Value engineering in construction: a systematic review of applications and research trends Open Access

SAVE (Society of American Value Engineering) International considers Value Engineering (VE) a systematic method for improving the “value” of a product or service by examining its required function relative to the resource cost (monetary, time or other) required to achieve those functions. “value” is the reliable performance of functions to meet customer needs at the lowest overall cost or use of resources. Bringing together a systematic job plan and technical expertise, VE was first introduced in the construction industry in the 1960s to reduce project costs and enhance final value. Since VE's introduction to the construction industry, VE has been found to generate innovative solutions and improve project value with typical cost savings of 5–10%, while achieving project functionality (Chen et al., 2022).

As the construction industry changes and evolves, there is a shift from labor heavy craft-based operations to integrated digital workflows leveraging building information modelling, prefabrication and technology for efficiency and sustainability. Modern VE frameworks embed continuous value analysis across project phases, shifting from reactive cost cutting to proactive lifecycle resource use optimization (Khan et al., 2024). This research examines contemporary practices for VE in the construction industry to identify trends, applications and research focus areas that can advance VE practice in the construction industry.

While VE is established in the construction industry, its effective use and contribution to improved value in the sector lags behind other industries. To promote the adoption of VE across the construction industry, strategies have included developing industry awareness programs, VE integration in education curricula and promotion at industry policy and organizational levels. These efforts aim to enhance industry-wide efficiency, effectiveness and cost reduction in construction projects (Spiekermann and Winkler, 2020; Shen and Xue, 2025; Zu and Zhang, 2025). Therefore, continuous efforts from academia, enterprises and experts are essential to promote VE adoption, build industry competencies and ensure applicability in the ever-changing construction industry (Yan, 2012).

VE practices have evolved significantly, demonstrating substantial cost and resource savings, as well as enhanced project performance through improved decision-making frameworks (Kim et al., 2015; Almansour and Krarti, 2022). Furthermore, in contemporary VE practice, the cost component of value has been expanded to encompass broader resources involved in construction, including sustainability, water resources and carbon emissions (Othman and Abdelrahim, 2020). As construction projects grow more complex and multifaceted, there is a critical need to expand VE research beyond the simple dimension of cost reduction for improving value, to incorporating multiple dimensions, including sustainability, risk management and stakeholder engagement.

A paucity of research on many facets of VE practice can limit the sharing of industry insights on achieving project success in the current construction industry. Despite its broad applicability in the construction industry, published studies often limit their scope to specific projects or sectors, rather than providing a comprehensive overview of VE methodologies and their evolving applications. For example, the challenges of incorporating learnings from previous VE studies have led many studies to start from scratch, contributing to mixed outcomes and raising doubts about the effectiveness of VE (Zhang et al., 2009). Additionally, project owners must consider the complex and evolving needs of their projects, encompassing value across multiple perspectives and dimensions depending on stakeholder views. Understanding the evolution and current application trends of VE helps identify future trends and key research focus areas. This study applies a systematic and thematic review of literature related to VE applications, research trends and emerging methodologies published in research between 2009 and 2024. The findings will help identify contemporary VE practice and bridge existing knowledge gaps to strengthen the role of VE in promoting more value-effective construction practices.

The research method uses conventional systematic literature review methodology following a structured, transparent and reproducible methodology to identify, evaluate and synthesize relevant studies, to provide an objective review of the selected literature (Higgins, 2008). The review methodology employs a mixed-methods systematic review approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative content analysis. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, brings together both convergent and sequential designs to enhance the depth and breadth of literature synthesis (Heyvaert et al., 2016; Hong et al., 2018). Bibliometric analysis and content analysis provide a rigorous method that is well-suited for analyzing textual data to identify key themes and patterns within the selected VE literature (Radua, 2021; Krippendorff, 2019; Zupic and Čater, 2015; Donthu et al., 2021). Vosviewer bibliometric mapping tool was used to visualize keyword co-occurrence networks based on the literature selected. In a systematic literature review, such mapping can reveal hidden structures in the literature and highlight connections otherwise overlooked in a simple narrative synthesis (Orduña-Malea and Costas, 2021).

This study searched for articles indexed in the ScienceDirect (SD) database published between 2009 and 2024. This date range was established to capture emerging and recent trends in VE practice and innovations aimed at improving efficacy and efficiency. As the focus is on state-of-the-art practice in VE, the use of peer-reviewed literature ensures that expert review has been conducted, which cannot be assured with grey literature. To align with the research scope the search terms included either “value engineering” or “construction industry” in the title, abstract and keywords in English. These terms were selected following trial and error of different search strings. Figure 1 provides an overview of the Mixed-Methods Content Analysis Framework employed in this study. This multi-layered approach is facilitated both quantitative and qualitative analyses, providing a comprehensive evaluation of trends in VE practices and identifying research gaps within the field of construction engineering. The initial search returned 1,196 publications from the SD database. Subsequent screening of abstract and full text excluded irrelevant materials and studies outside the scope of the construction industry, reducing the number of retained records to 726. Further selection was done based on keyword searches for “value engineering” and “construction” in the title, abstract and full text. The final screening for eligibility resulted in 70 eligible research papers that met the complete review criteria.

