from wiki:
Value engineering (VE) is a systematic method to improve the "value" of goods or products and services by using an examination of function. Value, as defined, is the ratio of function to cost. Value can therefore be increased by either improving the function or reducing the cost. It is a primary tenet of value engineering that basic functions be preserved and not be reduced as a consequence of pursuing value improvements.
ORIGINS
Value engineering began at General Electric Co. during World War II. Because of the war, there were shortages of skilled labour, raw materials, and component parts. G.E. looked for acceptable substitutes. They noticed that these substitutions often reduced costs, improved product, or both. What started out as an accident of necessity was turned into a systematic process. They called their technique “value analysis”.
----------------
Reliability Engineers today study failures and make improvements needed to reduce warranty costs and preserve reputation for future sales.
Value Engineers look at the non-problem parts and try to reduce the cost of making them. You can just see the conflicts.
When I was looking at the pic of an early tranny in another thread today, I was struck at the total lack of value engineering applied to the Model T manufacture. It looks like a 1925 hogshead would drop right on there. Ford didn't change anything without overwhelming need. He may have had reliability engineers suggesting improvements, but there is little evidence he had the T era equivalent of Value Engineers running around trying to reduce cost to build. It's good for us, as most later mechanical parts bolt right onto earlier cars.
A notable exception is the rear body mount on the frame, where in 1913 it was made just an extension of the crossmember, instead of a separate casting. That reduced labor and material costs without sacrificing reliability.
How many other changes to the T were made primarily to reduce cost?
Excluding 1909 Model year with its teething pains, what changes could Ford have made to reduce costs, even if it meant no more backward compatibility?
Ralph,
I nominate:
* The one piece spindle where it was replaced by the two piece spindle as easier and cheaper to make. A bonus is it is easier to repair, too.
* The rear axle tube on the 1909s is a one piece deep draw steel stamping. Went back to the cast differential housing and simple steel tubes - like the Models N, R and S had - after trying several ways to keep the deep draw stamping.
Ralphie...
Ah, the philosophical hat on this evening, eh?...But a great question.
Value engineering went on to be a bad word in industry as designers simply used cheap as a replacement for sufficient and were goal targeted as to a percentage of a standard cost. It for the most part dies a horrible death because machining a heavy I-beam structure in half after hole drilling is not the way designers would have done it in he first place. Stacking gears ten up for shaping is another one of those ut-ohs as axial features were compromised. The list goes on and on, yet some had good success because their view to culture change worked for their culture.
In all my own years running good sized engineering departments,the best preaching with best stable results was Ken Dangerfield of Rolls Royce Aero. Ken was the Chief Cost Engineer for RR and a true genius (one of his 'classes' was the serpentine thruster positioning device on Harrier, the original proto had a gym-crack of a mechanical drive system on it). He had just finished the Harrier engine concurrent design and had moved on to Concorde when our own paths crossed as part of the Concorde engine test protocol.
Not to digress on thread drift too much, next time I'm home I'll mail you a copy of his work book if I can still find it...a fascinating read where his methods guarantee an 18% cost reduction minimum with up to a 30% reduction possible for any conventional design practice that sees the light of day as product with the shareholders/stakeholders willing to go back a second time at it. All with '0' compromise to the original performance. I've used his methodology, I've hired him out of retirement for special projects while he was still with us and never was disappointed.
A guy like that would have kept Ford in the forefront...provided he could get inside a designers head...because he convinced designers they were not weak or wrong, just that there were better ways once the unknown was known. He didn't become a global guru at it, because he preached re-engineering of an existing product completely once finished as a benchmark, with hopefully some of the teachings carrying over to future original designs as part of learning. The corporate world always felt why should they pay for a design twice until Ken showed them how fast his return for a new sunk cost would be returned.
To answer one of your questions raised...one factor of Ken was backward compatibility and when all else failed to reach the new goal why it was economically justifiable to handle two parts, even if the one was 're-made' from the finished new design to make it compatible.
Ah, the warriors of industry who were turned out way too early by the young set as being dinosaurs...because CAD/CAE systems were sold as inherently having such 'ideas'built into software, only for us to find out 'NOT' in practice. But then I really digress...