The Assessment of Library Knowledge Service Based on the Value Engineering

2011 ◽  
pp. 22-28
Author(s):  
Jialin Hou ◽  
Lan Hou ◽  
Lin Cen
PCI Journal ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 18-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pete Hamill ◽  
Camille H. Bechara ◽  
Mario Bertolini ◽  
Helmuth Wilden ◽  
Mark Biebighauser

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ari Sandyavitri

This paper objectives are to; (i) identification of risky slopes (within 4 Provinces in Sumatra including Provinces of Riau, West Sumatra, Jambi and South Sumatra encompassing 840 kms of the “Jalan Lintas Sumatra” highway) based on Rockfall Hazard Rating Systems (RHRS) method; (ii) developing alternatives to stabilize slope hazards, and (iii) selecting appropriate slopes stabilization techniques based on both proactive approach and value engineering one. Based on the Rockfall Hazard Rating Systems (RHRS) method, it was identified 109 steep slopes prone to failure within this highway section. Approximately, 15 slopes were identified as potential high-risk slopes (RHRS scores were calculated >200 points). Based on the proactive approach, seven riskiest slopes ware identified. The preferred stabilization alternatives to remedy most of these slopes are suggested as follow; either (i) a combination of retaining wall and drainage, or (ii) gabion structure and drainage. However, different approaches may yield different results, there are at least 2 main consideration in prioritizing slope stabilization; (i) based on the riskiest slopes, and(ii) the least expensive stabilization alternatives.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Mochamad Tamim Ma’ruf

One-solving methods and techniques necessary to avoid inefficiencies and not economic costs as well as reduce the cost of housing construction is the method of Value Engineering. Value engineering is a method and cost control techniques to analyze a function to its value at the lowest cost alternative (most economical) without reducing the quality desired.At the writing of this study used a comparison method by comparing the initial design to the design proposal of the author. In the housing projects Upgrading Tirto Penataran Asri type 70, the application of Value Engineering conducted on the job a couple walls and roofs pair by replacing some work items with a more economical alternative but does not change the original function and high aesthetic level and still qualify safe. For that performed the step of determining a work item, the alternative stage, the analysis stage, and the stage of recommendations to get a Value Engineering application and cost savings against the wall a couple of work items and partner roof.The proposed design as compared to the initial design. Work items discussed was the work of a couple wall having analyzed obtained savings of Rp. 2,747,643.56 and the work of the roof pair obtained savings of Rp. 2,363,446.80. Thus the total overall savings gained is Rp 5,111,090.36 or savings of 0048%.


2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay Mandelbaum ◽  
Heather W. Williams ◽  
Anthony C. Hermes

1993 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Webb
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Madison E. Andrews ◽  
Anita D. Patrick ◽  
Maura Borrego

Abstract Background Students’ attitudinal beliefs related to how they see themselves in STEM have been a focal point of recent research, given their well-documented links to retention and persistence. These beliefs are most often assessed cross-sectionally, and as such, we lack a thorough understanding of how they may fluctuate over time. Using matched survey responses from undergraduate engineering students (n = 278), we evaluate if, and to what extent, students’ engineering attitudinal beliefs (attainment value, utility value, self-efficacy, interest, and identity) change over a 1-year period. Further, we examine whether there are differences based on gender and student division, and then compare results between cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses to illustrate weaknesses in our current understanding of these constructs. Results Our study revealed inconsistencies between cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the same dataset. Cross-sectional analyses indicated a significant difference by student division for engineering utility value and engineering interest, but no significant differences by gender for any variable. However, longitudinal analyses revealed statistically significant decreases in engineering utility value, engineering self-efficacy, and engineering interest for lower division students and significant decreases in engineering attainment value for upper division students over a one-year period. Further, longitudinal analyses revealed a gender gap in engineering self-efficacy for upper division students, where men reported higher means than women. Conclusions Our analyses make several contributions. First, we explore attitudinal differences by student division not previously documented. Second, by comparing across methodologies, we illustrate that different conclusions can be drawn from the same data. Since the literature around these variables is largely cross-sectional, our understanding of students’ engineering attitudes is limited. Our longitudinal analyses show variation in engineering attitudinal beliefs that are obscured when data is only examined cross-sectionally. These analyses revealed an overall downward trend within students for all beliefs that changed significantly—losses which may foreshadow attrition out of engineering. These findings provide an opportunity to introduce targeted interventions to build engineering utility value, engineering self-efficacy, and engineering interest for student groups whose means were lower than average.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document