business or economic sector, including industry, government, museums, construction, services and programs.
In addition, Value Methodology examines a very important cost factor in any building or systems project, but especially in museum projects - where the emphasis is placed on getting the building built or renovated and very little thought is given to the operating costs of that building once it is constructed and turned over to the museum for operation. Life-Cycle Costing insures this cost factor will be considered early in the design process. For example, it answers the question of what will that HVAC Unit cost the institution to operate over a fifteen year period.
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VALUE METHODOLOGY
Value Methodology has five characteristics that are essential to its success. First, it relies on the use of many widely accepted analysis concepts and techniques. Second, it is a systematic process and follows an eight-step job plan. Third, it focuses on identifying and analyzing the function that the project component(s) or activity fulfills. Fourth, it utilizes creative analysis techniques, especially "brainstorming." Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, Value Methodology is performed by a independent team not associated in any way with the planning-design team or the owner. It draws upon the objective individual and collective viewpoints, experience, and knowledge of its members.
THE JOB PLAN
The systematic approach used in Value Methodology is called the Value Methodology Job Plan. It is an organized plan of action for completing a Value study and includes the implementation of recommended changes.
There are eight elements or phases of the Job Plan:
1. SELECTION PHASE
The objective of this phase is to select the project to be studied and assemble the Value team. This phase is one of the most difficult aspects of this methodology. Not every project requires a study. Some projects involve large sums of money but are relatively straight forward with little opportunity for alternatives. Other projects may involve expensive environmental and collection conservation commitments that may preclude value engineering judgments.
Unusually large and/or complex projects are very good candidates for Value Methodology. Complex projects might include one or more of the following features:
- New Museums, New Buildings or Additions
- Major Museum Renovation Projects
- Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings for Museum Use
- Major Exhibition Projects
- Security systems with many interactive devices and redundancies
- HVAC Systems
- Large scale paving projects and/or those with complex drainage patterns and structures
- Foundation or embankment conditions requiring preconsolidation
- Large retaining walls
- Installation of lighting systems.
Project Selection. In the selection of the project to be studied, consideration should be given to the size of the project, the amount of capital and life-cycle savings feasible, and the cost of the study. Commonly the most cost effective application of Value Methodology is applied to the highest cost components of a facility or project. Typically Value programs set a minimum target of at least five to ten percent, and often more, of savings over and above the cost of the study.* The decision to use VM and its application to a specific project should be discussed at the predesign conference.
THE VALUE TEAM
A team consisting of five to seven persons usually produces the best results. The team should be structured so there is appropriate expertise to evaluate the major problem areas anticipated within the project, e.g., building components, procurement operations, programmatic operations, lighting, security systems, foundations, soils, drainage, environment, etc.
2. INFORMATION PHASE
The objectives of this phase are to gather pertinent information, analyze function and cost, and identify greatest opportunities for life-cycle savings. This approach breaks down the item or task to it's fundamental functions or purpose by answering such questions as - what is it?, what does it do?, how much does it cost?. Data such as that relating to design criteria, plans and specifications, design restrictions, codes, standards, quantities, operations, and maintenance should be assembled. These are needed to familiarize the team on the project scope, establishment of constraints for function and cost evaluation, and to isolate the items of major costs.
* During recent Value Studies conducted by Ed Nichols on three Washington, D.C. Airport Renovation Projects, the ratios of project cost savings over and above the cost of the Value Studies were: Washington Dulles International - 235 to 1; Baltimore Washington Airport - 53 to 1; and Washington National Airport - 100 to 1.
3. CREATIVE PHASE
The objective of this phase is to identify the maximum number of alternatives which will perform the intended function. This is sometimes referred to as the ``brainstorming phase.'' This phase identifies potential alternatives for evaluation, development, and refinement. It asks the question - What else will do the job and how much does it cost?
4. EVALUATION PHASE
The objective of this phase is to evaluate the suggested alternatives, eliminate unsuitable ideas, and select the most promising alternatives. This is a key element of the process, the determination of those ideas which will provide the required function(s) with the mandatory degree of reliability, safety, impact on operations, and other design criteria. Here the question of will it work is asked and the total costs are compared along with intangible factors.
5. DEVELOPMENT PHASE
The objective of this phase is to develop specific details about each promising alternative and prepare recommendations. A fully developed alternate is often called a value engineering proposal (VEP).
6. RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVAL PHASE
The objectives of this phase are to recommend VEPs developed in the study and to obtain the approval of the sponsor for their inclusion in the final design. Prior to presenting the VEPs to the sponsor, the VE team must make recommendations to the original design team or the project management team. Recommendations should include the following: results of the function analysis, technical and cost data supporting the alternatives, problems and costs of implementation, and estimated life-cycle savings or increase. At this point the most logical and feasible alternatives are selected by mutual agreement between the original design team and the users/owners jointly with the VE Team. The agreed upon alternatives are then recommended to the sponsor for final approval.
7. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
The objective of this phase is to put the accepted recommendations into practice. After the VEP has been approved by the sponsor, it is incorporated into the final design and construction schedule. The responsibility to incorporate and implement the change rests with the design team or the project management team. Action should be taken to ensure that it is fully coordinated and applied.
8. AUDIT PHASE
The objective of this phase is to ensure that the desired results have been attained, documented, and reported. The results of the VE effort should be incorporated in the engineers' report showing what VEP's were adopted and the life-cycle savings associated with each VEP.
History of Value Methodology
Value Methodology was developed during World War II by U.S. industry as a means to continue production in the face of shortages of critical war material by substituting materials or systems that were available to accomplish the required task. Larry Miles, an Engineer at The General Electric Company, is generally credited with the development of the technique then known as "Value Analysis."
The U.S. Navy's Bureau of Ships in 1954 applied the concept to reduce costs during the design stage and called it ``Value Engineering'' mainly due to the fact that government documents did not contain the terminology "Analysis" - those documents did contain the word "Engineering."
