(pressing HOME will start a new search)

DEVELOPING CREATIVITY SKILLS IN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT STUDENTS

Introduction

When the first author joined Ferris State University he was delighted to find in the curriculum an elective course in value engineering.  In our professional experience we have found that value engineering has been the most effective way to bring realistic and profitable creativity to the design and management of construction projects.  We have repeatedly seen teams using the value engineering process find very profitable improvements by successfully challenging the project assumptions and by discovering which assumptions and general principles don't actually apply to the project.

We know that it is vital for our graduates to know how to use the value engineering method as individuals and as part of the construction team.  This paper attempts to give some ideas and suggestions to others teaching value engineering by summarizing the experiences observed in teaching this elective course.  A discussion is also included on developing a sense of creativity in senior level construction technology students.

Value Engineering

Value Engineering (VE) is the name given to the application of a set of creative strategies and procedures.  Based on methods developed during World War 11 to overcome shortages of critical materials, the first Value Analysis program was established by staff engineers at General Electric in 1948.  This program was so successful at reducing costs without reducing quality that the U.S. Navy's (then) Bureau of Ships adopted the program in 1954, using the name Value Engineering.  From there, the program spread through the Department of Defense to other defense contractors, who then applied VE techniques to improve profits and products.

Based on the success of Value Engineering with products, various federal agencies began experimenting with it on construction projects. [5] Their success with these projects led to VE programs within many U.S. Government construction programs.  For example, the EPA requires VE studies in the design phase of all funded projects over $ 1 0 million in estimated construction cost and the Corps of Engineers and Naval Facilities Command routinely contract with design firms to conduct VE studies on projects with buildings and other major facilities.  Acceptance of VE by the construction industry quickly followed from federal agency policy directives that allocated half (or more) of documented savings resulting from a construction phase VE study to the sponsoring contractor.

VE Concepts

Value Engineering is an approach to a defined problem.  This approach is an applied strategy based on creative alternatives, function, cost and worth. [3,4, 1 0] The strategy is effective by organizing individual or group thinking by function and worth.  The key concept is value.  Value is understood as a multiple trade-off.  Value Engineering addresses value as the relationship of what an item does with what it costs.  A secondary concept is that of function: what something does, or is intended to do, rather than what it is.

This approach provides two major benefits.  First, it dramatically increases a team's ability to be innovative by breaking down habitual mindsets which are a common obstacle to creativity.  Second, it enhances communications by providing a common language within the project context shared by all participating VE members.  The other major concept of VE, and a prime goal of the Value Engineering elective, is that of unleashing and developing students' latent creativity skills.  There are several techniques well known from the literature, a few of which will be discussed within the context of this paper. [2,9,11,12,15,20,21]

VE Basics

VE is often used as a 40 hour process and tends to be taught that way.  It is essential to realize that the underlying process of VE can be accomplished with a great deal of benefit with a simple three step process:

1)         What am I really trying to do?

This means defining the problem by escaping traditional constraints, such as not raising the bridge but lowering the water.

2)         What are some ways to do that?

This is where creative development of ideas occurs combined with research into current practices and knowledge to develop options.

3)         Which of these alternatives is best in this situation?

This selection is a multiple constraint judgement using all required criteria.

This process can be accomplished in as few as several minutes.  Some newly assembled VE teams have seen major changes with this process in thirty minutes.  However, most teams, and most VE project criteria, require the more thorough 40 hour process as described below.

The VE Study

The basic mechanism of Value Engineering is the VE Study, a defined time set aside exclusively for the application of VE by a deliberately diverse team of representatives from the major participants of a project.  VE studies can be formed around almost any goal or problem for which an organization desires improved alternatives.  One of the most common uses is to develop a coordinated set of changes to reduce the cost of a product/project while increasing or without harming the quality, worth, and reliability.  An outline of each of the major phases of a VE study with phase tasks is included as Appendix 1.

Areas of Investigation

Construction technology and management students typically have the skills necessary to perform many of the tasks for a VE study.  However, several topics that are a major part of a VE study are new approaches to thinking and learning for these students and represent an educational challenge.  These topics are creativity skills (individual and group), understanding of learning styles, and ability to recognize and change learning habits.

