A PROPOSAL FOR VALUE ENGINEERING COLLEGE COURSETRAINING

Michael N. Zabych PE, CVS, FSAVE

This document was presented at the 1994 International Conference of the Society of AmericanValue Engineers (SAVE) in New Orleans, LA. It was published in the SAVE Annual Proceedings andis copyrighted (SAVE, 1994), Permission to upload this document to the LEAP Forum Library hasbeen given by SAVE.

Theodore C. Fowler, CVS, Fellow, SAVE

Michael N. Zabych offers Value Engineering (VE) Consultant Services from Alexandria, VA. He is agraduate of Pennsylvania State University, the Army War College, and Industrial College of the ArmedForces. Over a 23 year period. Mike was a VE Program Manager, Staff Value Engineer, and part-timeinstructor with the Federal Government. During the past seven years, he has been the VE ProgramDirector at VSE, Inc., a VE Project Coordinatior for Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., ValueManagement (VM) Division and a private consultant. He has taught VE in Germany, Italy, Australia,Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. He has taught VM at Catholic University of America since1988.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a plan to improve the probability of havingVE/Value Analysis (VA)/VM accepted more readily by theacademic community. It also details the format and content of athree credit graduate course taught at the Catholic University ofAmerica since 1977. With the exception of minor variations, thecourse is similar to the VE Theory Instructor's Guide and Text, byDonald E. Parker, PE, CVS, FSAVE.

BACKGROUND

The idea of using the college campus as a forum for valuetraining is neither new nor a unique initiative. Ample evidenceexists to show that value specialists have been teaching some formof value courses in the United States and several foreign countriessince at least the decade of the 1970s. As a matter of fact, a reviewof the 1971 SAVE Proceedings indicates that Ken Cruise, who atthat time was the National Director of College Relations, pointedout that a method of conveying information on the value disciplinesto college faculty is through the University Extension Division1.Under the aegis of the Los Angeles Chapter of SAVE and PastNational SAVE President Anthony R. Tocco, the UCLA ExtensionDivision offered a course, leading to a Professional Designation inVA.

At the same time, Carlos Fallon, also a Past National SAVEPresident, was teaching a VA course at the Camden, NJ campus ofRutgers University and an advanced course in Value Improvementat the University of Tennessee Space Institute. A year later, in1972, the present SAVE National Vice President Education,David DeMarle, began teaching a four credit graduate engineeringVA course, and is still teachiing Value Measurement, Engineeringand Management at Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester,NY2. A basic 40-hour workshop was introduced to GeorgeWashington University in 1973 by Rudy Kempter, CVS, FSAVE.

Unfortunately, some of these early VA/VE/VM collegecourses have been discontinued as their primary instructors orsponsors have moved on to bigger and more profitable pursuits,passed away, or just plain lost interest. Yet, enough of the courseshave survived, and new courses initiated to give the impression thatall is not lost, as long as we have a foot in the door of academia.

In addition to the Rochester Institute of Technology graduateengineering course, Donald E. Parker developed a VE TheoryInstructor's Guide and Text in 1977. His course was accepted bythe faculty of the Catholic University of America, Department ofCivil Engineering, as a three credit graduate level technical electivecourse for stuudents working toward a Masters Degree inConstruction Management. Initially, the course included classexercises related to the specific subject being taught during the classsession, and a small individual VE project for study. As currentlytaught, the course includes application of value methodology on aconstruction project selected by the students. Both live andpreviously constructed facilities are permitted, but are subject to

approval by the instructor prior to commencement of work. Use ofpreviously constructed projects for study is permitted becausedesigners are reluctant to wait 15 weeks to obtain the results of a VEstudy done by the students. This is not to slight the student effort,but the time frame is too long, when compared with the rapidresponse that is possible from the basic workshop. The coursepermits students to use 10 hours of class time to work on theirproject application, and requires a minimum of 10 hours outside ofclass to complete the VE workbook, study, and final report.

