I am a bit old fashioned when it comes to estimating. I think it needs to be done right. In order to do an estimate right you have to have the correct foundation – just like a building or piece of equipment needs the right foundation.
The foundation of a good estimate is the quantity takeoff. If the quantities are not correct then nothing else will be correct. This means the material prices, labor hours, equipment requirements, indirect costs, and profit will be based on incorrect information. This impact will last all the way through the end of the project.
To have an estimator speed through the quantity takeoff process defeats two main reasons for using estimators in the first place. The estimator needs to focus on what is represented on the plans and in the specifications. The estimators are the only persons that have to look at the plans to determine how the project will be constructed.
This is the reason I am a proponent of using paper plans, colored pencils/markers and scales to perform the quantity takeoff. With one exception, I am against the on screen takeoff process and the use of digitizers for takeoffs. These tools can lull even the very good estimator into a mind set of clicking on points and not visualizing the work scope. For example, I know of one top notch mechanical estimator that was so engrossed in measuring the pipe and other items with a digitizer that he missed all of the access doors on the project. The project was such a size that this amounted to a large sum of labor and material costs that were missed.
The takeoff or reading of the plans is not just to include what is shown or not, it is to spot the problems with the plans prior to the first shovel of dirt being moved on the project. No set of plans are perfect, they never will be. However, the estimators will be the ones to spot the problems with the plans and specifications if they take the right time to do the takeoff. This means they can compare plan views to sections and details, it means they can leave tracks from the drawings to the takeoff sheets to the estimate detail sheets to the estimate summary sheet. The thoroughness of an estimator will find the vast majority of problems in this process. This is why so many questions can arise during the bidding period. Each estimator is hopefully finding the problems when it costs the project the least amount of time and money – before it becomes a problem during construction.
I am not against technological progress in estimating – I benefit as an estimator with the use of computers and software. Virtually all of the on screen software companies tout their speed in performing a takeoff versus the old fashioned way. I am against these and other so called fast takeoff solutions because speed kills in estimating.
8 Comments
First, I am going to come right out and state that I work for On Center Software. We sell the takeoff application, On-Screen Takeoff. Without going into any kind of sales pitch, I just wanted to comment that your concerns are something we hear on occasion, and in response, we developed a solution called the Digital Takeoff Table. This solution allows somewhat of a hybrid method for those who want to use a computer, but prefer doing takeoffs by hand. Again, I don’t want this to turn into a sales pitch, but I thought you might be interested to know there is a new alternative out there that offers both precision and speed.
Thank you,
Michael Cooper
After taking a look at the information available on your website, we do believe you are on the right track. It appears the touch screen would be nice and easy to use. One of the biggest drawbacks we see though is the size limitation. Having to zoom in to read the plans and panning around the page is asking for trouble, especially when there is one note worth a bunch of money out in left field. Not being able to see the entire drawing without zooming will also slow the estimator down and may cause them to miss items. What would be great would be a touch screen that could show all plans at 100% zoom. I’m assuming the cost would be astronomical right now and therefore unfeasible. Every estimator cringes when they hear “half size plans” since it makes the take off much more difficult. The architect or engineer usually uses the smallest plan size possible and if 11×17 drawings will do, then that is what they will use.
On screen take off still doesn’t allow an easy comparison between plans as the traditional paper sets can. The increased speed of the on screen take off can still cause items to be missed like the old saying, “can’t see the forest because of the trees”.
Mark Menetele & Justin Short
I use an on screen takeoff program for most of my estimates now. My decision to do so was not for speed, but for several other factors, including printing and shipping costs, storage and handling (I do not like it when the plans show up on a fork lift). The biggest reason however, is health. After 28 years of looking down at a desk, I started getting severe neck pain. The doctor advised me to stop looking down. I purchased the software, and arranged my desk to have two monitors at eye level. It has been a year and a half now, with very little neck pain.
Regarding your accuracy concerns, if you use the same practices on screen as you do on paper, there should be no change in your accuracy. As with any new tool, it took a little practice to get used to moving around the plans.
There are also additional benefits to using on screen products. One of the best is no more light tables. The overlay function in these programs saves time and effort when preparing estimates and change orders. I just used it a few minutes ago to overlay locations for equipment on different floors. It saved me a significant amount time not having to flip back and forth between the plan sheets.
I will happily defer to your experience as an estimator. However, I am curious about your exposure to the Professional version of the program vs. the planroom version. The ability to segregate takeoff into layers, area, zones, etc. helps to isolate quantities and takeoff into data and graphic views. Many of the folks we have worked with tout this as something that enhances accuracy and speed. I would also mention the ability to annotate plans with notes and highlights that can be printed for use in the field. Lastly, the overlay feature that allows revisions to be easily compared with originals has been given rave reviews by those who use it.
In Response To All Comments To Speed Kills
We do not think that the on screen takeoff is entirely bad or horrible. On screen and digitizer takeoff does have its uses. When the developers of these systems and gear tout the speed we believe the mistakes that can be made outweigh the potential benefits of having a fast takeoff. When a person relies upon the computer to give the right answer and rush through the takeoff they will run into problems. If the estimator is relying on the machine/software instead of their own knowledge for the takeoff they can/will miss the problems with the drawings and specifications. The estimator needs to take the time to make sure that the answers are the right ones and to ask questions when they come upon items that don’t make sense. The estimator, even the very good ones, can get so wrapped up in getting the estimate done quickly they miss the problems and important items. This is why the blog has the title “Speed Kills!”
Mark Mentele & Justin Short
We agree on the speed issue. This also applies to estimating software packages. An estimator can not just accept the output of a software package. An extensive review of each estimate is required, particularly when to software is new to the user.
I believe that a good estimate starts with a accurate detailed take-off, this is a basis for developing the estimate and then reconciling the quantities first then the pricing with the architect or contractor. I agree with the electrical estimators comment that when you use the same practices as you do with hard copy you would have the same results.
Using on screen does take setup time, converting drawings to an easier format for the software to reador process them faster, ensuring the scale and alignment is correct and then renaming the drawings if the titles don’t come across. Using links and views to quickly jump around the documents rather then flipping pages and watching the drawings fall off the end of the table and electronic copies instead of lugging drawings around has been great. I do use a “half-size” set, if available, along side for reference and to read the notes but all my work is completed within on-screen. This allows me to work on the road without dragging or having to ship the documents, I can then project the on-screen take off drawing to a screen and have everyone concerr that the assumptions and take-offs are correct.
I tend to use on-screen and the reports more for anaylis, looking at metrics comparing it to other projects going back to see why there are differences, then I do for the speed to do multiple projects in a short amount of time.
Just remember when you speed, make sure you wear a seat belt!
Great comments!
In the end I’ve seen estimators utilizing both methods of take-off (traditional & on-screen) make huge mistakes. Many of the comments made are valid but in the end does it not come down to the practices and systems used by the estimator that helps minimize errors. Don’t blame the method but instead think about how you go about putting the estimate together. Go with what works for you!