Student Resistances to the Course

As with many people in our society, the CM students in this class are often resistant to change and new approaches.  The students are typically first term seniors.  Many believe that they are ready to begin a career in construction and are anxious to do so.  That attitude, along with a desire to try to learn a totally new and different type of course material, creates a great deal of positive enthusiasm and anticipation at the beginning of the course.  There were several initial resistances to the validity of the VE course material which were shown mostly as resistances to the development of creative skills.  Student attitudes took such forms as:

"Too open-ended."

"Doesn't fit with previous course work."

"No guidelines or benchmarks to gauge abilities."

"No benefits from pwt-credit efforts."

"Why do we need to bother with VE - it doesn't help us build anything?"

"Isn't this just a design review?"

"How will this course improve my resume?"

"Is this like economics where there is never a true right answer but it doesn't matter anyhow?"

The initial concern of the students was mostly due to the fear of the unknown.  They apparently had not previously been exposed to open-ended creative approaches to problem solving and were quite nervous about the central theme to the course.  Also, some students had serious reservations about how they would be judged in their team projects (worth 1/3 of their total grade).  They suspected that they as individuals might be lacking in creative skills but were also certain that everyone else had none at all.

The challenge was to develop an understanding and yearning to be creative by each member in the class and then help them become more effective while working in a team - a skill that needs no further justification in the construction industry.  The approach taken was to first generate an acceptance of creativity as a legitimate and necessary skill and then undergo academic exercises to develop and use these skills [2,7,13,15,16,17]

Developing Creativity Skills

Strategy to Develop Creativity Acceptance

There were several key themes repeated throughout the course that supported the need for developing creativity skills and working as a team.  These were:

Learning Styles

There are a great many different concepts of learning styles replete throughout the literature. [6,7,8,12,14,19] One which has gained much acceptance in the technical community and particularly within the field of VE is Kolb's "Learning Style Inventory," a self-reporting instrument easy to administer. [8] This concept was developed around the realities of how people learn, but it also seems to fit how people solve problems.  This would seem to be consistent when taken in the context that solving a problem can be seen as learning how to do something you didn't know how to do before.

The Kolb model is based on two different dimensions of how we think and act.  One dimension is the extent to which we prefer acting on the world (Active Experimentation vs. Reflective Observation).  The second dimension is the extent to which we prefer to work with our direct experience (Concrete Experience) or with our thoughts about experience (Abstract Conceptualization).  The Learning Style Inventory results in a score for each of the four dimensional approaches with high scores showing a preference for that type of thinking.

Use of Learning Styles

The use of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) provides some positive benefit to the conduct of the VE class.  Its' initial benefit is in the demonstration to the students that although there are several overwhelming similarities amongst them (demographics, age, career interests, etc.) there is at least one major difference in how each one processes information.  The class takes the LSI and the results are shared as a whole without identifying individuals.  Students typically delight in sharing their designation with class members but are strongly cautioned that this exercise is not conclusive and that the instructor is not professionally trained in this area.

As an instructional tool the LSI has two objectives.  The first is to recognize that a variety of instructional tools are needed to reach the different learning styles within the class.  The clear indication of this information is that a variety of teaching/instructional styles, examples, and methods is required, particularly in regard to the issue of problem solving. [23] The second objective of the LSI is to inform the students about learning style preferences and techniques for continued use after graduation.

One of the benefits from a VE effort comes from the realization of best results when a team is diverse. [1,3,4] Students now realize this and take this into account when assembling into project teams (as does the instructor when confirming team makeup).  Students typically gravitate towards friends with similar career outlook (buildings vs. heavy/highway) in forming teams until this issue is acknowledged.  The LSI was the single most effective tool used during the course.  The major benefit of the exercise was not in determining a neighbor's learning style but that another student might or might not have a similar outlook in learning skills.  At this point in the course lights start coming on as at the start of a night football game - quickly and with intensity.  Students then became excited about the process of learning using techniques to be more creative.

Other Successful Tools

Another successful tool used during the course to develop and enhance individual and team creativity skills was to construct a story from symbols.  Each project team was givena24" x 36" sheet of paper, told that each team member would place a symbol only (no words or numbers) anywhere on the sheet in student rotation for 5 cycles, and no verbal conversation was allowed during the symbol placement.  Once done, the teams were then told that they collectively had to construct a plausible story from the information on the sheet and present it to the class with recognition given to the most creative narrative.  This exercise improves the students' ability to reason in symbols and graphics, valuable in developing mental creativity skills.

