Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel
Not to sound uncivilized but frankly, you're splitting hairs. those textbook definitions are fine, but in the real world there's no different because Value engineering can run the gamut from finish changes because of excessive bids for construction to drastic scope changes where potentially whole programmatic requirements need to be re-thought because of budgetary shortfalls or any number of other, un-foreseen circumstances (your 'Cost Engineering') - it's all the same aic, something which I'm currently dealing unfortunately. My client is expecting sealed bids within a week and already they're concerned about potentially big differences between their capital/budget allocations for this specific renovation and what bid contractors are estimating for construction. My point is that my client knows that there will inevitably be extensive value-engineering (a necessary evil of almost all projects) and it IS a big deal because it will drastically alter the design, timeframe and possibly even the scope of work that they initially hoped for. VE gets a bad name because regardless of how common it can be, it is potentially a bad thing and can compromise the integrity of a design that a lot of people such as yours truly work very, very hard to achieve.
Which is why your last statement is somewhat unwarranted and hurtful - VE has nothing to do with 'culture of laziness in the industry', if your referring to architectural/design professionals and has everything to do with $$$$$. Our job is to make sure that when Value engineering does occur, that the finished product doesn't look like shit, which is what my initial point re. the 4th Presbyterian church was about.
|
I'm splitting hairs on purpose, because there IS a difference. Substituting something like Stone-Lite Panels or an Arris-Clip Cladding system for full thickness stone cladding, or buying your curtain-wall through a Chinese or Canadian or Brazilian vendor, rather than through Vistawall or Kawneer, for instance, are VALUE engineering. You obtain the exact same finished product, both to the touch and to the eye, for a much lower price, both in labor and materials. This is re-engineering to provide VALUE. Same product, lower price.
It is COMPLETELY different to say, "You know, why don't we lop a floor off the building to save money?" Here you've saved money by reducing the scope of the work, reducing the VALUE of the building itself. This is COST engineering, and this is what's lazy. Far too often I see contractors, developers, architects and clients (we are all guilty of it) go for the easy solution, the COST engineering solution, before ever thinking about how they can achieve the end result with more innovative solutions.
Arguing with me about splitting hairs only serves to prove my point.
In your current situation, perhaps your client doesn't have the money for what was designed. This is often the case. But it doesn't mean you can't find a solution that reaches your design without redesigning.
EDIT: Also, just to clarify more strongly, I wasn't attacking architects or designers. I was talking about the industry of building from top to bottom, at all levels.
Prev
Linear Mode