Figure 2 shows the analysis of keywords extracted from the selected literature included in the systematic review, as well as the temporal relationships among these terms. Examination of the diagram reveals that the keywords “project” and “systems” are integrally linked to VE with considerable interconnectivity through links with most other keywords. An analysis of temporal trends in keyword usage reveals that from 2014 to 2020 research was focused on practice methodology to advance VE practice and improve outcomes. Beginning in 2020, scholarly attention shifted toward data-driven decision-making processes and analytical methodologies used to identify optimal alternatives. Notably, the role of data has emerged as a central theme in recent years, as researchers place greater emphasis on approaches that enable data-driven assessments of value across multiple functional aspects of construction projects. This growth may also be a result of the rapid expansion of technology for data capture, storage and analysis in the VE and construction fields. Effectively managing and analyzing the large amounts of initial information and information generated in the VE process has long been a challenge in the construction field. The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) and other advanced methods in information technology has significantly influenced VE practices over the past 15 years, particularly in aspects of decision-making that involve large amounts of information captured from a range of different projects.

Earlier topics focus on project management, particularly in relation to the keyword's “quality” and “building,” which share robust connections within the visualization. This research focuses on delivering quality outcomes from the VE process, suggesting that the research at this time was centered on effective VE practices required to meet the needs of the construction industry. Although there was a modest reduction in publication volume in 2024, the overall trajectory suggests that research on VE continues to evolve in response to the changing value demands and expectations of stakeholders in the construction sector. The observed changes in keyword emphasis over time underscore a persistent scholarly interest in VE, spurred by an increased recognition of its practical contributions not only to financial outcomes but also to risk management, sustainability, carbon reduction and the enhancement of resource efficiency.

Figure 3 presents the distribution of annual counts of published research on VE over the past 15 years. Among the year-to-year variations, the data indicate a general upward trend in the overall levels of construction-related VE research. Notably, there was a marked increase in publications in 2015, culminating in a peak output of eight articles in 2016, which represents the highest annual publication count during this period. After experiencing a decline in 2017 and 2018, research activity increased again, steadily rising from 2019 onward. The momentum continued, with the second-highest output occurring in 2021, when seven articles were published, followed closely by 2022 and 2023, each of which yielded six articles. This pattern reflects both the dynamic nature of VE research in response to constantly evolving industry needs and the development of technologies for supporting the practice of VE in the construction sector.

Figure 4(a) illustrates the global distribution of VE research in construction, with contributions from 21 countries. Egypt leads with the highest number of publications (17%). The construction industry in Egypt is considered high risk, characterized by funding shortages, payment disputes and ineffective project management (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008). While VE is regarded as a robust tool for optimizing financial outcomes from construction projects in emerging economies, as shown with Egypt, VE is only used in a limited number of projects (Abdelrahman and Nassar, 2024).

VE studies from China accounted for 13% of all studies reviewed. VE has long been established in the construction industry of China; however, the knowledge level of VE practice varies throughout the industry, with typically low awareness (Li and Ma, 2012). Research from the UK, where the use of VE is common practice for public construction projects, accounted for around 9% of all studies. Although UK legislation does not specify VE as a mandatory requirement, public authorities and major contractors often adopt VE to ensure the best use of public resources (RICS, 2017). The insights from VE application in Iranian construction projects (9% of the studies reviewed) maintains the notion that VE is increasingly being adopted in public and large-scale projects as a best practice, even if no specified obligation to do so (Nejatyan et al., 2024).

The United States, where VE in construction originates, and South Korea each account for 7% of the total studies. Malaysia accounted for 6% of the total studies reviewed. In the early stages of its evolution, Malaysia implemented the Value Management (VM) Circular 3/2009 for all public projects exceeding RM$50 million to conduct VM studies (Jaapar et al., 2012). Canada (4%) and Australia (4%) also make notable contributions. Similar to the UK, while VE is not mandated in Australia, it is not uncommon for VE requirements to be included in standard procurement and project management protocols (Rahmani et al., 2017).

The national prominence of VE research in nations such as Egypt is particularly notable; such nations have limited formal requirements for implementing VE (Kim et al., 2015). The recognition of VE in developing countries is a recurring theme in VE research, with previous studies highlighting the benefits of VE in resource-limited contexts (Chen et al., 2022). This suggests a growing awareness of VE's potential to effectively support ambitious development goals (Kosny et al., 2014). Conversely, in developed nations such as the UK, VE practices are well-established and supported by authoritative industry groups, particularly in transportation and building projects, resulting in sustained project value and efficiency (Zhang et al., 2009; Mirfarhadi et al., 2021).

The geographic distribution of VE research underscores its global importance; however, there appears to be an influence from the national status of policy and the interest of professional bodies in VE on the level of research outputs in the country. While it seems that some governments avoid specifically specifying the need for VE for a given type of project, to avoid constraining project costing methods. Where there is support, industry-level support, there is a corresponding increase in research on VE practice. Given the important role of such authoritative bodies, further research is needed on the role of regulation and policy in VE research to guide further developments in supporting value from large construction projects.

