Quantitative added monetary value to a project...??

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I can easily calculate the monetary cost or savings added to a project I work on by using industry standards for pricing, and multipliers of wage and expenses, etc... But I cannot seem to wrap my head around assigning a additional monetary value that renderings bring to an overall project. Not in terms of cost to the project, but in terms of value added to the project by having a high level of visualizations, be it rendering or animation.

 

Does anyone have a method, or thoughts to a guideline, or set of rules of how this value might be determined? ...or is the thought of trying to calculate quantitative added value to a project a hopeless cause.

[innerdream]

I can easily calculate the monetary cost or savings added to a project I work on by using industry standards for pricing, and multipliers of wage and expenses, etc... But I cannot seem to wrap my head around assigning a additional monetary value that renderings bring to an overall project. Not in terms of cost to the project, but in terms of value added to the project by having a high level of visualizations, be it rendering or animation.

 

Does anyone have a method, or thoughts to a guideline, or set of rules of how this value might be determined? ...or is the thought of trying to calculate quantitative added value to a project a hopeless cause.

 

There is no value as they are not necessary to build a building. The only value is what the Architect and client perceive. As Christo said the art is in the sale.

Edited May 14, 2009 by innerdream

[BrianKitts]

How about about a post occupancy evaluation of the clients satisfaction level. We do them all the time for how they like the projects that we design, but perhaps you could add in a part that evaluates their satisfaction for interaction with the architect.

 

We know that what we do adds a level of detail allows the client to better understand a design throughout the design and construction process, but I would be interested to see if it would show in the numbers when you compare it to a client who goes through the design process without the benefit of high level visualization.

 

I don't know if you can get a monetary figure to put to it, but an elevated percentage of client satisfaction might be something that you can put on paper.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

There is no value as they are not necessary to build a building. The only value is what the Architect and client perceive. As Christo said the art is in the sale.

 

Yes, there is only value in what the client and architect see. But if the visualizations are done well, and are successful, then they facilitate the communication of the project, and shorten the schematic and design development time. Therefore adding a cost savings to this part of the project. The difficulty is, how do you determine if that is successful, and how successful was it. Did it save $1000 or $100,000 worth of time.

 

Likewise, projects with poor visualizations can and do cost projects money. The client doesn't like what he sees, so the designer goes back to the boards, and re-designs, even though the part the client didn't like may have just been communicated poorly in a rendering. Things like bad color, dark lobbies when looking at entrances, bad composition, etc... can all add to a clients distaste for the design.

 

Even a bad building can be illustrated nicely to convey a message, and sell the product. At the end of the day, a lot of what we do is to help sell a product, not simply visualize a product.

 

I don't think this can be measured, or even a general value given to it, but it is important non the less.

 

I also agree with you that they are not essential for design. Many buildings have been done without them. But the standard today is to have them available with a project, because a lot of clients are not versed in elevations and floor plans, and can not visualize the project in their heads.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Crazy Homeless Guy

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

How about about a post occupancy evaluation of the clients satisfaction level. We do them all the time for how they like the projects that we design, but perhaps you could add in a part that evaluates their satisfaction for interaction with the architect.

 

We know that what we do adds a level of detail allows the client to better understand a design throughout the design and construction process, but I would be interested to see if it would show in the numbers when you compare it to a client who goes through the design process without the benefit of high level visualization.

 

I don't know if you can get a monetary figure to put to it, but an elevated percentage of client satisfaction might be something that you can put on paper.

 

Good thoughts. Typical all I hear is the client loved it, they are very happy with what we are doing. Or, the client hated it, they couldn't stop talking about how the entrance didn't look like an entrance because it is a dark cave. Which then means another round of review is needed for the project. This round of review does not only involve the illustrator, but the entire architectural team. That eats into the budget of the project, and brings down profits.

[innerdream]

But if the visualizations are done well, and are succesful, then they facilitate the communication of the project, and shorten the schematic and design development time.

 

What you're saying isn't true 100% of the time. You can't set a value across the board, it's case by case individual by individual. I can read drawings better than most, I see in 3D, I understand color, light and materials. You could argue clients don't and in many cases this is true but not always.

Edited May 14, 2009 by innerdream

[innerdream]

Good thoughts. Typical all I hear is the client loved it, they are very happy with what we are doing. Or, the client hated it, they couldn't stop talking about how the entrance didn't look like an entrance because it is a dark cave. Which then means another round of review is needed for the project. This round of review does not only involve the illustrator, but the entire architectural team. That eats into the budget of the project, and brings down profits.

 

See, you just shot down you're other statement. Instead of having the desired effect of cost savings it increased costs.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

See, you just shot down you're other statement. Instead of having the desired effect of cost savings it increased costs.

 

Increased cost because of poor visualization, not increased cost because of having visualizations. The only reason for an architecture firm to hire visualization and illustration artists is if they bring added value to the project. Poor visualizations don't add value, they become an expense instead. Which was what I wanted to say, even if I worded it poorly.