The Department of Defense (DOD) accepted VE as a practical means of obtaining the best practical value from its procurements and adopted VE in contract clauses under the Armed Forces Procurement Regulations (AFPR) in 1961, permitting contractor incentives in sharing VE contract cost reductions.
MILESTONES IN THE HISTORY OF VALUE METHODOLOGY
1947 - Larry Miles evolves the step-by-step methodology, relating product function and cost, which he calls value analysis.
1952 - Larry Miles conducts the first VA workshop for General Electric Employees.
1954 - The Navy Bureau of Ships, searching for the means to reduce the cost of ships and equipment, obtains VA training from GE. The Navy calls its programs value engineering.
1956 - The Army Ordnance Corps initiates its VE programs at Watervliet Arsenal. The programs are rapidly expanded because of rewarding results.
1958 - Miles receives the Navy Distinguished Service Award, the Navy's highest civilian award, for his work in value engineering.
1959 - The Society of American Value Engineers is founded in Washington, D.C.
1961 - VE contract clauses, which permit contractors to share VE cost savings, are established in the Armed Services Procurement Regulations.
1962 - The Department of Defense proclaims the VE contract incentive clause a requirement in contracts of more than $100,000.00.
1963 - The Navy Bureau of Yards and Docks begins applying value
engineering to construction projects.
1964 - The Army Corps of Engineers initiates its VE programs.
1965 - A Japanese delegation visits SAVE for assistance with problems, marking the start of VE programs in Japan.
1966 - The Bureau of Reclamation implements the requirement of VE incentive clauses in construction contracts.
1967 - The U. S. Postal Service institutes limited VE programs.
1969 - The NASA Office of Facilities begins VE Studies and training.
1970 - The U. S. Congress recommends value engineering for federally funded highway projects.
1970 - The General Services Administration begins its Building VE programs.
1971 - The Department of Health, Education and Welfare adopts value engineering for special construction.
1972 - The Veterans Administration institutes limited VE programs.
1973 - SAVE establishes programs for certifying value specialists.
1974 - The GSA imposes requirements for certified value specialists in building design.
1977 - The Lawrence D. Miles Foundation is incorporated.
1980 - Miles is awarded the Presidential Citation by the Society of
Japanese Value Engineers.
1982 - The Department of Defense establishes its honorary VE award programs.
1985 - Lawrence Delos Miles, the father of value engineering, dies on August 1.
1987 - The Governor of Minnesota declares the week of May 23 - Value Engineering Week.
1988 - The Governor of Indiana declares the week of June 11 - Value Engineering Week.
1993 - The Office of Management & Budget issues a circular calling for government wide use of value engineering.
1996 - Public Law 104-106 requires each executive agency of the U.S. Federal Government to establish and maintain cost-effective VE procedures and processes on every project $ 1,000,000.00 in value and over.
CURRENT USE
Currently all of the DOD's operating agencies have adopted VE in their procurement programs, including construction, as have The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and agencies of the Department of Transportation (DOT) including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Authority (FTA formerly UMTA). The Department of Interior and it's National Park Service have initiated plans for VE/VA Studies within the U.S. National Parks System.
The FAA achieved life-cycle savings of $65 million on one construction project alone (airport cable loops/telecommunications), and the FTA reported life-cycle savings of $2.18 million on a bus maintenance facility. Other agencies have reported large life-cycle savings in construction programs, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with life-cycle savings of $235 million over a 5-year period, the General Services Administration (GSA) which reported life-cycle savings of $43.4 million over the period 1972 to 1979, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which reported life-cycle savings of $2 billion over the period 1964 to 1989. VE provides both the funding agency and the sponsor of a project with the opportunity and the means to not only improve the project but to substantially reduce capital and life cycle costs and reduce the total amount of time in the overall project schedule.
FUNDAMENTALS OF VALUE ENGINEERING
The Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 52.248, defines value engineering as an organized effort to analyze the functions of systems, equipment, facilities, services, and supplies for the purpose of achieving essential functions at the lowest life-cycle cost consistent with required performance, quality, and safety. VE is an important management tool for optimizing expenditures of funds. Numerous government and private organizations have realized significant life-cycle savings since VE was first introduced, and although the techniques were developed for manufacturing and fabrication processes it has been equally applicable to the design of transportation facilities and construction/renovation projects. Engineers have been doing this type of analysis as a matter of course in their work since engineering was developed. The difference is that VE is an organized approach for a second look using a consistent set of concepts to optimize the difference between the cost of doing the construction and the cost of satisfying the user of the facility constructed. Reducing the scope of a project, or compromising the performance of an element, or simply substituting cheaper materials that will not function with the required reliability is not value engineering. The key feature of VE is the user-oriented approach.
Reduced to it's simplest terms, it asks five basic questions:
1. What is it?
2. What does it do?
3. What does it cost?
4. What else will do the job?
5. What does that cost?
TIMING
VE, as it relates to the engineering and design of projects, is most effective when it is accomplished early in the design phase of the project. VE is most effective during these early stages because the ideas are still conceptual and the sponsor and the designer can be flexible with their decisions without incurring delays in the project schedule. The sponsor and designer should be examining their project budget at this point and performing a VE study can help them identify high cost elements before the final budget is decided. Once major decisions, those involving high cost items, are made the opportunity to influence final costs is greatly reduced.
Value engineering studies for construction projects should be conducted at about the 30 percent completion point of design (although comtemporary utilization of VE within the Federal Government is now occurring during the "charrette" stage of the design process - where owners/users get together with the designers to establish building program needs). This partially completed design will be value engineered. There may be instances where value engineering at the 30% or 35% design stage is not appropriate. For example, construction phasing can have a significant impact on costs but not be determined until late in the design process.
THE POTENTIAL OF VALUE METHODOLOGY IN MUSEUMS AND OTHER CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS FOR PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES
As one will note from the foregoing, the use of Value Methodology for Design/Construction and Renovation Projects in museum and other cultural institutions is a foregone conclusion, even in states where its use is not mandated by law. Value Methodology's role in saving money and assuring quality in these processes is well documented in the public and private sectors.