One of the challenges of the course is to develop acceptance that team efforts yield better results than that of individual efforts. (Note that this is not a contradiction to having been involved in team efforts in previous course work.) The tool used to accomplish this was the Survival School exercise [221 which demonstrates increased survivability rates for each of the students as a team member above individual scores.  It is typically received with great enthusiasm with accompanying acknowledgement of meeting the exercise goal by the students.

As might be expected, a successful tool was the review and study of professional VE Studies in finished report form.  Fortunately, the authors of this paper have collaborated on several such studies and these were available for the course.  The students respond well to using "real-world" efforts which confirms their understanding of course material.

Another successful tool was to have the students team up for a term-based, independent VE study.  All aspects of a formal VE study are included culminating in classsroom presentations.  Students appreciate the chance to make these presentations recognizing the benefit of practicing presentation skills prior to entering the workforce.  Projects evaluated by students have included the FSU ice hockey arena and local construction projects.  The respective designers are invited to the presentations and students learn firsthand how an "interested" party to the project they evaluated responds to a live presentation.

Lessons Learned

Overall Appproach

Probably the biggest error made in trying to develop creative skills, at least for the first course offering, was to present the material in the identical sequence as that of an actual VE study effort.  Because of the newness of the material, its approach, with varying styles, there was initial resistance to the material and its relevance to construction. It just took too long to get to the exciting topics on creativity which resulted in reduced acceptance at first.

The second course offering took a different approach to this problem by beginning the course with some dramatic examples of creativity accompanied by creativity exercises intended to elicit a reaction of "Wow-this is great!" Once the magic of creativity was planted the other materials and tools were welcome additions to the student's knowledge base.

Course Textbook

One of the problems with a course in VE in a construction program is to find a relevant text.  The original course text, while written by one of the original VE practicioners, lacked desired material on creativity and had little emphasis on construction industry applications. [10] The paper authors are developing a course text addressing these issues with emphasis on creativity development and construction issues.  Course material has been derived from this effort and is supplemented with actual VE studies and project documentation.  The alternative would be to specify several references each highlighting a major theme of the course but this is cost prohibitive to the student.

Relevance of Creativity in Construction and Engineering

Members of the Construction Technology & Management Industry Advisory Board routinely stress the need for graduates to possess VE skills.  There is growing recognition in the construction industry of the benefits of VE.  The construction industry is making a deliberate effort to improve the total work environment to improve owner relations, reduce overall costs, and improve the industry's image.  Much of the recent thrust in this direction is inherent in the topics of Partnering and Total Quality Management. [5,18] Both of these topics rely heavily on VE and specifically on the creative skills that drive successful VE efforts.

Creativity in collegiate engineering programs is being given increasing emphasis.  The October 1992 issue of Prism, contained the article "Real World IO 1 -What Some Engineers in Industry Want Your Students, and You, to Know” listed the following desired skills for graduates:

Those desired abilities listed above have been and should be major themes within a course on VE.  One of the desired outcomes of a course in VE is to provide some of the basic tools of creativity so that a graduate enters the workforce with these skills and a strong desire to using them to meet an employer's needs.

References

1.            Aldridge,M.D., Aubum University, "Cross-Disciplinary Design Teams," Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, 1993.

2. Bailey, R.L., Disciplined Creativity for Engineers, Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1978.

3.            Barlow,C.M.,ConductingaValue@agementStudy: A Basic Guidebook, Shaker Heights, Oh.: Appleseed Associates, 1982.

4.             Barlow, C.M., and Finley, J.E., Value Engineering Text and Reference, Shaker Heights, Oh.: Appleseed Associates, 1992.

5.         Barrie, D.S., and Paulson, B.C., Professional Construction Management, 3rd.ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992.

6.            Harb,J.N.,Durrant,S.O.,Terry,R.E.,BrighamYoung University, "Use of the Kolb Learning Style and the 4MAT System in Engineering Education," Joumal of Engineering Education, ASEE, April, 1993.

