Tools and Techniques

Apart from Function Analysis and FAST diagramming, there are various other techniques that can be used
at various stages during VM/VE to help understand client requirements, priorities, building functions, etc.
all as part of the process of improving the value of a proposed project

Some of the techniques are:

Client Value Systems

Element Function Analysis
Matrices
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
Weighting and scoring
SMART VM

Combined Criteria Scoring Matrix and

Alternative Analysis Matrix
Voting
Numerical consensus analysis
Dual consensus analysis

Client Value Systems

Client/customer always defines Value, which is considered in terms of Quality and Cost
Quality is very subjective, therefore, it is difficult to establish exactly what aspects of a building design will
deliver value for a particular client
One way to identify a clients value system is to use a matrix to undertake a pair comparison exercise
This technique could be used during a VM workshop, but only the client reps would be allowed to take part
in this exercise
Each box in the matrix represents a which is more important to you? question
Answer to each is inserted in the relevant box

A. Capital Cost
B. Through life cost
C. Time
D. Exchange income
E. Esteem
F. Environmental impact
G. Politics/popularity/community
H. Flexibility
I. Satisfaction/comfort
A

I
Total

Example for a sports centre project

A. Capital Cost
B
B. Through life cost
A
B
C. Time
A
D
D
D. Exchange income
A
B
C
D
E. Esteem
A
B
C
D
F
F. Environmental impact
A
G
G
G
G
G
G. Politics/popularity/community
A
B
H
D
H
H
G
H. Flexibility
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. Satisfaction/comfort
A
7

B
5

C
2

D
5

E
0

F
1

G
6

H
3

I
7

Total

Summary of ranked client values: Capital Cost and Satisfaction/comfort

Politics/popularity/community
Through life cost and Exchange income
Flexibility
Time
Environmental impact
1

Esteem

Therefore, to summarise the clients values for this particular project: Project must be on budget, and maximise internal comfort and satisfaction for the users
Sports centre must be popular with the local community
Operating costs must be controlled and revenue opportunities maximised
If there is any problem with clients understanding the value importance of the variables, can use the Comfort
Continuum to aid understanding

Each Client rep would be asked to vote on the continuum for each variable, and the results are collated

Variable

Continuum

Capital Cost
Through life cost
Time
Exchange income

Tight budget
Tight budget
Of the essence
Maximum return

Esteem

Need to attract
admiration
Maximum
observance of
green policies
Needs to be
popular
Able to
accommodate
changing functions
High degree of
opulence

Environmental
impact
Politics/ popularity/
community
Flexibility

Satisfaction/
comfort

Flexible budget
Flexible budget
At large
Return of no
consequence
Esteem of no
significance
No particular policies,
each problem solved
individually
No concerns about
popularity
Unlikely to change

Utilitarian support to
business

Element Function Analysis

Useful approach that considers the functions performed by each of the BCIS elements
Can consider the specification/quality of each element by considering the number of functions it performs,
and compare costs of each element from the Cost Plan
Although considering the building elements is focusing on the technical design solution, this approach can
be useful in identifying innovative technical solutions that add value
Element = a part of a building that fulfils a specific function or functions, regardless of its design,
specification or construction
Element function analysis seeks to provide the necessary functions at the required quality and lowest cost
while identifying and eliminating any unnecessary cost
Key questions: -

What is it?
What does it do?
What does it cost?
What else will it do?
What does that cost?

Description of element
Functional definition of element
Exploration of cost to complete value equation
Innovative alternatives
Comparison of functions given and relative costs

Example - Functions performed by Frame element

Transmits load
Resists wind load
Supports floors
Resists excessive deflection

Resists fire
Resists corrosion
Expresses structure
Conducts lightning

Functions performed by Internal Walls and Partitions element

Receive finishes

Reduce space
2

Divide space

Enclose space
Attenuate noise
Transmit light
Support services/fittings

Note that not all these functions may be required in every case therefore there is an opportunity to add
value by eliminating unnecessary functions or developing a better solution

Transfer load
Maintain security
Resist fire
Impede ventilation

Separate climate
Separate function
Architectural feature

Using Matrices - Using a Table to Understand Value

High value, low cost

so no need to change

High value, high cost

so possible
improvement

Functions of pen
Mark paper

Components

Cost

Barrel

42

Top

18

Nib

114

Clip

Value
:

Protect
nib

80

Prevent
leaks
60

Look
attractive

40

80

10
12

20
14

90

40

20

80

10

110

10
10

Total cost of function:

30

80
90

Total
Value of
function

30
20

40
5

120

Component cost is
divided
between functions
(120= 30 + 90)

Function value is divided

between components
(40 = 10 + 20 +10)

19

10

30

90

46

139

Low value,
high cost
so look for
improvement

Value of protect nib

is quite high and cost is
low ( 5 + 14 = 19) so
no need to change

20

Value of clip =
10 + 10 = 20
but cost is high
(120)
so look for
improvement

QFD Quality Function Deployment

Originated in 1972 at Mitsubishis Kobe shipyard

Aims to represent the relationship between functional requirements and technical solutions on one
diagram, which is called the House of Quality
QFD can be used as part of a VM exercise to explore innovative ways of meeting the necessary functions
Functions are translated into measurable goals strategic, systems, service definition (production
planning), and operations
Weighting and Scoring

Weighting and scoring are used in many different VM techniques

First stage is to identify the criteria by which the options will be judged
Then a pair comparison exercise can be done to help determine the weightings of each attribute
The weightings are then carried forward to the scoring matrix
The scoring exercise then determines how well each option meets the criteria
3

Example a new office project requires a flexible internal layout, these are the criteria for judging internal
partitioning options: -

Ability to be demounted easily with minimum

disruption to services, structure and finishes
Good noise attenuation
Attractive finish
Ability to conceal services

A pair comparison exercise, to determine the weightings. Which one is more important?

Ability to support fittings and fixtures

Cost
Reliability of supply over time

A. Demountable
B
B. Noise attenuation
C
B
C. Attractive finish
A
B
C
D. Support fittings
A
B
E
E
E. Conceal services
A
B
F
F
E
F. Capital cost
A
B
G
G
E
G
G. Maintenance cost
H
H
C
H
E
F
G
H. Reliability of supply

a
4
Blockwork
Stud

Proprietary

Metal

b
6

1
4
3

Polystyrene
Plasterboard

20
5

2
6

1
20

12
1

4
6

2
10
2
0

1
12

2
0

Reliability of supply

Maintenance cost

6
2

16
4

15

16

12
5

10

15

16

10

15

12

Total

h
3

16

15

10

4
12

25

g
4

f
3

15

12

20

3
0

12

18

e
5

4
12

18
3

Total

d
0

4
30

12

H
3

c
3

20
Timber

G
4

Capital cost

F
3

Conceal services

E
5

Support fittings

D
0

Attractive finish

C
3

Noise attenuation

B
6

Demountable

A
4

6
4

16

12

104
109
85
85
76
91

SMART VM
SMART -Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique

SMART was devised by Edwards in 1988, and adapted for VM by Green in 1992
Focuses on design objectives rather than functions
Consists of techniques carried out in workshops, with representatives from the client organisation
First workshop (VM1) is held at the end of Concept stage
4

Aim is to verify the need to build, before the client becomes committed
Also promotes agreement amongst the stakeholders on the project objectives
Second workshop (VM2) is at the Outline Proposals stage, when the client is required to choose between a
range of outline designs
SMART VM uses decision modelling techniques to aid client decision-making
Hierarchical value tree is produced to represent the project objectives

Good conditions for residents

A Good
home for
the elderly

Suitable facilities for staff

Cooking and cleaning facilities

Office and living
accommodation
Low running costs
Maintainability
Durability

Operational efficiency

Proximity to local amenities

Provision for the disabled
Accessibility for staff and
visitors

Ease of access

Pleasant living environment

Safe and caring environment
Recreational amenities
Individual privacy

This provides structure for the debate, and is revised progressively until it represents the consensus view
A brainstorming session then focuses on identifying alternative ways of achieving the objectives on the
agreed value tree. The ideas are evaluated, and best are selected for further development
Result of VM1 is the decision of whether or not to go ahead with the new building
If project proceeds, then the agreed value tree aids in the project brief development
During VM2, the lower level attributes of the value tree are used to evaluate the outline design options
proposed. The value tree is updated to reflect any changes in the design objectives
Number of lower level attributes is reduced, then importance weights are allocated to remaining objectives
the weightings on each branch of the tree must add up to 1, same for each twig
Final weights of each attribute are then calculated