Value Methodology's role in other, non-engineering types of activities, is not so well documented due to the fact that Value Methodology is just now being accepted in these "softer - people-oriented - areas" where cost savings are a bit more difficult to document. However in these areas, other non-cost associated benefits such as, determining the mission and identifying possible alternative directions, come to the forefront.
Let us now turn to some operational concerns within the Federal Government where Value Methodology is now mandated by law. Although the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-131 indicates that Value Engineering should be used as a management tool in all operations, for many agencies it remains conspicuously underutilized.
Many administrators require convincing evidence that the projected value study benefits are "real" and significantly exceed the projected value study cost. Most administrative and procurement officials have been less exposed to the benefits, and hence, are less open to the use of the Value Method on their programs. Many of these managers have not even heard of the process. Others are unaware of its potential benefits and are unfamiliar with the costs of a value study.
Traditionally, the project or process benefitting from the value study pays the cost of conducting it. For administrative or procurement processes, a proposed study may compete directly with salaries. Therefore, administrative and procurement mangers do not perceive that immediate benefits are obtainable through a value study.
Another consideration affecting acceptance is that an administrative or procurement related activity may have an associated legislated or "hidden" agenda. The intent of these agendas may have good motives behind them. However, in such situations the responsible individuals or organizations may prefer that the agenda be less open to scrutiny. Value studies, by virtue of their very design, will usually expose these agendas. The issues of potential loss of funds for salaries, potential affects on management prerogatives, and the lack of a mandated requirement that includes a penalty for nonperformance have delayed the adoption of the Value Method for use on non-construction related programs, projects, activities, and processes.
Overcoming Obstacles
Value training, presentations at meetings, and personal contacts must be utilized to inform administrative and procurement officials of the benefits possible by using the Value Method in their operations.
One problem identified in the administrative and procurement arena was the word "engineering" in Value Engineering. Accordingly, adopting the less specific and less technical terms of "Value Methodology" and "Value Method" for the procedures, the general term "value studies" for their application, and the term "Value Program" for the overall activities seems to assist in our efforts.
To assist in understanding the process used in a certain application, four distinct types of value studies can be identified.
* Value Engineering Study. This is a value study of an engineering or construction related activity. An independent, multi-discipline team conducts it. Such independent teams are formed using team members which have not had significant prior involvement in the project under study. The most common timing for the value study is at the concept (25-40 percent of design complete) phase, prior to management briefings and decisions that set the direction for final design.
* Value Planning Study. This is a value study performed at the initial phases of a program, project, process, or activity. The purpose of this type of value study is usually to determine mission and identify possible alternative directions. It often optimizes both the mission objectives and the operations to get the project initiated (e.g., procured, programmed, designed, and organized). Scoping, re-invention, criteria/limits, and other similar types of specialized value studies are considered subsets of this type of study.
* Value Management Study. This is a value study that involves management of resource issues. In some situations, this type of study may involve answering a specific mission charge or question for management. Consequently, the value study team may be directed, depending on the "charge" to the team, to not consider the question of whether going a particular direction is best. Management or the administration may set the direction, and the "charge" to the value study team is to find alternatives to implement this direction at the greatest value obtainable.
* Value Analysis Study. This is a value study performed to study
processes, procedures, or repetitive program activities. As defined by Reclamation, such studies may also involve answering a specific mission charge or question. These definitions allow reviewers of a study to quickly understand its scope and limits. To ensure the opportunity to achieve the highest value, Value Program staff attempt to keep management or administration directed mission charges flexible enough to allow innovation. Further, VE studies, by definition, remain totally independent.
Some recent examples of Process Related Value Study Results In The Federal
Government include:
Interior-wide Value Engineering Indefinite Quantities
Contract. Completed in December 1993, this study developed and examined selection and measurement criteria for an indefinite quantity contract for Value Engineering and Cost Estimating Services for Interior. The study used the criteria analysis to identify issues for use in subsequent negotiations to select a contractor. The value study clarified selection issues and generated a consensus among decision makers.
Reclamation Service Center, Building 67, Personnel
Relocation and Floor Renovation. Two studies were initially proposed. The first proposed study was an examination of the relocation of organizations in the building necessitated by a 1994 reorganization. The second study was to examine the renovation and required layout of the floors for the relocated groups. Management determined that a generalized floor renovation and layout study would be done first (August 1994), with the organizational relocation study to follow. Because of this generalized study, management adopted proposals that generated about $1,600,000 in cost avoidance over 10-years and fostered a generally improved staff satisfaction with the renovation effort. However, after completion of the renovation study, management canceled the study for organizational relocation.
Reclamation Library, Videotape, and Photographic
Resources. This was a Value Analysis study completed in January 1995. The team was asked to identify: 1) the major services provided by the library, 2) the essential needs served by library services, 3) if a library was the best way to meet the identified essential needs, and 4) recommendations of the way to meet the identified essential needs. The value study resulted in decisions to retain the library, replace some services with higher value products, improve access for some services, discontinue some services, and improve service capacity by doing more
cross-training and increasing the required expertise for one staff position. Beyond the many non-monetary benefits attained, the study proposals adopted saved about $426,000 over a five-year period.
Mni Wiconi Criteria/Limits Analysis. This specialized
value study was facilitated for the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and West River/Lyman-Jones Water Districts. Reclamation has facilitated several planning and concept value studies for the overall Mni Wiconi Project. These studies involve multiple entities ranging from the above clients only; to the above clients, two states, several counties, Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, and a host of others. The purpose of the criteria and limits analysis was to bring the
clients and stakeholders together, speed the acceptance processes, and set the stage for more than $260,000,000 (1992 prices) in construction related work. Many subsequent activities, including nearly ten value studies performed to date, have used the results from this March 1995 analysis.