7.            Isaksen, S.G., Frontiers of Creativity Research-Beyond the    Basics, Buffalo: Bearly Limited, 1987.

8.            Kolb,D.A.,"LearningStyleInventory:ASelf-Scoring Test and Interpretation Booklet," Boston: McBer and Company, 1976.

9.            Lwnsdaine, E. and Lumsdaine, M., Creative Problem Solving: Thinking Skills for a New World, New york:  McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993,

10.       Miles,L.D.,Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering, 3rd. ed., Lawrence D. Miles Foundation, 1989.

11.       Miller, W.C., The Creative Edge: Fostering Innovation Where You Work, Reading: Addison Wesley PPublishing Company, Inc., 1990.

12.       Niku, S.B., Califomia Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, "Teaching Creative Thinking to Engineering Students," Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, 1993.

13.            Paulsen, M.B., University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, "Improving Your Lecturing: Using Motivation and Cognition Strategies," Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, 1993.

14.            Ramirez, M.R., The Johns Hopkins University, "The Influence of Learning Styles on Creativity," Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, 1993.

15.            Raudsepp, E., "Play Games to Spark Your Creativity," Chemical Engineering, ASCE, September 26, 1977, ppp. 109-113.

16.       Safan-Gerard, D., "How to Unblock," The Toastmaster, November, 1985, pp.  I I- 15.

17.            Sainson, R.W., Thinking Skills: A Guide to Logic and Comprehension, Stamford: Innovative Sciences, Inc., 1965.

18.            Shofoluwe, M.A., and Varzavand, S. "The Need for Total Quality Management in Construction," 'Me American Professional Constructor, September 1993, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 21-24.

19.       Terry, R.E., and Harb, J.N., Brighwn Young University, "Kolb, Bloom, Creativity, and Engineering Design," Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, 1993.

20.            VanGundy, Jr., A.B., Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.

21.            von0ech, R., A Whack on the Side of the Head, New York: Wamer Books, Inc., 1983.

22.       Wales, C., West Virginia University, Survival School Exercise presented at the Training Course "Critical T'hinking Skills" at Fenis State University, November, 1992.

23.            Wankat,P.C.,and0reoviez,F.S.,TeachingEngineering, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

Appendix I

Formal 40 Hour VE Study By Phases

I.  Prestudy Phase

A.            Prestudy Preparation

1.         Collect design data

2.         Verify cost data

3.            Detennine project constraints

4.         Select team members & disciplines

5.         Distribute study information

B.            Construct Capital Cost Model

1.            Distribute by process or project element

2.            Distribute by construction trade

3.            Develop cost model for study

4.            Identify high cost areas

C.            Construct Energy cost Model

1.            Distribute by process or project element

2.            Develop cost model for study

3.            Identify high energy use areas

11, VE

A.            Orientation

I.            Projectdescriptionbyowner,designer

2.            Outline owner requirements

3.            Establish study constraints

4.         Set preliminary study goals

B.            Infonnation

1.            Analyze project costs

2.            Analyze project energy usage

3.            Functional analysis & diagrwns

4.            Identify high cost areas

5.            Identify high energy use areas

6.        Develop cost/worth ratios

C.            Creativity

I           - Orientation to creative thinking

2.            Implement group creative thinking techniques

3.            Creative idea listing

D.        Judgement

I -        Eliminate impractical ideas

2.         Rank ideas by advantages/disadvantages

3.         Prepare weighted evaluations

4.         Select most attractive ideas for development

E.            Development

I           - Preliminary design of ideas

2.            Altemative approaches & sketches

3.            Develop cost estimates

4.         Life-cycle cost comparisons

5.            Ranking of alternatives

F.            Implementation

I.            Summarize findings

2.         Present findings to owner & designer

3.         Oral presentations

4.            Detennine initial acceptance of ideas

III, Post VE Smb

A.            Preliminary Report

1.            Summarize teazn results & methodologies

2.         Report reviewed by owner & designer

3.            Designer prepares response document

4.            Designer & owner select recommended ideas

B.         Final Acceptance

1.            Redesign, if any

2.         Owner review and acceptance

C.        Project Follow-up

1.         In place cost analysis

2.            Evaluate implementation of selected ideas

3.            Document final results

4.         Post operational evaluation