DBB*

welp, i guess that didnt make much sense or isn't much of a topic. oh well i tried.

I'll bite.

Here is AIA's description of Target Value Design .

"Target-Value Design (TVD) turns current design practice upside-down:

-Rather than estimate based on a detailed design, design based on a detailed estimate
- Rather than evaluate the constructability of a design, design for what is constructable
-Rather than design alone and then come together for group reviews and decisions, work together to define the issues and produce decisions then design to those decisions
-Rather than narrow choices to proceed with design, carry solution sets far into the design process
-Rather than work alone in separate rooms, work in pairs or a larger group, face to face."


I never heard of it until now. Both casino projects that I worked on appeared to follow this formula though. Lots of time-consuming meeting. Lots of reverse-pricing design. Lots of deadlines. Lots of chaos.

This may be a valid approach to certain types of projects. Design build has become very popular with small firms doing small projects. Especially here in pacific northwest.

I have no strong opinion about Target Value Design, except for that name. Who the hell came up with that? The only trashy word missing from that is Luxury. Target Luxury Value Design. Get your at a pre-construction sale.

Even projects that are reasonable in price tend to have clients who originally believe it should be half the cost of what it is. Not sure how this model helps outside of giving architects more time-consuming things to do. Since we are clearly not working hard enough. Involve the client in every aspect of design. Great.

I have seen it emerge in large complex hospital projects. it's what every health care architect and contractor are talking about. Unfortunately, you usually see the contractor leading it instead of the architect. Clients are choosing contractors before architects which may be typical-I don't know. Like I said, I've been in the industry professionally for only about 2 years now. Projects that are taking a lot of time (traditionally) seem to be using this...I've heard contractors say "the biggest issue is that design can't happen fast enough." I get frustrated with this. Clients, will always build budgets and payback scenarios on incredibly optimistic grounds. Getting OR's open on their timeframe is a fun fun challenge.

Who knows. I have heard plenty of people in Cali lecture on it, but I haven't been on a team that employs it. We shall see.

I'd like to know when in the daily world of practice these two things DON'T happen anyway?

The AIA article sounds, to me, like a bunch of fancy talk for the way practice generally works anyway. The authors admit as much in the article, but encourage the reader to look for ways their own practice differs from their points. Well, rarely do all the team members physically work in one big room, which is a lovely touchy-feely idea and certainly appropriate for some projects.

But mainly, by labeling this "method" as something that offers more "value", they can play right into the trend towards "efficiency" that the business world is hot for these days - and thus be hired as consultants offering to implement their own method.

If school is teaching students that they design alone to their own vision then get everything priced and worked out for constructibility by someone else afterwards on the client's dime, that's very misleading but I wouldn't be surprised.

I remember reading something along the same lines-- does this involve Sutter Healthcare by chance?

I know in California there's a regulation that pretty much requires hospitals to be earthquake proof.

Apparently because of stringent regulations, high liabilities associated with construction workers and the cost expectations... Sutter has a little bit more time to really evaluate the building process on both sides.

I think one of the lessons learned is that by paying higher than average, involving more participants at an equal (no formal managerial structure) level and working slowly, they actually saved more money.

Is it similar to IPD--Integrated Project Delivery, which they claim using lean approach?

Yes. It's synonymous with IPD.

In terms of value-it's just talking about cost with a client. Spending more money up front with contractors, consultants, design team, etc...will prove to cut costs during construction. Theoretically.

I had lunch today with a former-architecture-student turned construction manager. He explained to me a process in which the key players from every party in the project - designers, contractors, client users, client management, money - get together and in two weeks bang out Schematic Design for a project. They literally work together in one shared office space and come up with several scenarios that are all tested for performance in measurable areas.

It actually sounded much more dynamic and sensible than the AIA article described. So I'm softening a bit on the idea, but still think it's silly that we feel this need to brand everything we do in an effort to look more "valuable".