California Undersea Aqueduct Reconnaissance Report Technology Update. In the mid-1970's, Reclamation conducted a feasibility study to examine the potential for building a system to deliver Northern California fresh water to the southern part of California. Part of the water would meet United States obligations to Mexico for quantity and quality of Colorado River water. Due to client inquiries, regional personnel requested an update of the previous work and its costs. Due to several technical and political issues, the chance of obtaining funding for a project of the magnitude of the Undersea Aqueduct was considered remote. The value study approach was selected to help improve study performance and keep the costs of revisiting the concept low. Completed in June 1994, in addition to significant savings in study related costs, the value study demonstrated that it was possible to reduce the aqueduct delivery cost from $4,460 per acre-foot to $3,380 per acre-foot. Further, the costs to provide water by alternative desalination technology appeared to be significantly less than use of an undersea aqueduct and had much less environmental risk. The value study results satisfied concerns that an undersea aqueduct concept should be revisited by the Government.
Seismic Safety Alternatives. Executive Order (EO) 12941 implements a part of the Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act of 1977. In preparation for subsequent upgrading to improve seismic safety, it requires agencies to inventory, screen, and evaluate existing Federally owned or leased buildings regarding seismic resistance. Interior managers decided to use a value study to examine the EO requirements and recommend various methods to implement Interior's EO response. The study was essentially complete in November 1995. It improved knowledge and consensus among the staff expected to be involved in implementing the EO, identified many resources and cooperative opportunities available to reduce the cost of doing the work, and generated cost information for use in budget requests. Further, the study and its subsequent presentations, assisted Interior in generating management awareness and administrative support for Interior's EO compliance activities.
Interior-wide Value Engineering Reporting Process to
OMB. Reclamation offered its part of their OMB report to Interior as a class project for a December 1995 Society of American Value Engineers certified Module I Workshop. Although, the team expertise was limited and a complete value study of the process and requirements was not possible within the confines of a class type study, this study did produce valuable ideas for future study and discussions. One proposal with potentially high value was to provide Internet access to agency Value Program database records. Each agency bureau or office could update their record regularly. This would make it more available to OMB, agency heads, and the public. Further it would negate the need for end-of-year or other hard copy reports. However, before implementing this process, OMB and at least five of the main reporting agencies should perform an analysis of the function and value added for the data involved.
California Gulch Superfund Site, Operable Unit 6 Removal Action. The local community had concerns about the progress of site-wide operations and other issues. To help address these concerns, Region 8 of the Environmental Protection Agency decided to use a value study in place of its Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis EE/CA process for the Leadville, Colorado Operable Unit 6 site. The study cultivated a consensus between governmental entities, improved acceptance of the community of the involved remedial activities, and may allow development of an earlier site-wide environmental quality criteria that meet the Superfund designation objectives. While final determination of the results will not be complete for some time, the value study has the potential to reduce the costs of the EE/CA activities by more than 40 percent and the cost of the removal activity by as much as 80 percent ($14,000,000). This study also included the consideration of important Historic Resources - namely the appearance and structure of historic mine refuse heaps.
Value Methodology is just beginning to find its way into the Programmatic Activities of The Federal Government and the Cultural and Museum Communities should not be far behind. Its use in Museum Design/Construction Projects is a "foregone conclusion," is mandatory for Federal Governmental Agencies and many states are beginning to enact legislation requiring its use. However, Value Methodology has been "buried" within the Design/Construction Process and very few cultural and museum professionals are aware of its existence - nor of the fact that it can be utilized in the planning process and program operations.
Since the use of Value Methodology in programs and activities brings into play important "human-oriented" factors, some very important personal and psychological reasons for not utilizing Value Methodology must be addressed and overcome.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA'S APPROACH TO VALUE IN DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION AND THE SCIENCE MUSEUM OF VIRGINIA
In Virginia, the Governor's approval of state construction projects is vested in the Sectretary of Administration, Department of General Services, Division of Engineering and Buildings. Approvals, for an agency with capital outlay management staff, occur in multiple stages: beginning with funding requests, continuing through architectural design, and concluding with final inspections. When buildings of historical significance are involved, the Department also requests recommendations from the state Department of Historic Resources.
A portion of the approval process may include value engineering, usually concurrent with the 35% completion of design. The process contemplated is described in the Code of Virginia as follows.
Value engineering in Virginia is relatively new. A bill to require value engineering in state projects was first introduced at the General Assembly in January 1994. The bill was passed into law that year, becoming a part of the Code of Virginia.
The Code of Virginia sets forth the current requirements to conduct
Value Engineering as shown below.
Code of Virginia § 2.1-483.1:1
Use of value engineering
The Department of General Services, through its Division of Engineering and Buildings, shall ensure that value engineering is employed for any capital project costing more than five million dollars. Value engineering may also be used for any project costing five million dollars or less. For purposes of this section, "value engineering" means a systematic process of review and analysis of a capital project by a team of persons not originally involved in the project. Such team, which shall include appropriate professionals licensed in accordance with Chapter 4 (§54.1-400 et seq.) of Title 54.1, may offer suggestions that would improve project quality and reduce total project cost by combining or eliminating inefficient or expensive parts or steps in the original proposal or by totally redesigning the project using different technologies, materials, or methods.
The Director of the Department of General Services may waive the requirements of this section for any proposed capital project for compelling reasons. Any such waiver shall be in writing, state the reasons for the waiver, and apply only to a single capital project. The Director of the Department of General Services shall report annually to the Governor and the General Assembly on the (i) number and value of the capital projects where value engineering was employed and (ii) identity of the capital projects for which a waiver of the requirements of this section was granted, including a statement of the compelling reasons for granting the waiver.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has several state-agency museums which fall under this law: The Science Museum of Virginia, the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation, Gunston Hall, the Frontier Culture Museum, the Virginia Museum of Natural History, and the Virginia Museum of Natural History. All are planning or implementing major renovation or construction projects. Wherever the expenditures exceed $5 million, value engineering is required. For smaller projects, it may be optionally employed. At the Science Museum of Virginia, it was recently used to review a project titled Phase III B & C, Renovation of the East and West Wings.