(0.40)
Good conditions
for residents
A
Good
home
for the
elderly

(0.22) Suitable facilities

for staff

(0.10)

(0.28)

Trunk

(0.40)
Pleasant living environment
(0.60)
Safe and caring environment
(0.60)
Cooking and cleaning
facilities
(0.40)
Office and living
accommodation
Maintainability and durability

Ease of access

(0.25)
Proximity to local amenities
(0.75)
Provision for the disabled

Branches

Twigs
5

(0.16)
(0.24)

(0.13)

(0.09)
(0.10)

(0.07)
(0.21)

Office and living

accommodation

Maintainability
and durability

Proximity to local
amenities

Provision for the

disabled

1. Design Option A

Cooking and
cleaning facilities

Weighting of
importance (01)

Safe and caring

environment

The final weights of the attributes are then used to evaluate the design options, using a decision analysis
matrix

Pleasant living
environment

0.16

0.24

0.13

0.09

0.10

0.07

0.21

40

60

20

30

50

40

70

70

60

60

80

70

50

90

50

40

50

30

40

80

90

Total

48.6

6.4

2. Design Option B
3. Design Option C

70.0
55.30

Score each design option against each attribute on a scale of 1-100

Each design option is given a score out of 100 for how well it provides for each attribute
For example, Design Option A has a score of 40 for providing a Pleasant Living Environment
The scores are then multiplied by the Weighting of Importance for each attribute, as calculated on the value
tree
Therefore, Design Option As score of 40 for providing a Pleasant Living Environment, is multiplied by the
weighting of 0.16, to give 6.4
This is repeated for each design, until the matrix is complete
The best design, in terms of the weighted attributes, is then the one with the highest total score
A sensitivity analysis would then be conducted, changing the importance weightings slightly and studying
the effect on the rankings
When all project stakeholders are happy with the model, the utility rating of each design option can then be
compared with its capital cost to assess the best value option
Final brainstorming session would then consider ideas for overcoming any problems with the chosen
option, or for reducing its cost to within budget

Combined Criteria Scoring Matrix and Alternative Analysis Matrix

(see example)

Used in the Evaluation Phase of a VM workshop to help evaluate the various ideas generated, so that the
best ones can be developed further
Uses a similar approach to some of the other techniques above, including pair comparisons and weightings
In the pair comparison of the Criteria, instead of just choosing which of the two is more important, have to
give an importance rating: Importance Rating
4
3
2
1

Key
Major preference over other criteria
Medium preference over other criteria
Minor preference over other criteria
No preference over other criteria

Total scores for each criteria are calculated to give Raw Score, then they are adjusted to give a relative
weighting of 1-10 (so that any that scored 0 are not totally discounted at this stage) Weight of Importance

Then each Design Alternative is compared against each of the criteria

6

Score
5
4
3
2
1

Key
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor

Weighted Scores are then calculated by multiplying the raw score for each design alternative by the Weight
of Importance for the criteria
The design alternative with the highest total is then selected as the optimal solution
Other Evaluation Phase Techniques

Voting

Can be with or without discussion of ideas among the team members

Team members all have the same number of votes usually around half the number of ideas. So if there
were 11 ideas to choose from, each team member would choose their top 5, usually by sticking their
initialled post-it note next to their chosen ideas
After the votes have been counted, the team members then decide how many votes an idea needs for it to
be accepted/developed
If voting is done without prior discussion of the ideas, then some misunderstandings may occur. Ideas that
are not viable for technical or cost reasons might receive enough votes for them to be developed (due to
the limited technical expertise of some of the participants)

Numerical Consensus Rating

Rating
4
3
2
1

Key
Idea is to be developed
Idea is to be developed if there is enough time
Idea has some merit, but is not to be developed
Idea has little merit and should not be considered

Dual Consensus Rating

Comprises an initial rating by Technical and Functional criteria, then a secondary rating in terms of level of
Cost Impact
Technical Rating
1
2
3
4

Cost Impact Rating

1
2
3
4

Key
Idea accepted
Idea accepted and to be developed if there is enough time and cost saving potential
Idea has some merit, but is rejected
Idea has little merit and should not be considered

High cost saving potential

Marginal cost saving potential
No cost saving potential
Additional cost

Problem with this technique is that very good technical ideas that add cost would be rejected (even if they
also add value)