Right. I think it works, however, for clients to understand delivery models. It may sound too catchy, but it gives a clear definition to owners. As opposed to CM-At Risk, etc... Owner's can employ different delivery models for their comfort zones...so, yes, AIA's name "Target Value Design" sounds great. I mean, CM-At Risk, I thought, always had such a negative sound to it!

Integrated Project Delivery sounds better than Target Value Design...maybe?

I have seen projects use these delivery methods that have become very effective. Most project types have been in new or renovations of industrial buildings. Owners/cleints of these types of projects know exactly what spacial needs they have and can give solutions to their own process much more effectively and efficiently than an architect can imagine or spend time to understand as their needs are so specific and specialized. The expertise the client and contractor are looking for is technical expertise for compliance with the code and the ability to "push" the work through the permit process through the municipality as that can prove to be quite difficult.

I have also seen these methods in practice with large corporate fast food clients that have hired within their companies individuals who will take on construction and design management roles. Their job is mainly to determine the most efficent pricing and design for each new or renovation project. The contractor is then hired up front. Generally this is a contractor who the company has a good relationship with and is willing to work with. After the contractor has been through a few of these projects they become much more efficent through lessons learned on previous similar projects with similar construction types. This then makes the project much more efficient in price. The architects role again is to make sure technical sufficiencies are met in the project and to make sure it jives with each municipalities codes. Sounds really technical, but can be lucrative since much of the work is spelled out and all there is to do is produce the documents. This also works well with fast food restaurants as their prototypes make each store very similar and easy to dupicate which makes work much more efficient!

So far we have jaol and IchwelB saying that they've seen this process in the following:

-Medical facilities.
-Industrial buildings.
-Fast food joints.

I DO see a pattern between the three. The aesthetic requirements have already been determined, or are very minimal. Stronger control of tangible aspects of design makes sense.

I wonder if Value Target Design would work for projects that require an actual artistic touch.

It's a good question, steelstuds. The other venn diagram for those three project types would be "Buildings Described by Their Developers As Products (Not Projects)". I doubt a museum, for example,would be described as a product, though a lot of their back of house functions could definitely be - and I know a lot of churches, frankly, that could be product-ioned as well.

@Steelstuds: I think that, in such a case, the sentence "-Rather than estimate based on a detailed design, design based on a detailed estimate" becomes more and more important. Simply put: generally, more aesthetics'll cost more. Running the risk that the guiding cost estimate isn't suited for the quality that is demanded... If the estimate is suitable, there's no problem with getting a more "artistic" design with this process.

However, I think that the method is far more suited for a community project (for instance a school) than for a cultural venue (such as a museum), for instance.

@username...

I think that fits more into value engineering that it does "target value design."

I think target value design focuses more on things like tiles (not just materials cost and maintenance) where certain sizes, shapes or thicknesses of tile can make the labor costlier than it should.

For instance, 1" by 1" tiles (without a mesh backing) will certainly be more involved than laying 18" tiles. Eighteen inch tiles will certainly require more complicated cuts.

And what happens when the 1" tiles don't match up perfectly with the wall? You're looking at possibly hundreds of cuts. That can bulk up costs real quick.

You could make similar comparisons with wood floor-- nailed-down planks are always more expensive than any other wood floor system. However, there's a flexibility that individual boards or parts of floor can be easily removed. A floating floor has to be torn up completely to the point of where replacement is needed.

Look at it this way.

Saying you can get 12" stone tiles in two options. And you're doing an area of approximately 400 sq ft.

1) Marble-- same thickness, perfect edges, can be laid with no mortar lines. $3.50 sq/ft. $1400 total cost.

2) Slate-- uneven thickness, uneven edges, can be laid with no mortar lines. $2.50 sq/ft. $1000 total cost.


The work is more or less the same for each tile. Say $1.50 per square foot install or $1500.

Now because slate has uneven, inconsistent thickness... 30% of the tiles have to be honed down (133).

Say, at 10 minutes per tile, that's 22 extra hours worth of work. Assuming we're paying someone $16 an hour to lay tile, the slate has an additional $352 labor cost.