Our project, as mentioned above, is the culmination of a 1976 plan that sets forth the phased renovation of the Broad Street Station, and completing its adaptation to a modern science center.
The current project is designed to achieve several goals:
1. renovate the east and west wings, converting them from 1919-era office space into usable, programmable museum space. The two wings are virtually identical hollow-core squares of offices. The project will gut the existing space and rebuild its interior from basement to fourth floor roof.
2. improve these areas of the Museum to conform to modern building codes, especially fire and ADA codes. Today, the wings with their cramped stairways and 1919 elevators fail to meet modern standards. The project will address these needs.
3. increase the net amount of space available. The two wings, as designed, have hollow cores on floors 1-4, roofed over at the 2nd story ceiling, include a large skylight, and have windows facing the central core on floors 3 and 4. The new project will roof over both cores at the 4th floor ceiling, adding net usable space. In addition, the core east wing will have a floor added at level 2.
4. remove central skylights and windows in the central core of each wing to reduce maintenance costs and improve energy efficiency. Roofing over the central cores at the level of the 4th floor ceiling will accomplish this.
5. create new exhibition space. Much of the space originally devoted to offices for railroad officials will be converted to public exhibition space, or to a new theater.
6. create a new theater. In the core of the west wing, on levels 3
and 4, a stepped theater with advanced A-V equipment will be constructed for Museum programs. (This will supplement a multi-purpose theater/orientation space and a domed-screen Omnimax Theater/Planetarium.
7. create efficient museum offices. A portion of the renovated space will be devoted to new, smaller offices, as well as open-plan offices for Museum staff.
8. convert the building circulation patterns from their linear-horizontal pattern, to a circulatory-horizontal-vertical pattern. The original railroad station design provided for front entry, and a direct path past ticketing to the concourse-waiting room area. Our Museum now employs multiple levels of the building for public use, not only were passengers on one level, the office wings (which this project renovates) were virtually invisible to rail patrons inside the building. This project will add two skywalks
and two glass-encased elevators, and open the wing walls facing the building core. This will not only provide sightlines to the second and thrid floor exhibit and theater areas for our visitors, but also show them the elevators and walkways that provide the access. The new access patterns will be visible and inviting.
The architectural firm of record for the Science Museum's project is Cooper Lecky CUH2A, LLP. They are fully committed to participate in the value engineering process, and have stated, following the present VE Study: It has been a privilege for us to work on the renovation of the Science Museum. This is an important project for our firm and most especially for those who will visit the facility in the future. This has also been a challenging project. As a historic renovation project, there are far more restrictions than on a new project. Added structurural strengthening is an example of an issue that emerged during the design process that we had not envisioned when we started the project. Additional structural strength for higher floor loadings required the design of additional footers and columns to be built within the existing structure.
In addition, the Richmond, Virginia market has been unpredictable, making cost estimating very difficult. As a result, by September we predicted the project would be over budget. (They refer to the fact that over $1.5 billion of construction was underway in the Richmond area in the fall of 1997.) These issues of budget, and major structural changes coincided with the value engineering process.
The design team's participation in the process was extremely important. (1) We were able to set a context to our work, answer questions, and respond to the value engineering team's suggestions. Without our participation and the support of the Museum staff, the process would not have been as useful. The value engineering team, with its restricted review schedule, needs to rely on the design team and client for critical information.
There were some important contributions by the value engineering team. One example was a recommendation to use a fireproofing product for steel structural members that was not widely known in this country. This allowed us to meet the original design objectives for the appearance of a pair of elevators and connecting bridge walkways without increasing the project cost.
(1.) It is the philosophy of Museum Services International and Edward J. Nichols & Associates, Inc., not only to fully include the Museum Staff and the Design Team in the Value Methodology Study, but to have the disicipline of Architecture represented on the Value Engineering Team by including an Architect as a Team Member.
"Perhaps the most important contribution of the value engineering process was to force the architectural and engineering design teams to analyze their assumptions. From this analysis, we were able to give the Museum a menu of items that could be deleted from the project to keep it within budget."
Edward J Nichols & Associates, Inc (as the prime contractor) and Museum Services International (as the Museum Subcontractor) involvement with this Value Engineering Study began with both organizations responding to the following notice:
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 146-98-0001
The Science Museum of Virginia is solicting proposals for A/E Services for Value Engineering Studies.
The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to enter into a Contract through competitive negotiations for Professional Services to provide one or more Value Engineering Studies on projects as the agency shall direct.
The study shall be conducted by a qualified VE Team on the project preliminary design documents utilizing the five-step job plan recoginzed by the Society of American Value Engineers
(SAVE). The successful proposer shall provide the professional services for the VE Study as described in Chapter 8, Section 814, of the A/E manual as revised.
Sealed reponses to this "Request for Proposal" must be received no later than 4:00 PM EST, Tuesday, July 15, 1997.
If proposals are mailed, send directly to: Issuing Agency: Science Museum of Virginia Office of Facilities Management 2500 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23220
All inquires for information should be directed to:
John Hammond
Fax # (804) 3648
E Mail: JHAMMOND@SMV.MUS.VA.US
Edward J. Nichols and Museum Services International put together a short proposal outlining the qualifications and experience of both organizations and the qualifications of the proposed VE Team for this study utilizing Mr. Nichols philosophy of team dynamics:
Establish a cooperative and professional relationship with the owners and the designers by selecting a non-adversarial team (and having no two team members from the same firm and all approved by the owners and designers).
This: Enhances the objectivity of the study- By eliminating potential conflicts of interest Realizes a more productive study- By eliminating sterotyped thinking Promotes unbiased expressions of opinions by Team Members.
the proposal also outlined Mr. Nichols' Quality Management Program based upon one of Dr. Edward Deming's 14 points: "Improve constantly the system of production and service to improve the quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs," however our proposal contained no cost figures whatsoever.
