an architect would have called it a fiscal assessment intervention

The term is used loosely all the time but what is usually happening is "scope of work reduction". I sometimes call it "Cost-cutting measures".

AIA's terminology is Value Analysis...and yes it is a cost savings exercise.

If the actual construction costs exceed the architects estimate of construction costs, the project team participates in the Value Analysis process. In reducing costs you will either have to reduce the size of the project, reduce the quality of the project or both.

It's very difficult to accurately predict construction costs, market conditions or the way that the project is bid. Even when we have worked closely with a detailed cost estimator or a contractor during the design process, the actual contruction costs have ended up varying widely from the estimates.

I have heard this term in my work also. Architects sneer when the developer wants to "value engineer" the project. In all fairness, if you have a good team of consultants who are willing to work together, many inefficiencies can be done away with, saving the developer money. For example, architects need to look at the structural drawings closely. Sometimes a wall can be moved two feet and a beam can go from steel to wood, saving hundreds. So,,, don't be so quick to scoff at "value engineering", especially if your own lack of foresight can be shown to be insufficient.

ding ding ding

the winner is "Value Analysis"

i think that term most accurately describes the process
thanks urbanity

jcr
i get the plans to bid from the architect so i don't have a chance to use my foresight.

go do it,
If I was the architect I'd involve you in D.D. meetings ASAP in order to get your valuable input. Architects can't work in a vacuum. They're not gods. They should be team players. It takes a team to make a building.

well put jcr

this assumes you do away with design-bid-build and go to a cm, design-build or ipd model. of course a contractor wants greater say throughout the design process; he feels he has a certain expertise to bring to a project throughout design. problem is on all cm/ipd projects i've worked on the contractor is watching his bottom line as closely as he's watching the owner's. the "value" of the project is in a cost savings; this works for some owners, but not all. there is a value in the intangibles of design that cannot be squeezed out of every change order. a smart owner understands that; few contractors do.

Value engineering is the biggest enemy of a mediocre architect.

Quite often designers will pull off this one grand gesture that's the essence of the project. Value engineering comes in, takes that signature move away, and you are left with a strip mall dollar store.

Great designs should be more resilient than that.

One common strategy I've often seen utilized is over-designing the project in full anticipation of value engineering. It's like carrying two wallets in anticipation of a mugging. Certain owners will go through value engineering process regardless of budgetary state. They wanna see savings. You give them savings by eliminating features you never intended to have in the project anyways.

Win-win.

we have been doing aspects of IPD all along i guess without knowing it.

while not always included in the initial design as in IPD, but once the project starts we make it point of our management style to work with every trade and supplier by getting there imput to make the process run smoothly as in IPD.

It is the GC's job to make the logistics work. a good GC anyway.

you are right won and done there are some things that need to be left in the project because changing them may save money but deduct from the architect's vision. and that is when us poor GC's get caught in the middle between the architect and the client.

in that situation i lobby for the architect but try and find savings somewhere else, and then a couple of intangibles later i will lobby for the client and try and work a solution with the architect.

One common strategy I've often seen utilized is over-designing the project in full anticipation of value engineering. It's like carrying two wallets in anticipation of a mugging. Certain owners will go through value engineering process regardless of budgetary state. They wanna see savings. You give them savings by eliminating features you never intended to have in the project anyways.

Win-win.

not really.

well maybe, for the architect (more billable hours), and the client he sees some type a ghostly savings that was never a real cost.
however the contractor, suppliers and sub-contractors get to bid a ghost component for free.

rusty don't do that no mo!

to talk about preserving an architect's vision for a project is a bit misleading. an architect like a contractor is there to serve the best interests of the owner (he's the one paying our bills!). the "vision" per se is whatever the owner says it is. if the vision is to save money, i have no problem working with a contractor to find cost savings. the issue is that by the time an architect has completed a set of construction documents, he has generally weighed the cost versus design implications of that decision. take for example the selection of an air outlet. i've had gc/subs come to me saying we could save x thousand dollars if we went with a bar grill over a linear diffuser. that may be true, but in terms of the mechanical design, my engineers and i have determined that this configuration of linears will best cool the space, moderate noise, avoid drafts, etc. putting the decision simply in terms of a cost savings can sometimes only confuse an owner. design is more difficult to advocate for than cost because it is intangible, but i think it's important for all members of the team to fully understand why design decisions are made by the architect before laying out alternates.

i agree 100% won