In conclusion, VE has demonstrated considerable social, environmental and financial value across both developing and developed nations. The extent of VE adoption and research output appears closely linked to national regulatory frameworks and professional body engagement. Strengthening policy support and institutional backing could further enhance the implementation of VE, particularly in emerging economies, enabling projects to achieve higher value, efficiency and sustainability. Future studies should therefore examine the interplay between regulation, professional advocacy and VE research to inform strategies that maximize the benefits of VE across diverse construction contexts.

Figure 4(b) presents the breadth of research methods used in the VE research, with some papers employing a combination of methods, resulting in a total of more than 100%. The reviewed literature also highlights the methodological diversity necessary to address the multifaceted nature of VE research in the construction sector. This diverse approach enhances the reliability and validity of research findings while providing a more comprehensive understanding of VE applications in the construction field.

Case studies were the most frequently used research method, appearing in 67% of the studies. These case studies provide insights into real-world VE applications, including problem identification, implementation steps and outcomes achieved in construction projects (Nikbakhtan and Osanloo, 2009; Shu et al., 2010; Abdrabbo and Gaaver, 2012a). Model development was the second most common research method, accounting for 31.4% of the studies. Models were used primarily to enhance decision-making, such as Liang et al.’s (2023) building-function-assessment model, which applied the TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) as a multi-criteria decision method to balance cost and performance, and Hickish et al.’s (2022) simulation-based optimization of rail networks. Interviews (19%) and questionnaire surveys (20%) were widely used to gather expert opinions on VE implementation. For example, Othman et al. (2021) conducted interviews within a VE workshop (VEW) focused on the Egyptian construction industry, providing insights into the barriers and perceptions that influence VE adoption in the region. Literature reviews (17%) synthesize existing knowledge and identify research trends and gaps in VE applications. Abeysekara et al. (2021), for instance, reviewed VE in infrastructure projects and emphasized integrating sustainability into VE practices to meet stakeholder needs. Simulations (10%) provided controlled environments for testing VE applications in innovative construction settings. Zhu et al. (2024), for example, assessed material recyclability as part of VE applications.

Despite these methodological advancements, research gaps remain, particularly in adapting VE to evolving industry demands and complex client requirements. Many studies still emphasize improving value through cost reduction, while fewer focus on non-financial aspects such as LCCA and environmental impact. Future research is needed to expand knowledge in these non-financial facets of VE (Robati et al., 2021).

Figure 4(c) shows the application of VE across project types within the construction domain. Building construction projects account for 42 studies (60%), indicating a strong research on VE to deliver on the set value requirement for projects. Transportation projects represent 16 studies (23%), followed by water supply infrastructure at five studies (7%). VE applications were also identified in industrial, urban park and public projects, each contributing two studies (3%).

The scope of research across different construction sectors spans various methodologies, including literature reviews, case studies and model development. For instance, Abeysekara et al. (2021) conducted a comprehensive literature review on infrastructure investment planning in the transportation sector, examining the causes of inefficiencies and the practices applied to enhance efficiency. The research illustrated that the VE plays a role in improving capital deployment efficiency for transport projects in developing countries, highlighting the need for supporting policy particularly where there wider social impacts. Mahdi et al. (2020) employed a case study approach to examine decision-making processes for improving soft clay in transportation projects. The research scope encompassed improved decision-making regarding the relative value of common techniques used for addressing soft clay in highway construction projects. In terms of model development, Hickish et al. (2022) introduced simulations designed to optimize rail network specifications. Additionally, questionnaire surveys have been a common research tool utilized to gather stakeholder perspectives. Othman et al. (2021) identified barriers to VE implementation in the Egyptian construction industry.

Building construction projects remain the primary focus of VE research in the construction industry, particularly in highly cost-sensitive residential and high-rise developments. For example, Almansour and Krarti (2022) examined structural optimization in residential buildings in Kuwait, where reductions in construction costs were achieved by right-sizing structural systems. In this case, cost reductions were more than sufficient to cover the costs of implementing energy efficiency measures, which lower annual energy demand by 70% compared to the current design practices. Almasri et al. (2023) evaluated the use of light-gauge steel (LGS) in comparison to typical reinforced concrete (RC) for villa construction in the UAE for cost, sustainability, time and function. Applying the standard VE job methodology in combination with weighted multiple criteria, identified LGS as the preferred construction material due to less waste, enhanced seismic resistance and constructability. However, there were elements of RC that outperformed LGS, including insulation and fire resistance. This example highlights the need for compromise in aspects such as functionality and cost when assessing alternatives based on more criteria than cost alone.

The increasing application of VE in transportation infrastructure and waterworks projects is also noteworthy. In particular, waterworks projects have been explored through case studies and interviews, demonstrating significant cost savings, such as the 36% reduction achieved in sewer projects with VE techniques (Kineber et al., 2022). While these studies highlight the versatility of VE across different project types, some limitations remain. Most research primarily emphasizes cost reduction, with secondary attention given to environmental impact and sustainability. For instance, Zhu et al. (2024) evaluated the value and environmental implications of using recycled aggregates in construction, yet such studies remain limited. A focus on integrating VE with sustainable construction practices, particularly in LCCA and carbon reduction initiatives, is needed in future research. This aligns with frameworks like the carbon VE model proposed by Robati et al. (2021). While multiple objectives are considered in VE research, the potential for conflict and frameworks for resolving these conflicts are not explicitly investigated. When multiple values are considered in a project, potential conflicts can arise, for example, in scenarios where there is a conflict between selection criteria for building materials based on cost and their embedded carbon footprint. Although building projects continue to dominate VE research, the presence of studies across all categories underscores the broad applicability of VE across different construction sectors and the need to develop strategies for effectively assessing multiple objectives that may be in conflict.