After a short period of time, we found that we had been selected "on a short list" to make a presentation to the Museum Staff Members involved with this project, the Project Architects (Cooper*Lecky CUH 2A, INC) and a Member of the Museum's Board of Trustees. Three of the proposed VE Team Members met at the Science Museum in Richmond where we again outlined the qualifications of both organizations, and the qualifications of the proposed VE Team consisting of Mr. Edward J. Nichols, P.E., CVS (Certified Value Specialist) and the VE Team Leader; Mr. Roger Wulff, Museum Specialist; Mr. Donald L. Strange-Boston, AIA, P.E., Architect; Mr. Mark A. Elder, P.E., Mechanical Engineer and Mr. Larry R. Collier, PE., Electrical Engineer.
Mr. Edward Nichols, The VE Team Leader, made the main presentation, outlining his 36 years of experience in Value Methodology, the basic methodology of the 40 Hour VE Study, what would be studied, and the possible results of this study in the areas of Capital Cost Savings and Life Cycle Cost Savings. After the formal presentation was completed, the Museum Officials asked the VE Team Members a number of important questions concerning the composition of the VE Team and its proposed operation.
About a week after we made our presentation at the museum, we learned we had been selected for a one year contract to provide Value Methodology Services and this initial VE Study to The Science Museum of Virginia (one of the first "stand alone" Value Engineering Studies conducted in the Museum Community and one of the first conducted under the new law mandating VE Studies on all major state-funded construction projects in The Commonwealth of Virginia).
As the VE Team Leader, Mr. Ed Nichols started arranging for and coordinating the logistics of the actual study; negotiating the total cost of the study with the museum, establishing the actual dates for the week of the study, coordinating internally with the VE Team in preparation for the study and working with the Project Designers on the initial Information Gathering Phase of the Study.
Once the actual VE Study Week was established, The VE Team Members met at The Science Museum in Richmond, Virginia where we were escorted to the large room which was to be our home for the entire week of the study. During that first day, the VE Team had an initial meeting with Museum Officials, the Project Designers and Regulatory Personnel, continued the initial Infomation Gathering Phase, obtaining very detailed information and drawings on the proposed Renovation Design Project at the 40% Completion Phase. An outline agenda for our VE Study can be found in the Appendix.
The two individuals on the museum's staff primarily responsible for coordinating information and activities in connection with this study were Mr. Jack Parry, Deputy Director, and Mr. John Hammond, Facilities Manager. Both were present during the initial meeting on Monday morning, with Mr. Hammond assuming the lion's share of the work in interacting with the VE Team during the entire week of the study and providing any and all documentation requested (including allowing the VE Team to examine the original Pope Architectural Drawings for the building - a rare opportunity for a building of this age).
6. Experiences and Observations Concerning The VE Study at The Science Museum of Virginia (Walter and Roger)
A. Walter's Internal Observations - Description of the conduct of the VE study at the museum
ROGER'S
For a Museum Professional with no previous knowledge of or experience in the field of Value Methodology, participating in this study provided a rare opportunity to be introduced to an exciting new methodology which holds a tremendous potential for the international cultural institution community for constant programmatic improvement, and quality assurance - while possessing the very real (and well- documented) promise of cutting costs at the same time. And, what organizations can benefit more from cost cutting than the cultural institutions of the world - where funding is always a primary concern of Government Ministers, Board Members, Administrators and Staff.
The Value Engineering alternatives and proposals (suggestions for improvement in the reliability of systems, Capital Cost Savings or Life Cycle Cost improvement) by this VE Team were many and varied;
One alternative mentioned earlier by the designers was the use of fire-resistant paint (intumescent paint system) used to fireproof steel columns - the designers had proposed fireproofing these steel columns with gypsum board systems at a cost of $ 8,349.00. Utilizing this paint system (which accomplished the same function) the cost was $1,800.00. A savings of $ 6,549.00.
Another alternative recommended using two coats of paint on the interior of the building instead of the standard three. Standard painting specifications normally call for one primer coat of paint and two finish paint coats. Our alternative recommended using one primer coat of paint (tinted to the final paint color if necessary) plus one final finish coat.
Initial Capital Cost Savings for this recommendation was $ 35,362.00.
Another alternative recommended using a Raft Foundation in lieu of Piles. As Designed, a drilled-in "mini-pile system is provided, installed through the basement slab, supplementing the existing pile foundation at the perimeter of the courtyards above to accept the added load of infill floors and roofs. Our alternative: Remove basement slab below entire infill area, excavate enough earth to compensate for the entire dead load to be added above, fill the void with polystyrene and support the columns on a concrete raft foundation.
The cost as designed was $ 467,443.00 - the alternative cost is $ 178,578.00 = a savings of $ 288,865.00.
Another alternative recommended providing electric VAV terminal heat in lieu of hot water. As designed, the terminal VAV units are provided with hot water heating coils. Air handling units are provided with hot water PRE-heat coils. The alternative recommended providing terminal units with electric heating coils. Leave the air handlers with hot water pre-heat coils. The initial capital cost savings (derived from less expensive heat coils and reduced pipe distribution) is $ 196,823.00 and the estimated electrical energy cost savings is $ 30,230.00 = $ 227,053.00 Total Savings.
Another alternative involved providing water meters for cooling tower makeup water and blowdown. Many large cooling tower users meter the tower makeup water and blowdown to save on sewage cost. Since the evaporated water does not go to the local sewer, a credit is usually possible with the local utility company if the amount of evaporated water can be quantified. This would be the total makeup water volume minus the blowdown. For an investment of $ 300.00 for a water meter system, the users estimated annual sewage cost savings would be $ 3,264.00 and over an eleven year period - the savings would be $36,753.00.
However, one of the most creative and cost saving alternatives, involved the proposed air handling systems for the renovated museum:
The VE Team recommended consolidating air handlers into one large built-up unit and use as a permanent exhibition of scientific principles.
As designed, there were a combination of 12 constant and variable volume air handlers with associated return fans and outside air louvers throughout the renovated space.