Which means when it is said and done, the marble and the slate will be respectively about the same cost.

Unicorn my man, that post made no technical sense whatsoever. :)

You do have a point, even if unintended. If given an option between 2 systems that are of same price, GC will usually select the system that has cheaper materials and higher labor costs. There's always more money to be made in subcontracting labor. This is a conflict of interest, and may be counterproductive to owner's interest.

Design by committee, as this method suggests, could be counterproductive to an architectural practice that has a strong technical staff that doesn't need to be babysat. The type of staff that knows you can't leave stone tiles un-grouted (or sealed). We are not building pyramids here.

Well, clay tiles are generally uneven because of the cooking process often times slightly deforms tiles. And depending on how they are made, that can also cause unwanted variations.

You typically have large grout lines in order to avoid tiles chipping at the edges and to compensate for distortion.

Natural stone however is generally precision cut. Slate is usually only cut on the four sides and split. Marble on the other hand is cut on all 6 sides. And slate usually has a slight taper to it anyways.

So, if your laying stone with 1/8" or smaller grout lines, slate's unevenness will be immediately noticeable. That is unless of course you went through dozens and dozens of boxes to find perfect fitting tiles. That requires you use a grinding stone to even out the corners on slate.

In a healthcare setting, grout lines are a pretty big enemy. So, in this scenario based on the extra labor costs associated with slightly cheaper material... the cost of both are really actually similar.

In this sense, you're really value engineering luxury rather than necessity.

(I should have said grout instead of mortar.)

Unicorn: the size of grout lines is proportional with the tile sizes. In lieu of grout you can use a number of synthetic sealants (better for waterproofing and mold/germ prevention, but overkill for certain uses). Also, sealing the entire stone surface is routinely done, as natural stone is relatively porous. Your 18" stone tiles would be considered as 'oversize tile' and would need a softer underlayment (can't use thin-set method).

TCA manual is THE Bible of all things floor and wall tiles. Every architect should have a copy. But unlike the other bible, it's not free. Money-lovin' antichrist bastards.

Whatever the case maybe...

It was just to point that picking and choosing based on design and price standards alone may actually cost you as much if not more than a more expensive or better option.

Of course, you would never know this if you didn't already know this or you didn't consult the proper channel-- i.e., making choices as a group rather than top down dictation.

If your firm is providing its own construction management capabilities... then you have no real reason to pick materials that hyperinflate prices due to labor.

@Unicorn Ghost: in addition to that: one should also take the lifecycle costs into account. Take your example of tiles. For a swimming pool, for instance, the joints should be removed and reapplied approximately every 10 years. 1" tiles have more joints, thus higher costs over the course of, say, 30 years. The same goes for the grout: taking epoxy instead of standard may be more expensive initially, but in the long run may be cheaper.

In my view, that's the most valid point of "design by committee" - if you can get a combination of the budgets for construction and maintenance. Otherwise, you'd might end up going for the best economic construction solution, without thinking over a longer period of time (if that is another budget).

Typically, healthcare clients know just as much if not more about the spaces they need than the Architect. Additionally, many of the contractors maintain historical cost data on previous projects due to the complexity of hospital programming that has everything to do with fine tuning profit for the facilities location as it relates to population as well as the characteristics of that population. I am not suggesting that no help is needed by the architect during sd and dd phases of the design process, but typically, with the complexity of healthcare facility management, many of those in leadership positions come from an architectural or GC background. However, the reality is that the GC, with the historical cost information at hand, have to be present initially to be able to define specific program, and cost models for the client...as best as I understand it, healthcare architects employ their own programming models and then merge that with what the GC models pretty early on.

The issue for me, is that in theory, it is just an initial model. I am interested to learn how they actually carry out the cost saving measures throughout the process after modeling it for the client early on. Apparently it works, I just haven't been on any teams that has allowed me to see it first hand.

Here you go

http://www.fec.unicamp.br/~sibragec2007/prog-pdfs/sibragec2007-Ballard-LeanDelivery.PDF

Not the same but something similar.