 

....so, how can you justify the added value you bring to a project? Is it through customer satisfaction? Do the projects that you create visualizations for on average have fewer client meetings, and fewer disputes between the architect and client? If so, then that is added value.

 

I think the only way would be to look at projects over the course of two or three years, and compare them with other projects of similar size and nature. The number of meetings, the frustrations of both the client and designer.

 

Worse yet, the visuals get blamed for the bad meeting, even though they were not really the problem. Say the client saw an entry he didn't like, and mentioned it. That part will stick in the architects mind because it is a piece of the puzzle that they did not control, and therefore becomes a scape goat for the project. ...and in the end makes the art of visualization less of a perceived value, even though it can not be measured.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

What you're saying isn't true 100% of the time. You can't set a value across the board, it's case by case individual by individual. I can read drawings better than most, I see in 3D, I understand color, light and materials. You could argue clients don't and in many cases this is true but not always.

 

Agree, it is a case by case study. Though an average may be drawn if enough cases are studied.

[innerdream]

I think the only way would be to look at projects over the course of two or

three years, and compare them with other projects of similar size and nature.

The number of meetings, the frustrations of both the client and designer.

 

Worse yet, the visuals get blamed for the bad meeting, even though they were not

really the problem. Say the client saw an entry he didn't like, and mentioned

it. That part will stick in the architects mind because it is a piece of the

puzzle that they did not control, and therefore becomes a scape goat for the

project. ...and in the end makes the art of visualization less of a perceived

value, even though it can not be measured.

 

There is no way to measure a persons mood and how they react to a drawing presentation etc. to make a study like this hold water, it's speculation and perception/projection. You're last words "even though it can not be measured" are correct.

 

Typically there are budgets for things like models and renderings in the projects I've been involved in - unless it's taken from the design budget or something. Those budgets are the "perceived" value.

[Tommy L]

I think you guys are looking at this too closely. Quantifying the (fiscal) value of renderings over a project is difficult at best, pointless at worst.

The reason (I'm assuming) you are looking at this is to either give a figure to an architect that reflects the value youre service represents or to adjust your fees and stay in line with an overall project budget.

 

Both of these are fairly redundant endeavors IMHO. I would prefer to reverse engineer this equation. I take all the financial calculations from my end (time, overhead etc) to generate an actual 'cost' of service, plus/minus 'quality adjustment'. Value is perceived when compared my product is objectively compared apples for apples with another quote.

 

Buying a car doesn't mean I can assume its value from the time it will save me from walking to Montana

[Ernest Burden III]

See, you just shot down you're other statement. Instead of having the desired effect of cost savings it increased costs.

 

Not so simple. The entry that looked like a cave probably would look like a cave when built. The rendering may be revealing a design flaw. Sure we can brighten it up in a rendering. But once built, you're on to FLW's comment that you'd better advise your client to plant vines.

 

Remember the building in ...Dallas or Houston... that was glass-clad and next to a highway, oriented so that sunset light was bounced en-mass into drivers eyes who them crashed? Visualization might have picked up on that costly problem, even if the curtainwall detailers didn't.

 

The ability of a renderer or architect who thinks like one, to imagine and present the larger context of an architectural proposal is vital to a project that works for real, not just on paper.

 

if the visualizations are done well, and are successful, then they facilitate the communication of the project, and shorten the schematic and design development time. Therefore adding a cost savings to this part of the project...I don't think this can be measured, or even a general value given to it, but it is important non the less.

 

Why do you ask about this, by the way? Are you being pressured to justify your contribution to your firm's success or just anticipating that it may come up some day? Or just pondering your role as a grain of sand on the great, vast beach that is the Universe?

 

I agree with you that there is no verifiable way to quantify the value of drawing and rendering in the architectural practice. In the other thread about 3D thrust upon architects (RUN AWAY!) I suggested that it should be integral. I got schooled.

 

Perhaps a useful approach would be to examine how sketching, drawing, Modeling (including paper, foamcore and plasticine) rendering and animation are helpful or not at as many stages of the process as you can identify. For example, when a design principal sits with a client and takes out his $300 fountain pen and starts scribbling massing ideas on scrap paper, is this a positive or a negative? Then get the people who are most involved in those stages to describe how 3D and rendering could help them or hurt them. Eventually, a picture emerges of the roles that illustrative techniques play in moving a project along. That is where you find the value.

 

I'm sure I've written about this before, so forgive my repeating it. In the early 90's I co-curated a rendering show for ASAI (ASAP at that time) at the AIA convention in LA. The theme was renderings that helped get a project realized. Each rendering had an accompanying text describing how it helped get funding by showing this or that, got past a hostile community board, whatever. My rendering was one in black-and-white, which the architect requested so the client would not think all decisions were made. It allowed him to get sign-off on the things he had already finished without getting pushback on those he hadn't. His client felt involved rather than a spectator.

 

Many buildings have been done without them.

 

And sometimes it shows.