The course outline that follows is the one I have used since1988. Based on the quality of studies performed and the reportsprepared by the students, I am convinced that the outline isadequate and serves as a satisfactory alternative for the Module Iworkshop;

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA,WASHINGTON, DC

VALUE MANAGEMENTCE-58314 WEDNESDAYS, 5:107:50 PM

TEXT: VE THEORY BY D.E. PARKER

Session #1Introduction to ValueConcepts and Theory

Origin and Development of VE (History)Terms and ConditionsValue ConceptsProblem Solving TechniquesThe VE Job Plan (Overview)The Information Phase

2. Function, Cost, Worth

Quiz HomeworkCritiqueIdentify, Define, ClassifyEvaluate FunctionValue IndexConcept of WorthClass exercise Define Function

3. Conducting a Value Study

Quiz Homework CritiquePlanning & Timing the studyTeam Structure Multi-DisciplineStudy Procedure, Workbook ContentGroup Dynamics Human RelationsInhibitors & RoadblocksJob Plan ComparisonAssignment of TeamsClass exercise Project Selection

4. FAST Diagramming

Quiz Homework CritiqueStudent Project DescriptionLevels of IndentureLadder of AbstractionHow Why LogicFAST UsesDiagramming ProcedureTechnical/Customer FASTManagement ApplicationsStudent Project Time

5. Creativity

Quiz Homework CritiqueCreativity DefinedProblem Solving TechniquesAnalytic/CreativeThe Creative ProcessBlast/Create/RefineStudent Project Time

6. Judging Ideas Analysis

Quiz Homework CritiqueFeasibility RankingIdea ScreeningEvaluation by ComparisonWeighted Evaluation MatrixStudent Project Time

7. Mid-Term Examination

(Sessions 1 6)

8. VE & Complementary Discliplines

Mid-Term ExaminationCritiqueEconomic AnalysisAccounting/ManufacturingEngineering/PurchasingZero Based BudgetingSystems AnalysisDesign-to-CostTrade-off AnalysisLife Cycle CostingStudent Project Time

9. Cost Control Theory

Quiz Homework CritiqueEstimating AccuracyEstimating TypesProject ScopeStandard Building Cost ModelGraphic Cost ModelUniformat/MastercostStudent Project Time

10 Life Cycle Cost Theory

Quiz Homework CritiqueEconomic Analysis ConceptLCC/VE RelationshipLCC ElementsLife Span/Discount RateEscalationPresent Worth/Annualized MethodsStudent Project Time

11 Development & Implementation Strategies

Gaining Proposal AcceptanceMinimize Change & RiskMagnitudesMaximize OpportunityBreak-Even Analysis/Return on InvestmentInvestmentStudent Project Time

12 Presentation

Student Oral PresentationStudent Written Proposal Submittal

13 FINAL EXAMINATION

14 Organizing for & Performing Value Work

Critique Final ExaminationManagement CommitmentSubstantive InvestmentSystematic ApplicationValue Engineer QualitiesProgram RequirementsVE Policy BudgetingTrainng SAVEPrinciples of Application

LESSONS LEARNED

At the same time that Don Parker began teaching the VMcourse at Catholic University of America, he initiated a ValueFoundation effort to expand the value discipline to other collegesand universities by providing course materials to educators on acomplimentary basis, providing that they requested the InstructorGuide and Text on university stationery. In addition, Dondeveloped an instructor's seminar for college educators at the SAVEInternational Conference. The basic intent of the Value FoundationProgram, as explained by Don, was to have the VE Theory coursetaught by college professors, even if they were not Certified ValueSpecialists (CVS). This initiative resulted in seminar attendance byas many as thirty educators, several of whom began teaching valuecourses at their colleges or universities. Two of these courses arestill being taught at the University of Florida at Gainesville and atGeorgia Intstitute of Technology at Atlanta.

RECENT INITIATIVES

During the last half of 1993, Dave DeMarle has reported onthree different surveys to determine the extent of value training incolleges and universities in the United States. In 1989, TomSnodgrass, CVS, FSAVE, Director of the Center for ValueEducation at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, contacted325 universities and colleges listed as having engineering schoolsand continuing education departments. His survey showed thatonly 13 schools offered credit courses and an additional 23 schoolsoffered value training through a continuing education program.Only 8 of the latter schools offered a traditional 40-hour basicworkshop course3.

In November, 1992, Fred Sherwin, CVS, FSAVE reportedthrough Interactions that only six colleges offered credit courses inVE/VA/VM, although this later survey may not have been asextensive as that conducted by Tom Snodgrass.

In a more recent survey by Dave DeMarle and Art Mudge andreported in the November, 1993 Interactions, it appears that someform of value training is conducted at 43 colleges and universities4.How many of the 43 schools are offering undergraduate or graduatecredit courses is unknown, but apparently some form of valuetraining is happening at these schools. What is unknown also, iswhether any of the credit courses and continuing education courseshave been approved as a substitute for the basic Module I workshopby the Certification Board.