The SAVE eight-phase job plan is a defining feature of a VE study; the structure of distinct phases supports systematic assessment of value and proposal of improved value alternatives. Each phase has different information and assessment requirements for investigating components, procedures or materials (Chen et al., 2022). Among the 70 research papers reviewed, 47 studies (67%) incorporated details of the VE job plan applied. Figure 4(d) lists the phases of the standard VE job plan, including the implementation phase, and the relative percentage of phases covered in the literature reviewed.

The main research effort was focused on the development phase (94%), which is the fifth phase, where the comparative value analysis of selected alternatives is assessed based on functional details, resource estimates and implementation considerations.

The evaluation phase also received significant research attention (89%), as the fourth phase of the VE job plan. This is where ideas are screened and ranked based on criteria identified as important by key stakeholders, which may include cost, environmental impact and safety. Uncertainty can be a significant challenge when assessing hypothetical alternative scenarios. Chakraborty et al. (2020) proposed a cost-prediction model for building projects that accounts for costing uncertainty. The proposed hybrid model provided estimates of uncertainty through probabilistic predictions for real value outputs. Given the concerns of project owners and stakeholders regarding uncertainties related to construction cost predictions, such approaches provide greater confidence and clarity in the option evaluation phase. The avoidance of uncertainty can lead to overlooking viable alternatives due to a lack of information necessary for an informed assessment.

The creativity phase was highlighted in 87% of the papers. As the third phase of the VE job plan, the creativity phase involves identifying potential alternatives using methods such as brainstorming and incorporating interdisciplinary engineering perspectives to expand idea generation. To aid VE teams during the creativity process Berawi et al. (2019), introduced the Chief-Screen 1.0 software platform to improve schedule performance in building projects. The study employs VE methodology in conjunction with qualitative analysis to develop a platform that facilitates the collection and sharing of project performance information. This type of research is a perfect example of incorporating advanced data analysis into the next wave of advancements in VE practices through the sharing of ideas and critical assessment information. In contrast, the preparation phase (55%) was less frequently explored, with only a few studies considering the early-stage groundwork required of VE. As the first phase of the VE job plan, the preparation phase is crucial for setting up the success of the VE study through having important information on the project. The preparation of information flows through the VE study. As shown by Zhu et al. (2020), substantial data collection was needed during the preparation stage to support and justify the proposal of recycled aggregate concrete as a sustainable alternative to conventional aggregate in concrete in construction.

The second phase, the functional analysis phase (61.7%), was examined by a subset of studies, including Zhu et al. (2024), which applied VE to assess material recyclability and environmental impact. For instance, Aboelmagd (2018) applied functional analysis and developed a decision support system to enhance the efficiency of cost reduction in hospital and associated housing construction. In this case a conventional FAST diagram was used for functional analysis of the contractor's ability and performance in completing the project within the functional and resourcing parameters.

The implementation phase (53.2%) received relatively less research attention than other phases. At this stage, the selection and performance of alternatives was the primary focus, as seen in Mirfarhadi et al. (2021), which analyzed the effectiveness of seismic design approaches through simulations. The literature on VE practice emphasizes the importance of evaluating performance after implementation to ensure the desired functionality and resource allocation are achieved. However, the evaluation of research focused on the evaluation phase is limited compared to the other VE phases (Yu et al., 2015). The limited research on the implementation phase is not surprising, as it is often not included as part of a VE project or research (Li et al., 2022). This gap in information on implementation creates limited opportunities for validation of assessments made through the VE job plan.

Notably, some studies bypassed the preparation phase entirely, transitioning directly from the information phase to brainstorming or creativity phases. For example, Khodeir and El Ghandour (2019) investigated cost control in Egyptian residential projects without conducting a detailed preparation analysis. To maximize the benefits of VE, it is crucial to adhere to the entire job plan process, ensuring that comprehensive alternatives are proposed and successfully implemented. This highlights a gap in the current research on VE outcomes in the absence of completing all phases of the VEW. Such an understanding of common failure modes for VE will aid in identifying improvements in VE to meet the current needs of the construction industry.

The review identified four primary themes in VE studies being Performance and Impact, Strategy, Affecting Factors and Application Status. The theme “Performance and Impact” relates to the factors affecting efficacy in achieving value for the project, which received the most attention, appearing in 50 out of 70 studies (71%). In this case, Performance and Impact refer to studies that support the fundamental tenants of VE practice of increasing value through maintaining function and reducing resource input. Among these, cost savings, which ranged from 5% to 15% in building projects, were the most frequently reported benefit. The “Strategy” theme refers to the strategic approach to a VE study to support the success of optimizing project value. This theme was explored in 33 studies (47%), focusing on VE integration methods, with a strong preference for logical and repeatable step-by-step approaches to implementation. The “Affecting Factors” theme, covered in 14 studies (20.0%), examined both internal and external influences on VE success. These studies analyzed critical activities that support success of a VE studies such as team collaboration, stakeholder involvement and project-specific challenges that impact VE outcomes. The rapid nature of VE studies and the bringing together of teams that may not usually work together if not managed correctly can limit the effectiveness of the VEW. Lastly, “Application Status” was addressed in 11of the 70 studies (16%), investigating the current state of VE adoption. While VE remains a valuable tool for enhancing project values with research leading the way for more effective use in contemporary settings, the research regarding enhancing adoption in the construction industry was comparatively limited. Such outcomes bolster the need for greater influence from industry bodies and government policy makers to play an advocacy role for VE in the construction industry.