The alternative suggested is to consolidate all renovation air handling into a single custom designed, field fabricated air handler. Central return and supply ducts risers penetrate each floor and provide primary air connections to each terminal. Access to the main (very large - walk-through) air handler unit would be available to the museum staff for interpretations of scientific principles to the museum visitors. The total cost for the 12 units was $ 534,671.00.
The estimated capital cost savings derived from reduced number of air handlers and distribution piping is $ 147,418.00 and the estimated maintenance cost savings over a period of 11 years is $ 61,930.00 = $ 209,348.00 Total Savings - plus a permanent science exhibition.
The total cost savings of allValue Alternatives for this Value Methodology Study was in the range of $ 1,287,549.00.
This Value Methodology Study produced a number of alternatives and VE Proposals which drew upon the creativity of all individuals involved - and which were completely documented in their proposed cost savings.
Although Cultural Institution Value Methodology functions as a highly detailed planning and programming tool for institutional personnel of all disciplines, human factors loom large in the applicability of its findings or proposals - or indeed - whether the Value Methodology process is utilized at all.
In jurisdictions where Value Methodology is not mandated by law, the Instititution, its governing body and staff must answer to their contributors, and in some cases to their local taxpayers, for the operation of that institution in the most efficient and cost- effective manner possible. Therefore, these individuals, especially the decision makers, are the individuals who will be and are responsible for educating themselves about the benefits of utilizing this methodology for all major projects and programs within the institution. For this important group of individuals, the best and most cost- effective source of information and education are Cultural Institution Value Methodology Workshops or obtaining the services of an independent Value Methodology consultant.
Cultural Institution Value Methodology allows these decision makers to achieve that goal by instilling quality (value for money) into projects and programs, while usually cutting overall costs. All of the planners, users and decision makers involved in a major program or building project should realize this methodology will lead them to a new way of "thinking through" the activity and provide them with an additional tool for improving that activity and cutting costs, at a very early stage in the total planning process.
With the introduction of Value Methodology to the Cultural and Museum Communities, we have an excellent opportunity to put real meaning into the term - "Economuseology."
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY AGENDA FOR THE VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY AT SMV
NOTE: TIMES SHOWN MAY VARY
MONDAY
8:00 AM VE TEAM VE Team convenes to discuss issues/questions/team concerns/information needed as a result of project document review by the VE Team prior to the VE Study.
9:30 AM DESIGNERS 1. VE Overview/Philosophy - E Nichols
OWNERS/USERS 2. Project Description - Designers/Owners
REGULATORY 3. Questions/Answers/Identify concerns
PERSONNEL 4. Discuss scope and constraints of the VE Study
5. DESIGNERS, OWNERS, USERS, AND REGULATORY PERSONNEL PARTICIPATE IN SELECTING EVALUATION CRITERIA AND THEIR RELATIVE WEIGHTS TO RATE VE TEAM'S CREATIVE IDEAS
11:30 AM LUNCH
12:30 PM VET VET and interested parties (optional) review project Documents (write down ideas and concerns during Review) in preparation for Creative Idea Phase.
1:30 PM VET Commence Function Analysis of project and Component systems (FAST diagram, if appropriate)
2:30 PM VET Commence Creative Idea Phase
4:30 PM VET Commence Evaluation Phase
6:00 PM ADJOURN
TUESDAY
8:00 AM VET Continue Evaluation Phase
ALL IDEAS ARE EVALUATED AND WEIGHED FOR FEASIBILITY, BENEFITS AND CONSTRAINTS
Site Visit
NOTE: PRIOR TO COMMENCING
DEVELOPMENT PHASE, THE IDEAS THE VE TEAM HAS TENTATIVELY SELECTED FOR DEVELOPMENT ARE DISCUSSED WITH DESIGNERS/OWNERS/USERS/REGULATORY PERSONNEL FOR THEIR INPUT AND CONCURRENCE OR REJECTION (see Thursday At 4:30 p.m.)
10:30 AM VET Commence Development Phase - Team develops cost and technical spects of selected VE ideas
11:30 AM LUNCH
12:30 PM VET Continue Development Phase - All work reviewed by
VE Team Leader
6:00 PM ADJOURN
WEDNESDAY
8:00 AM VET Continue Development Phase
11:30 AM LUNCH
12:30 PM VET Continue Development Phase Review VE Suggestions with Owners/users/Designers/Regulatory Personnel on
Select VE suggestions.
6:00 PM ADJOURN
THURSDAY
8:00 AM VET Continuation of Development Phase
11:30 AM LUNCH
12:30 PM VET Continuation of Development Phase
4:30 PM VET STOP WORK - ALL VE IDEAS TO BE
DESIGNERS REVIEWED BY VET/PROJECT DESIGNERS/
USERS USERS/OWNERS OWNERS REGULATORY PERSONNEL
NOTE: THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS REVIEW IS TO ENSURE THAT ONLY VIABLE CANDIDATES FOR CONSIDERATION BY VET/PROJECT DESIGNERS/OWNERS/USERS/REGULATORY PERSONNEL ARE RETAINED FOR THE PRESENTATION ON FRIDAY.
6:00 PM ADJOURN
FRIDAY
8:00 AM VET Preparation for VE Team Presentation
9:00 AM VET Commence verbal presentation to owners, users,
DESIGNERS designers, with discussion and question/answer
USERS period.
OWNERS
12:00 Adjourn - after completion of Q & A period.
WITHIN TWO WEEKS, THE OWNERS, USERS, AND THE DESIGNERS WILL RECEIVE A COMPLETE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE VALUE METHODOLOGY STUDY IN LOOSE-LEAF NOTEBOOK FORMAT.
THE MUSEUM OF NEW ZEALAND TE PAPA TONGAREWA - WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND
A brief personal report on the use of Value Methodology during the development of exhibitions - Robin Parkinson, Former Head of Design, Te Papa Tongarewa, now A Principal of Exhibition Art & Technology, New York, NY. Hopefully, this report will lead to a separate article on the Value Methodology Process as used in this museum project.