Dave DeMarle unveiled a plan in the July, 1993 issue ofInteractions to expand value training at U.S. colleges anduniversities. His plan includes:

1. Creation of an ad hoc academic committee ofprofessionals to "network and partner with SAVEmembers who wish to serve as adjunct VA/VE/VMfaculty members."

2. In states having universities that offer value creditcourses, the plan calls for:

a. Expanding VA/VE/VM training where it is taughtin one department to other departments within thesame college.

b. Introducing value training into other collegeswithin the state by partnering current faculty withSAVE members interested in teachingVA/VE/VM.

SAVE COLLEGE TRAINING PROBLEMS

Dave DeMarle's efforts to expand value training in New YorkState are commendable, and should serve as an example for otherSAVE chapters throughout the country to follow. Similarly, PastNational President Fred Sherwin is in the forefront, leading theefforts of the Miles Value Foundation to expand the teaching ofvalue courses on the college campus. Their initiatives are steps inthe right direction and should be supported by all SAVE chapters;however, I submit that we need more commitment from the SAVENational Board, in general, and by the Certification Board, inparticular.

Without fear of contradiction, I believe that SAVE is, or atleast, should be in the business of making change happen onpurpose. The very nature of the value discipline is based on thispremise. Yet, when it comes to making change within the SAVEorganization or certification criteria, our reluctanace to changeanything is only exceeded by the perceived higher order functions to"Make Money" or "Protect Turf." To illustrate my point, theModule I basic value workshop, consisting of 20 hours ofinstruction and 20 hours of live project application, has undergoneonly minor change since the certification program was initiated in1973. Perhaps the only significant change was the addition ofseveral variations of FAST diagraming, and the addition of theModule II Advanced Seminar as a basis of CVS Certification.

Many of the long term value practitioners question the valueand content of Module II as a basis for meeting certificationrequirements. Approval of the course is granted to a "PrincipleCVS", not to an organization. Presumably, this means that eachCVS must have his own Module I and Module II course approvedby the Certification Board. Since the Board, during the past year,raised the fee for course approval from $75 to $125 (a whopping66% during a recession), is there any wonder that the perceivedhigher order function of the Certification Board is to: "MakeMoney" and "Protect Turf"? If ever we should approve DaveDeMarle's Rochester Institute of Technology course, or DonParker's Catholic University of America course as an equivalent toModule I, does it mean that each time one of the courses ofinstruction is adopted at a new college or university that the facultyinstructor must submit the course for Board approval and sendtheir $125 in the process? Heaven forbid that the course should betaught by a college professor and not a CVS!

Contrast the preceding requirements with those necessary forEngineer in Training and Professional Engineer registration. ForEngineer in Training a person who has completed eightsemesters of an engineering or engineering technology curriculum,or eight years in an engineering field, and after having passed thefundamentals of engineering examination, shall be issued acertificate as an Engineer in Training (EIT). For professionalEngineer in addition to the requirements for EIT, a license andspecialty cerification, or an additional specialty certification shall beissued to a person who, after graduation, completes active practicein engineering work satisfactory to the Board, the last two of whichcertification is sought, and haveing attained a passing score, setexamination testing the principles and practices of engineering inthe specialty certification sought.

Obviously, the emphasis seems to be on passing examinationsaand obtaining experience rather than on a specific course of study,or the Professional Engineer qualifications of the college professor.Granted a fee is charged for each examination, but not for courseapproval, nor are college professors required to have professionalengineering license, prior to teaching a course.

A common business practice by publishers of college textbooks is to provide complimentary copies to educators in other thanthe author's college, presumably to encourage more widespreadsales and use of the text. As previously noted, Don Parker and theMiles Value Foundation provided complimentary copies of their VEThaeory Instructor's Guide to educators, under the original intent ofintroducing a value course that could be taught by a collegeprofessor, rather than a CVS. Today, the SAVE National BusinessOffice and the Miles Value Foundation are in a money-makingposture. A potential college educator who wishes to introduce aVA/VE/VM course on their campus can procure the Instructor's

Guide for $100 as a non-SAVE member, or for $90 if they areSAVE members.

To make matters worse, the course, which has been taught tograduate students for 17 years, has not been approved by theCertification Board as an equivalent Module I basic workshopcourse, and if taught by other than a CVS, albeit even a collegeprofessor, would doom the course as a basis for AVS/VPM/CVSqualification. Apparently the only benefit a college graduatestudent may derive from taking a three or four credit VA/VE/VMcourse under current certification rules is to provide them with theopportunity to join SAVE and to take the Module I basic workshopunder the tutelage of a CVS. Whoopie!! Do we really want collegesand universities to offer more credit courses in VE/VA/VM?