The application of tools to support VE application within the construction industry has gained attention across different research themes. The core aim of the tools is the streamlining tasks across different phases of the VEW to improve efficiency and effectiveness. One focus has been the development of tools to streamline time-consuming processes, improve information storage and retrieval and facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration through incorporating methods for assessing value across domains, including safety, environment and sustainability. Figure 5 presents a classification framework for VE Tools organized into five categories representing specific methodological approaches to addressing diverse VE project needs such as creativity, cost analysis, decision-making, information retrieval, teamwork and risk management. Each tool is designed for specific role in the VE process, and their combined use has been shown to provide robust decision-making, cost-effectiveness, collaboration and innovation for assessing value across multiple criteria and disciplines.

Creative Tools aim to foster innovation and systematic problem-solving during the VE process. The creative phase can be challenging due to the complex multivariable nature of construction projects, and such research has long considered how to improve the efficiency of such a potentially time-consuming task. TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) is a well-established, logic-based tool designed to generate innovative solutions by systematically addressing technical challenges and aiding future innovations (Renev and Chechurin, 2016). TRIZ methodology encourages abstraction and contradiction analysis to support VE teams in moving beyond surface-level ideas to uncover deeper functional aspects that can be applied to the problem. Building on the TRIZ methodology, the VE-KMS integrates inventive problem-solving techniques into the VE creativity phase to develop structured and innovative ideas (Zhang et al., 2009). The knowledge management aspect of the tool stores information about potential solutions, which can be retrieved as part of the decision-making process in future Value Engineering Workshops (VEWs). Such an approach supports teams to work beyond their creative capacity and collective. Additionally, integrated tools help overcome methodological limitations; for example, TRIZ excels at generating conceptual ideas but lacks built-in mechanisms for evaluating cost, feasibility and risk as core pillars of VE.

Evaluation Tools focus on analyzing and evaluating the value of multiple alternatives based on criteria such as cost, functionality and lifecycle resource impacts. The life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) evaluates the economic value of a given alternative over its entire lifecycle, encompassing acquisition, operation, maintenance and disposal costs (Kim et al., 2015; El-Nashar, 2017). The benefits of tools such as LCCA are that the concept is embedded in many areas of construction management, with experience and acceptance in the industry. Furthermore, as an economic tool, there is the ability to consider indirect costs related to sustainability, such as embedded carbon and social costs. Methods such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) provide a structured approach for ranking and prioritizing alternatives based on their relative importance. The customizable criteria of AHP allow VE teams to evaluate alternatives beyond cost factors alone and incorporate multiple criteria. The method supports teams in evaluating alternatives based on how well they fulfil required functions, and align with strategic goals such as safety, acceptability and sustainability. As AHP relies on human judgments, the process of pairwise comparisons, has the potential to introduce bias or inconsistency, especially when criteria are abstract (e.g. “stakeholder satisfaction” vs. “long-term risk”) (Kou et al., 2016). The Value Index (VI) is a composite score that quantifies the overall performance of a VEW by evaluating multiple dimensions of success. The VI reflects how well the workshop achieves its intended goals, which can focus on multiple objectives, such as cost savings, functional improvement and stakeholder satisfaction. VI calculates value as the ratio of functionality to cost, emphasizing the balance between functional performance of alternatives and affordability of delivery (Chen et al., 2010). In addition to conventional analysis methods, the review demonstrates the expansion of analysis methods from other disciplines for evaluating project value beyond financial resourcing alone, including direct and indirect carbon sources, as well as seismic design. Neither of the discipline areas is directly concerned with financial aspects; however, seismic design illustrates the assessment of functionality where the driver is safety rather than cost, and carbon demonstrates the evaluation of a non-financial resource expenditure with significant value to stakeholders.

