VAVE in Aerospace: Cost Reduction Case Study
VAVE works differently in aerospace and defence than in commodity manufacturing. The savings are often larger because programmes run for decades with little competitive pressure — but every change has to clear a much higher qualification bar before it can be implemented.
Why VAVE looks different in aerospace and defence
Aerospace and defence programmes typically run for 10–30 years with a small, fixed supplier pool and limited opportunity for competitive re-tendering. That combination means cost inefficiencies baked in at the original design or sourcing decision tend to persist for the life of the programme — unless a structured VAVE effort goes looking for them. It also means every proposed change has to be evaluated not just for cost and function, but for requalification cost: AS9100 documentation, first-article inspection, and in some cases full re-certification.
Where VAVE finds the most value in aerospace programmes
- Material substitution — evaluating whether a part originally specified in a premium material can meet requirements in a lower-cost alternative at current volumes
- Process consolidation — reducing the number of manufacturing or finishing operations without changing the part's qualified specification
- Supplier diversification — qualifying a second source for a single-sourced part, reducing risk and creating competitive pricing pressure that didn't previously exist
- Specification review — checking whether legacy tolerances or surface finish requirements are still functionally necessary, or were simply inherited from an earlier design iteration
A real example: titanium to stainless steel
On a should-cost and VAVE engagement for a high-performance exhaust assembly, evaluating titanium against stainless steel at the same specification found a £4,350 per-unit saving — £1.3 million annually across 300 units — without compromising the assembly's performance requirement. The analysis covered both materials' manufacturing cost at the same production location, validated cost driver by cost driver, so the recommendation could be defended in a design review rather than just proposed.
Why the qualification bar changes the economics
In commodity manufacturing, a VAVE idea with a positive cost case is usually implemented quickly. In aerospace and defence, the same idea has to clear requalification cost and schedule risk before it's worth pursuing — which means VAVE prioritisation in this sector should weight the size of the saving against requalification cost and remaining programme volume, not cost saving alone.
Key takeaways
- Long programme lifecycles and small supplier pools mean cost inefficiencies in aerospace and defence persist longer without structured VAVE review
- Material substitution, process consolidation, supplier diversification, and specification review are the highest-yield categories
- Every VAVE idea in this sector needs to be weighed against requalification cost and remaining programme volume, not cost saving alone
- A should-cost model validated cost driver by cost driver is what makes a VAVE recommendation defensible in a formal design review
Frequently asked questions
Why does VAVE work differently in aerospace and defence?
Programmes run for 10-30 years with a small, fixed supplier pool and limited competitive re-tendering, so cost inefficiencies baked in at the original design persist longer unless a structured VAVE effort goes looking for them.
What is the biggest constraint on implementing a VAVE idea in aerospace?
Requalification cost and schedule — AS9100 documentation, first-article inspection, and in some cases full re-certification — all of which must be weighed against the size of the saving and how much programme volume remains.
What categories of VAVE ideas are most common in aerospace programmes?
Material substitution, process consolidation, supplier diversification, and specification review of legacy tolerances or finishes that may no longer be functionally necessary.
Can VAVE be applied to a part already qualified and in production?
Yes — this is value analysis specifically, as distinct from value engineering applied pre-release. It's common in aerospace, where a part's original specification was set years or decades earlier.
How is a VAVE saving validated in aerospace before implementation?
Through a should-cost model that breaks the proposed alternative down cost driver by cost driver against the current design, combined with a requalification plan confirming the change won't trigger additional certification requirements.