Te Papa, the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa opened to the public on February 14, 1998. This new bicultural Museum with 100,000 square feet of public exhibition space tells the story of New Zealand. The Museums permanent displays are divided into 23 exhibitions covering the natural, social and art history of the nation. Each of these exhibitions was organized by a team that included a concept person, an interpreter (to advise on making the concepts accessible to the public), a team coordinator and a designer. Exhibition budgets were set early in the planning phase; they ranged from about $500,000 to more than $3,000,000 depending on size and content.
Value Management (as Value Engineering is called in New Zealand) was an integral part of the exhibition development process. VM sessions were organized and facilitated by the Museums project management consultants, the Carson Group of Wellington. The use of this methodology grew out of The Museum management's experience with the building project. The Carson Group also project managed the buildings construction and during that time organized one or two serious and successful VM sessions. As the building project finished, many of the same players moved into the exhibition project. They brought with them the VM process and most spoke enthusiastically about it.
At best, putting together large scale museum exhibitions is a complex business. This process was even more complicated in New Zealand where there was very little exhibition design or fabrication experience and this costly National Museum Project was paid for out of general tax revenues. (This amounted to about $80 for every person in the country and some taxpayers were not too keen about their money paying to build what they thought would be a dusty old museum.) Establishing and living to a budget and schedule was a national issue; missing either target would result in total humiliation for all involved.
In this pressured environment Te Papas Exhibition Project's most basic problem was in estimating costs. In the early days of our design, before solid plans had been developed, Te Papas estimators (called Quantity Surveyors in NZ) had little knowledge or experience with many of products required in an exhibition program. Te Papas Exhibition Development Plan called for budget audits at the end of each phase in our design process. They were: Concept Design, Developed Design, Documented Design, and final Documentation just before construction began. At these points, if necessary, the design was pruned back to fit its budget, No exhibitions were allowed to proceed if they were over budget.
Since all the Projects twenty-three exhibition teams had big agendas and expectations; much pruning was usually needed. Moreover as the exhibition designs developed, the Quantity Surveyors had more details on which to base cost estimates. Inevitably the price seemed to go up and even more pruning would be required.
By the middle of the Documented Design phase the situation for many exhibitions had become quite desperate. Serious cuts were needed but the internal team politics had become rancorous. To deal fairly with these issues, clear objective, impartial, thinking was required both from within the team and from upper management. Value Management was brought in and applied at about the halfway point in the Developed Design of every exhibition. Because of the number of exhibitions needing this attention, each exhibition got only a one day session.
As the various exhibitions went through the VM process, management tried several strategies as to who was invited into in the sessions. Perhaps out of frustration with the first exhibitions reaching this benchmark -- still over budget -- exhibition team representation was kept to a minimum. Managers tended to dominated these early sessions and make the determinations how the costs would be reconciled, And the required cuts were made.
The problems arose when the team began to implement these decisions and a lesson was quickly learned. It is relatively easy for a well meaning person to draw a line through a budget item. It is quite difficult to predict the trickle-down implications of such an action within a tightly woven exhibition experience. Indeed, deletions would sometimes cost considerably more than leaving the item as it was originally planned. It is quite easy to both compromise an exhibition's integrity by removing something and to have the resulting product cost more.
In time, Te Papa learned that it was critical to have the exhibition team at the center of the VM process. Those workers on the "coal face," as Kiwis would say, are best qualified to predict the broader implications of design changes. Putting the team in the center of this rational methodology helped clarify the issues for them too. The team's central roll also confirmed for the whole institution that they were still the experts; much of the original team rancor disappeared. Frustrated with earlier less methodical budget chopping exercises; they were drawn into the logic of the Value Methodology and became useful participants in the VM process.
Te Papa also soon learned the danger in trying to make up a large budget gap by "nickel and dimeing" an exhibition. It is more realistic and manageable to anticipate and control the trickle-down costs of a few larger cuts. Too many details can be missed in a blizzard of small cuts.
Finally, Te Papa also learned that there is still an important role for executive decisions in this process. The VM process, when used, focuses a range of expertise on a problem and the process may suggest creative, even win/win solutions but it is also time consuming and cumbersome. In exhibition projects where schedules are often as important as budget -- management calls might not be as democratic but they are considerably faster. At Te Papa, one of the most important outcomes of the VM process was the way it informed management. After a VM session, managers had a much better understand of the complexities the budget process and of each exhibition. Budget calls by the group or by the boss worked better for the Value Management experience.
Te Papa opened on time and on budget.
SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL READING
"Museum Design (Planning and Building for Art)," Joan Darragh & James S Snyder,"
The Museum Program of The National Endowment for The Arts and The American Federation of Arts, Oxford University Press, NY & Oxford, 1993.
"Before The Blue Print (Science Center Buildings)," Peter Anderson, Association of Science-Technology Centers, Washington, D.C., 1991.
"The National Museum at Collins Barracks - A Report on Value for Money Examination," The Department of Arts, Culture and The Gaeltacht, The Comptroller and Auditor General, The Stationery Office, Dublin, Ireland, 1996.
"Value Engineering Theory," Donald E. Parker, The Lawrence D. Miles Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1995.
"Value Analysis," Carlos Fallon, 2nd Revised Edition, The Lawrence D. Miles Foundation, Washington, D,C,, 1986.
"Value Engineering In The Construction Industry," Alphonse Dell' Isola, Third
Edition, Smith, Hinchman, & Grylls, Washington, D.C., 1988.
Additional Publications on Value Methodology can be obtained from:
SAVE International
"The Value Society"
60 Revere Drive
Suite 500
Northbrook, IL 60062
(847) 480-1730
Fax: (847) 480-9282
E Mail: value@value-eng.com
Home Page: http://www.value-eng.com
Information concerning Cultural Institution Value Methodology can be found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/yp/museumshopint