Decision-making tools support structured and systematic selection processes for possible alternatives, particularly in complex scenarios involving multiple cost and functional criteria. Decision Support Systems (DSS) facilitate the systematic evaluation of alternatives by organizing and analyzing data to guide optimal decision-making (Abbaspour et al., 2020). Similarly, Electre III provides a structured approach to decision-making by evaluating alternatives using predefined criteria, ensuring the efficient resolution of complex problems (Marzouk, 2011). Instead of strict rankings, ELECTRE III allows for partial preferences, which is ideal for VE contexts where multiple trade-offs exist between safety, cost and performance. TOPSIS is another tool applied in VE that ranks options based on their distance from an ideal solution (best performance across all criteria) and a negative ideal (worst performance), helping prioritize high-value solutions (Liang et al., 2023). Like evaluation tools, decision-making tools support the efficacy of the evaluation phase, which requires objective valuation of selected options against multiple project criteria. Collaboration Tools support teamwork throughout the VE process to maximize project value outcomes. VEWs bring teams together to analyze factors contributing to project success, encouraging collective brainstorming and improvement proposals (Chen et al., 2010). Collaboration tools have broad applicability across multiple phases of the VE job plan, including creative, evaluation and development phases. Given the rise of remote working across multidisciplinary teams, it is expected that collaboration tools will expand and play a greater role in future VEWs. This rise in collaboration is not without its challenges in meeting VEW objectives. With the success of VEWs contingent upon collaboration, Chen et al. (2010) proposed a VI, being a composite score that quantifies the overall performance of a VEW by evaluating multiple dimensions of success, including teamwork quality, which embodies collaboration of the VE team. The VI reflects how well the workshop achieves its intended goals, which can focus on multiple objectives, such as cost savings, functional improvement and stakeholder satisfaction. The VI can help motivate collaboration in teams by showing performance outcomes achieved.

Risk and Sustainability Tools facilitate the integration of risk management and sustainability practices in VE projects. The proposed CMRA (Creative Risk Management Approach) tool supports the assessment of risk in IT-related and complex projects, helping teams identify and mitigate potential failures (Sawaguchi, 2015). As an emerging methodology that integrates risk management directly into the VE process, it is particularly tailored for the construction industry. The tool facilitates enhanced creativity while proactively addressing risks during the ideation and evaluation phases of VEWs. The CMRA tool, used in transport interchange projects, facilitated assessments to balance cost, safety and operational risks during early-stage design workshops (Sawaguchi, 2015). However, as with many other risk tools, there is a heavy reliance on expert judgment, which can introduce bias if VEW facilitation is not conducted appropriately. Finally, Table 1 gives a brief overview of the different tools and how they relate to the phases and results.

Figure 6 illustrates the application areas of VE tools, organized into three key domains: design and planning, performance improvement and lifecycle analysis. Design and planning capture tools that investigate design functionality and corresponding planning to ensure the delivery of value objectives required by key stakeholders. Performance improvement includes research for optimizing the decision-making process for proposed alternatives. These tools specialize in collecting, storing and assessing data for supporting decision-making based on value objectives. The lifecycle set of tools is designed to assess the total resources required over the lifetime of a project to achieve the required functionality.

In the Design and Planning domain, during the function analysis phase, tools such as Systematic Design Review (SDR), Design Stage (DS) and FAST play a critical role in refining project designs and project planning processes. The SDR ensures reliability, maintainability and inspectability through iterative evaluations that optimize designs to meet project objectives (Dell’Orco et al., 2011). The DS tool divides the design process into feasibility, preliminary and detailed phases, enabling continuous improvement and alignment with project goals (Ping et al., 2011). Meanwhile, the conventional FAST employs the “How-Why” logic to systematically identify and enhance functional aspects, ensuring effective classification and optimization of key functions (Berawi et al., 2019). The continued use of the FAST supports the continued validity underpinning the foundational methodology of VE.

The performance improvement domain is geared toward maximizing value through minimizing costs, resourcing and expanding to project delivery risks. The Transaction Benefit Framework evaluates the positive outcomes of collaborations among stakeholders, ensuring mutual benefits from project transactions (Afriat, 2014). Additionally, the Reduction List tool aids in the project evaluation process by identifying non-essential components for project execution, enabling cost reduction without compromising functionality (Olsson, 2015). In general, these application areas demonstrate the multifaceted capabilities for design optimization and lifecycle cost analysis during the evaluation phase.

In the lifecycle analysis category for the evaluation phase, tools like LCCA and multi-criteria lifecycle cost analysis (MCLCA) focus on evaluating costs for the entire lifecycle of proposed alternatives. For assessing the value of a proposal during the evaluation phase, an accurate lifecycle cost is essential. LCCA examines costs associated with acquisition, operation, maintenance and disposal, offering a comprehensive approach to long-term cost-efficiency (Kim et al., 2015; El-Nashar, 2017). On the other hand, MCLCA incorporates multi-objective evaluation techniques to balance performance with other project aspects like environmental impacts, identifying the most sustainable alternatives for to meet project objectives (BuHamdan et al., 2019).

Additionally, some VE tools are based on quantitative frameworks and methodologies. These methodologies provide structured guidance for decision-making during the evaluation phase, enhancing the transparency and consistency of option evaluation in VE. Given the complexity of multiple options combined with a range of value objectives in contemporary VE practice, evaluation tools play a growing role in VE for the construction industry.

Figure 7 highlights the diverse applications of VE across various sectors, emphasizing its role in optimizing resource expenditure, enhancing functionality and promoting objectives beyond cost reduction. VE has been employed in infrastructure applications across diverse construction projects, including highway construction, cooling systems and metro stations, resulting in material savings, lower costs and improved functionality. For example, Basu et al. (2013) demonstrated the need for a holistic approach by considering all pavement types in conjunction with LCCA, including the socio-economic cost of aggregate materials for highway projects. The approach was required to meet the multiple value objectives set by key stakeholders. Ping et al. (2011) achieved a 23% volume reduction for metro stations through an integrated team design process, which enhanced trust and responsibility, resulting in improved efficiency, increased opportunities for innovation and continuous quality improvement. Similarly, sustainability and environmental impact are key focuses of VE, with initiatives such as using recycled materials and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to increase value through lower environmental impact while still meeting the required functionality. Yu et al. (2020) and Zhu et al. (2020) highlighted significant reductions in emissions and costs through the innovative use of materials, such as Recycled Aggregate Concrete (RAC), particularly where such options would not have been typically considered.