A GET WELL PROPOSAL FOR COLLEGEVALUE TRAINING

If the objective of SAVE is to "Attract Educatiors andStudents," and "Expand Value Training" on the college campus, wehave a strange way of showing our interest in fulfilling theseobjectives. Long term acceptance by the academic community andperpetuation of our existence as a society demand that we getseriious and provide a few basic incentives to drum up interest byensuring that existing or newly developed college course creditcourses are fully recognized as meeting the educationalrequirements for AVS certification. Rather than placing majoremphasis on whether a potential AVS learned the value disciplineby taking a Module I basic workshop, or by taking a VA/VE/VMthree or four credit college course, our emphasis should be placedon the successful completeion of a written value theoryexamination. If the student can pass the examination, we reallyshould not care how they learned about value techniques.

There is a wealth of course materials available among valuespecialists and in universities to develop undergraduate andgraduate courses in the value discipline. Whether the course ofinstruction takes the form of Dave DeMarle's "Value Measurement,Engineering and Management" at Rochester Institute ofTechnology, or Don Parker's "Value Engineering Theory" at theCatholic University, or some other form, such as Hank Wales'McGill University Value Analysis course is irrelevant. Whatmatters is that the value gospel is being preached and students arelearning how to apply the methodology. These students arepotential members of SAVE, and should be encouraged to becomevalue specialists by society acknowledgement that the value trainingthey have received is at least equivalent to the basic 40-hourworkshop.

In addition to the three or four credit technical elective valuecourse, there is a real need to provide an orientation course tostudents in engineering and architecture. Undergraduates in thesedisciplines must first know that there is such a thing as VE. Thecourse can be a one credit Freshman course (15 hours) that includessuch subjects as: What is VE?, The Functional Approach, FAST,Creativity, History of VE application in Industry and Government,The VE Job Plan, and Examples of VE application. If we areunsuccessful in getting this type of course introduced into thealready crowded, undergraduate curriculum, we can, as aminimum, prepare a one or two hour VE lecture for inclusion intothe general engineering or architecture orientation courses thatalready exist for freshman college students, and furnish the lecturematerials free of charge to any college faculty member.

If we continue to insist that only a qualified CVS can teachvalue courses, we are making our task of introducing or expandingthese courses on the college campus difficult. To make the basicassumption that only a CVS can teach VA/VE/VM is equivalent tothe requirement that only a registered professional engineer canteach a college engineering course, and we know that the latterrequirement does not exist. Instead, the SAVE Certification Boardshould offer a Certified Value Instructor (CVI) certificate, providingthat the educator has taken a course on how to teach the valuediscipline. The course may be given during the annual InternationalSAVE Conference by an academically cognizant individual orgroup, or on a college campus by a nearby SAVE Chapter team.

We must come to the realization that we are in a "request,"not a "demand" mode vis-a-vis the academic community and needto reorient our thinking accordingly. We cannot set up a wall ofsuperficial requirements for the aspiring student and prospectivecollege professor to negotiate if we are to make serious inroads intothe college campus. The society must be willing to bend to theneeds of the college or university, and minimize the negative impactthat inflexible certification educational requirements imply.

The college satudent who completes a three or four creditVA/VE/VM course is also a potential member of SAVE. Wecannot ignore the fact that, in spite of our past actions, societymembership is flat. Our membership rosters have varied between1200 to 1500 members over the past 25 years. During the next tenyears, we can expect that there will be a mass exodus from SAVE,as large numbers of members reach retirement from full-timeemployment. SAVE needs an infusion of young engineers andarchitects if it is to remain a viable organization. As societymembership increases, so will our revenue and recognition, and weneed not be concerned with self-serving ineterests. Let's resolve tomake change happen on purpose.

REFERENCES

1. Fallon, Carlos, "Body of Knowledge Underlying the ValueDisciplines," SAVE Proceedings, 1971, Vol VI, May, 1971.

2 DeMarle, David J., "Value Training at the Rochester Instituteof Technology," SAVE Proceedings, 1993, Vol CCVIII, May,1993.

3. DeMarle, D.J., "Five-Year Plan Expands Value Training atU.S. Universities," Interactions, Vol 18, No. 7, July, 1993.

4 DeMarle, David J., "Value Engineering in Higher Education,"Interactions, Vol. 18, No. 11, November, 1993