[innerdream]

To paraphrase Kelly Clarkson "this building would suck without me!" LOL

[EddieLeon]

This is a great question. I would look at the answer from a sales perspective. If the renderings/animation help to win a job then their value is a percentage of the fee that is won. For example, if an outside salesperson brought a project to a company their commission would be 10-15%. If an in-house salesperson brought a project the commission would be 2-5%. If you divided the costs of all the elements that are involved in a presentation (Salesman's Time, PPT, Book, Renderings, etc). Then maybe you can argue that each element contributed to winning the commission and should be attributed a portion of the commission relative to their cost.

 

I think this can help determine a true value of our work and it can reinforce a sense of ROI, but it doesn't mean we won the jackpot. Don't forget the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rule"

[Tim Nelson]

Travis, just get it over with and ask for a raise. You deserve it.

[EddieLeon]

Travis, just get it over with and ask for a raise. You deserve it.

 

Ohhh....that's a dangerous word to say to your boss. I'm going to guess that HOK might be cutting costs. I hope they see where their value resides and don't make any mistakes. Good luck.

[jhiler]

It is very difficult to calculate how a rendering adds value. If the rendering is for the specific purpose of getting funding or for a sales center you can guess that the renderings helped make the sale or get the funding. How many sales or how much funding because of that rendering is very difficult to calculate.

 

If the rendering is used for client approval then there is less of a chance that you can figure out the value of the rendering. It may make the design clearer to the client and you can get approval to proceed, but as was stated it can cause the client to reject the design because of the 'cave'. Who is to say that the client made the decision based on just the rendering. Granted it played a role, but that may be just the last piece that helped their decision. And in the end that rejection may improve the project overall and you can get repeat business because of it.

 

Very hard to calculate the overall value.

[Tim Nelson]

Good renderings are worth millions of dollars. Sometimes getting the project or not all comes down to effective illustrations to communicate the design. Thats why competitions often have such large budgets for renderings.

 

You don't just walk into a meeting, and try to describe your building..."oh, and then we're going to have this piece over here do this, and it will be really shiny." You make them drool with the pictures.

 

The same goes when you are trying to win over community support, or fundraising support.

 

So yea, renderings are a necessity.

[innerdream]

So yea, renderings are a necessity.

 

Well, you can just build a nice model.

[Tim Nelson]

Well, you can just build a nice model.

Nah, cause that won't help you with your production drawings if you get the job. Using Revit, you get the rendering potential and drawings at the same time. A bit oversimplified, I know. But I guess simplification is good! :-)

[innerdream]

Nah, cause that won't help you with your production drawings if you get the job. Using Revit, you get the rendering potential and drawings at the same time. A bit oversimplified, I know. But I guess simplification is good! :-)

 

When I worked at Walt Disney all of the "rock work" for rides was physically modeled and digitized with a laser 3d scanner. I predict all buildings will look like giant boulders from now on.

[Stephen Thomas]

When I worked at Walt Disney all of the "rock work" for rides was physically modeled and digitized with a laser 3d scanner. I predict all buildings will look like giant boulders from now on.

Same technique Frank Gehry's office uses, physical models are digitised and production drawings are based off the digital model. Sounds backwards but actually quite an intuative way of working if you think about it.

[innerdream]

Same technique Frank Gehry's office uses, physical models are digitised and production drawings are based off the digital model. Sounds backwards but actually quite an intuative way of working if you think about it.

 

Especially for those amorphic shapes.

[William Alexander]

Value added .... is value percieved by the client. Good salesmanship goes a long ways. Branding of your viz services counts. Good relationships with you clients beyond just pretty pictures. Mutual understanding that what you bring to the table is proven and will add value for extra effort in special cases, high end work, community based approvals, competitions.. But the client must see the added value for an special visualaztion. How much to charge goes into the realm of something similar to poker skills without the stone cold bluff. LOL That maybe ground for a law suit.

 

On that line of thought quanatizing 'added value' becomes a function of knowing the budget, selling what you bring to make it work or beyond the level of the budget and of course being able to justify it after the fact.

 

This all seems to work more like advertising campains ... and in the currenet market - saturation, decline in construction $$$$$, how much more can the market accept for that 'added value'?

 

Of course having educated and knowlegeable clients will help ... however if there are bean counters (accountants) / hard budgetsI wish the best of luck. After all it's only a picture/s - getting the job, funding whatever and losing money over the archviz aspect teehee teehee especially when an other can do it for less.... extra pretty or extra important value... never makes sense in a business sense.

 

.... sorry don't have an an answer unless those who contract the services are getting a return beyond recieving the commission, the job, the approval cause that's all part of the game. If they collect royalities or somehow benefit $$$ beyond normal scope of building like being able to re-sell the extra pretty picture.

 

LOL ..... additional 15% for pressing the extra pretty picture button 'cause ya'll need it to be extra great and after we do we assure you'll get the end result expected.

 

.... your good-better than average sell it. start high for 'value added' projects and negotiate. Watch out for the 'river' of tears at the end hehehe if you don't play the odds right.

 

Cheers