In building and construction projects, value encompasses factors like cost and sustainability through design optimization and innovative materials. Zapata-Lancaster and Tweed (2014) saved £514,000 and met the policy objective of achieving low-carbon buildings, where traditional VM methods are often ineffective. Robati et al. (2021) utilized VEM to identify measures that could reduce up to 26% of the building's total lifecycle carbon emissions, with a specific focus on structural components as the most significant contributor to cost. In an energy and asset efficiency context, Zhou et al. (2016) applied VE to optimizing ground heat exchangers and Dell’Orco et al. (2011) redesigning and optimizing systems for greater reliability, maintainability and inspectability of the final assets. VE also plays a critical role in Public Infrastructure and Utilities with indirect socio-economic benefits, helping reduce lifecycle costs and optimizing functionality. Kineber et al. (2022) achieved a 36% cost reduction in sewer projects, while El-Nashar and Elyamany (2018) identified improvements to irrigation techniques, enabling them to deliver greater volumes of water for crop production.

Throughout the review period, VE has continued to be applied in sustainable urban planning and cost-effective residential designs for residential and urban development. Almansour and Krarti (2022) showcased substantial cost savings and sustainability improvements in villa designs, emphasizing VE's diverse applications in residential urban settings. For Transportation Systems, VE has utility in boosting functionality related to passenger satisfaction, with Hickish et al. (2022) reporting £5 billion in savings and an 8% increase in passenger satisfaction on rail networks. Industrial applications also benefit from VE through optimized designs and improved resource efficiency (Abdrabbo and Gaaver, 2012b). Lastly, Kim et al. (2015) demonstrated VE applicability to research and academic facilities through VE and LCA for operational costs while promoting sustainability outcomes, resulting in USD$1.97 million in savings.

The classification of VE benefits across various domains is presented in Figure 8. In terms of resource requirements, VE continues to be a powerful tool for enhancing value by reducing project expenses through design optimization and resource management. For example, Zapata-Lancaster and Tweed (2014) reported £514,000 in savings through building design optimization. Kazemi et al. (2022) documented a 62.7% cost reduction in urban park designs. Using selected sustainability indicators, the consumption of resources and maintenance costs decreased the total LCCA despite higher initial construction costs. Kineber et al. (2022) developed a VE tool as a guide for design engineers and decision-makers in sewer projects, which achieved 36% savings in LCCs.

Regarding project resource optimization, VE focuses on enhancing material usage efficiency to reduce final costs in addition to reductions in embedded carbon across the supply chain. In a residential project, Almasri et al. (2023) achieved a 13.5% reduction in construction costs and halved the project schedule duration by using lower-cost and easier-to-handle materials without compromising required functionality. VE also supports environmental impact reduction by scoping the VE job plan to identify alternative value objectives, such as focusing on incorporating sustainable materials and reducing carbon emissions. Robati et al. (2021) reported an 8–26% reduction in embodied carbon by using alternative materials, and Liu et al. (2022) highlighted the use of rammed earth for enhanced sustainability in rural projects by utilizing local materials.

The review also shows the role of VE in optimizing functional effectiveness by focusing on system performance and operational reliability in the design phase of projects. The case study presented by Shu et al. (2010) achieved value enhancement for district cooling and heating systems. In addition to economic factors, the case study considered the influence in conjunction with other factors, including energy conservation and environmental protection. Additionally, a case study by Zhou et al. (2016) on heating and cooling, identified enhancements to ground heat exchanger performance and material efficiency. These two examples illustrate VE's applicability to performance standards, efficiency and economic costs. Furthermore, VE is crucial in enhancing performance and safety by improving resilience in high-risk systems. Mirfarhadi et al. (2021) demonstrated a 6.6% cost saving in seismic designs while improving resilience, and Basu et al. (2013) optimized highway designs for safety and longevity, emphasizing the critical role of VE in complex systems with multiple objectives. While cost savings through VE are relatively straightforward to assess, with less tangible value-based outcomes related to safety and resilience, a greater level of subjectivity based on project owner objectives may need to be applied, relevant to the given situation.

In the context of innovation and decision-making, VE promotes the adoption of cutting-edge solutions in conjunction with systematic approaches to enhance value outcomes. By optimizing processes, Berawi et al. (2019) improved efficiency, and the overall project completion time was reduced by 29.5% using novel information management in scheduling. Marzouk (2011) implemented VE with the ELECTRE III model, enhancing project cost efficiency while preserving quality and functionality through a flexible decision-making approach. Lastly, VE delivers long-term economic and social benefits by delivering LCC savings and broader societal impacts. Kim et al. (2015) achieved USD$1.97 million in lifecycle savings for construction of research facilities. Hickish et al. (2022) documented £5 billion in cost savings, accompanied by an 8% increase in passenger satisfaction, in rail networks. This highlights that function, cost and social value are not mutually exclusive in VE assessment of long-term performance.

