| |
By Michael
Mell, ASTC
Value engineering, a method of
analysis that became popular in the 1980s, is a tool used to save money. Its
aim is to find ways to complete a project for less money while retaining its
desired value. Every element in the building is assigned a relative value.
Those items deemed of great value are retained; those deemed of lesser value
are modified or eliminated. Seems to be a good idea; it helps keep
priorities in order, keeps client and design team on the same page, and
purports to increase value while decreasing costs. But does it?
In the 1966 movie Gambit, Michael Caine’s character has a plan to pull off a
major robbery and needs Shirley MacLaine’s character as a gambit and window
dressing for his plan to succeed. The opening of the movie shows the plan as
a dream sequence where everything goes exactly according to plan. Then the
film shows us the plan’s actual execution where, of course, everything goes
wrong. This is often what happens when value engineering is applied to
performing arts facilities. It’s not that I believe the process is flawed,
but that it’s often applied at inappropriate times with unrealistic
expectations.
Although the cost of a design should be monitored at each design phase, bids
often come in significantly over budget. This can be the result of poor
budget accounting during design, wishful thinking on the part of the client
and design team, an unforeseen jump in labor or material costs or a
malfunctioning crystal ball. Whatever the reason, there’s almost never
additional funding available, so the design team must find ways to reduce
the cost of the facility.
The knight in shining armor most often called upon is value engineering, the
process where all aspects of the theater are evaluated to ascertain their
value.
Those items deemed of great value are retained; those deemed of lesser value
are modified or eliminated. The only problem is that everyone has his own
idea of what’s valuable.
Substituting gypsum board for plaster won’t likely be a problem for anyone.
Redesign of the architect’s cherished lobby window wall will be a
disappointment, but after the theater is built, no one will ever know.
Deleting 25 percent of the stage lighting circuits and 50 percent of the
counterweight rigging sets can seriously handicap the theater over
 the
course of its existence. It may seem farfetched, but in these situations
it’s often the theatrical systems — essential to the function of the
facility — that are asked to suffer significant cuts.
The client/owner is the ultimate arbiter of the value engineering process,
although the work of creating value-engineering choices is delegated to the
architect. Sometimes the client elects to bring in an outside party to
oversee the process. The rationale is that the architect and design team may
be too emotionally invested and another firm will be able to review the
project with clear eyes. It also implies that all the parties selected to
create the facility (architect, design team, facility manager and owner)
have failed in some regard and/or aren’t professional enough.
In my experience, this reasoning is flawed. Usually a construction
management firm is engaged and charged with reducing the cost of the
facility to the monies available — period. Despite the best of intentions,
they can have no understanding of the history of the project, the consensus
that has been built, or the relationships, professional and social, that
have accrued.
They’re often granted carte blanche, and the architect and design team are
expected to accede a year or more of work to a relative stranger with
minimal time allotted and, most often, no additional fee. You may imagine
the unpleasant climate this creates. In fact, it can poison the entire
construction process.
Aside from licking old wounds, I’m writing this as a cautionary tale to help
make performing arts facilities the best they can be. Keep track of project
costs at all times during the design process. A cost consultant can be a
very valuable member of your team in this regard. If the project is over
budget at any point in the design, it should be addressed then. The earlier
a budget problem is identified, the easier it will be to remedy and the less
it will cost.
As the design proceeds through construction documentation, budget problems
become increasingly difficult to remedy and will increase in cost. If you
attempt to implement value engineering at this late stage, you’ll end up
with less building for the money.
To paraphrase Yoda, the Jedi Master, “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”
Michael Mell, ASTC is the author
of Building Better Theaters. He is the president of Theater Design Inc., a
firm specializing in the planning, design and renovation of performing arts
facilities and may be reached via his Web site at
www.theaterdesigninc.com. |
|
Back to Facility Manager
Contents