Furthermore, the differences between this study and a comparable one (Chen et al., 2022) can be outlined as such:

1. This study is predicated on a comprehensive literature review, encompassing the period from 2009 to 2024, with the objective of providing a more exhaustive synthesis of all publications discussing VE. Conversely, Chen et al. (2022) encompasses articles published between 2009 and 2021. Consequently, the time frame of this study offers a more representative overview of the entire body of VE-related literature.

2. The present paper utilizes the “ScienceDirect” academic database as the exclusive source of articles under review. Chen et al. (2022) was selected from the database through electronic databases, including Science Direct, Google Scholar and Scopus.

3. From a methodological perspective, this study adopts a more detailed and systematic process for determining whether an article should be included in the dataset. This rigorous approach ensures that the analyzed publications genuinely focus on VE and maintains a strong relevance to the topic.

4. The present study has made substantial contributions to the field by presenting novel findings that have been validated through analyses of the article database examined. These novel findings include significant differences that can be further validated through analyses such as “VE Research Paper Publication by Country,” “Journal Sources Distribution” and “Year of Publication.”

5. The repetition rate of the references of the two papers is less than 10%.

AI integration into VE practices.

In the contemporary practice of the construction industry, VE serves not merely as a cost-control tool but also as a comprehensive strategy to maximize value through the multifaceted balance of function, quality, cost and sustainability. As discussed in the previous sections, VE delivers benefits that can be observed across both sectors and domains. The integration of AI into VE practices is expected to further expand these benefits, given the diversity of VE tools that have demonstrated significant contributions to project performance, including creative tools, evaluation tools, decision-making tools, collaboration tools and risk and sustainability tools, as illustrated in Figure 5. Examples include VE-KMS (VE-Knowledge Management System) by Zhang et al. (2009), which focuses on the creativity phase; ELECTRE III by Marzouk (2011), facilitating decision-making during the evaluation phase; PPSPI (Perceived Project Sustainability Performance Indicators) by Nawawi et al. (2015), targeting sustainability agendas; CRMART (Creative Risk Management Approach based on Reverse Thinking) by Sawaguchi (2015), addressing risk sensitivity; TRIZ by Renev and Chechurin (2016), supporting problem-solving, idea generation and forecasting in innovation contexts and TOPSIS by Liang et al. (2023), for multi-criteria decision-making.

Although traditional VE methodologies and decision-support systems have contributed to specific phases of the VE process, AI offers unprecedented capabilities to integrate, automate and optimize all these functions continuously as more information becomes available. AI-based systems can process extensive and diverse datasets, identify hidden patterns and generate adaptive solutions in real time, thereby enhancing creativity, evaluation accuracy, decision-making efficiency, collaboration effectiveness and sustainability assessment. Furthermore, the integration of predictive analytics, generative design and natural language processing within AI renders the VE process more dynamic, data-driven and responsive to the fast-paced and complex nature of modern construction projects. Consequently, AI not only strengthens existing VE practices but also redefines them, positioning VE as an intelligent, forward-looking strategy that delivers greater value, resilience and innovation across the construction industry.

This review provides a comprehensive analysis of trends in VE practice in the construction industry, based on research published between 2009 and 2024. The analysis reveals a steadily growing interest in VE research, with the number of publications increasing across three five-year periods. This trend likely reflects a broader acceptance of VE's effectiveness in construction projects, attributed to its flexibility and ability to adapt to evolving perceptions of project value beyond cost. The findings indicate that VE research is predominantly focused on building construction projects, with case studies being the most common research method to illustrate the importance of VE-related research. Furthermore, the review also highlights VE's applicability across project categories in the construction field.

The review further identifies a range of VE tools, benefits and barriers, emphasizing their role in enhancing project performance, functionality and cost efficiency. It underscores the importance of implementing VE early in the project lifecycle and monitoring progress through the VEW. Moving forward, there is a need to diversify VE studies beyond application to building projects and to focus research into the factors influencing VE adoption and the decision-making process. Expanding research in these areas would help develop effective implementation strategies for broader adoption within the construction industry and better understand the barriers to VE adoption faced. Furthermore, as VE studies increasingly address objectives beyond cost reduction – such as quality, carbon emissions, social value and sustainability – assessing value becomes more complex, particularly when certain factors, such as quality, cannot be easily quantified and are subjective based on the project clients' needs. Continued publication of case studies on novel and innovative VE applications will contribute to the collective knowledge on the evolving challenges in the construction industry.

This study acknowledges limitations, despite the broad scope applied. This limitation primarily stems from the narrow scope, which restricted the search to the SD database to target high-quality peer-reviewed literature. To overcome the potential bias, additional research databases should be considered in future research, which could be further expanded. Also further analysis of VEW factors, such as project stage and size, and their influence on VE implementation, is needed to broaden the practical knowledge of VE practice. Moreover, the study identifies a gap in the preferred project types for VE application, suggesting the need for exploration beyond conventional construction projects. Finally, the growing capabilities and application of AI across the construction industry is an emerging field with significant promise and applications are expected to grow significantly in the VE field.

The authors are especially thankful for Marpaung Bangun's help. His supplementary data made the paper better, and he also helped improve the figures and tables.