Hours per sheet as productivity measurement???

[Dwight]

I was talking with my still-drafting-on-a-board-unsightly-graphite-elbows architect neighbor.

He said this:

"When i worked in a big firm, we estimated that it would take forty hours per drawing sheet. With AutoCAD it grew to 60 and with [unnamed upstart BIM software] it is 120."

World Trade Format ????? I said to myself.

I think that this is an absurd way to measure architectural productivity, but my neighbor, an otherwise intelligent and competent person, is convinced that the computer is a productivity hole and this is his take.

In my own work, Archicad broadens my scope and brings delight to the visualizing and documentation process. That's partly because I don't make complex, evolving drawing sets. And it is in the revising that computers excell! I think Archicad improves the quality of my work but on a productivity basis it is impossible for me to evaluate.

Could you please take a few moments to comment on your experience?

- does anyone care how much time it takes to produce a "sheet" of drawings? OR estmate job costs this way? Sort of silly to use '50's methods to evaluate modern production.

- how much does the time hole of computer and software management detract from the promise of multiplied productivity? I spend way more time learning about software and way less time producing - but that is because i want to expand my knowledge and not just do a job...

-what other problems tarnish the promise of turning architecture into a video game? Should Archicad have a shotgun object for flythrus?

[Eduardo Rolon]

I just finished CD's for a 64,000 sq.ft. engineering faculty building. Including design development of the project, it came out to 115 drawing sheets (700+ drawings) and 1000 work hours for a total of ±8.75 hr/sheet.

I did the time tracking just to establish my work baseline for a project and be able to double check my estimates against production. 120hrs per sheet is not very productive.

[Eduardo Rolon]

- how much does the time hole of computer and software management detract from the promise of multiplied productivity? I spend way more time learning about software and way less time producing - but that is because i want to expand my knowledge and not just do a job...

About this my philosophy is that if something is taking too long there probably is an easier way to do it and I just don't know it yet. So I "invest" between 15 min to half an hour to see if I can find that procedure and in about 80% of the cases there is a way that I can achieve what I want in less time than I though and usually only using AC tools, no plugins or extra software needed.

There is no better incentive than a looming deadline to make you productive which proves the 90%-10% rule, which states that:

For any given project 10% of the work will take 90% of the time and 90% of the work will be done in the remaining 10% of the time.

[Richard Morrison]

Dwight,

Clearly, your friend has not heard of the concept of TEMPLATES. It's hard to estimate a per/sheet timeframe, because some sheets may get generated fairly automatically and take only 10-20 minutes, if that.

For me, the major time investment is really the time to model, and that is really not related to the number of sheets. However, in general, I can say that after I switched to the computer from graphite, I found myself making less and less on every project until I stopped billing hourly.

[Dwight]

Let me get this clear.

You made less and less on every project billing hourly, so you stopped billing entirely and offer money to clients so you can keep having computer fun?

This is like being a farmer in Saskatchewan when wheat prices are low who wins the lottery and says that it won't change him.
He'll just keep farming until all the money is spent.

haha. Yes. Archicad's hourly productivity should go in your pocket, not in a reduced fee...

[Anonymous]

OK. i don't charge according to "number of sheets", that's crazy
- but i can estimate times & cost per sheet.

this only relates to Drafting work only (not design)

when i do drafting contract work, i'll receive an accurate handdrawn design

Lets say typ. large individually designed 2-3 storey residential project / single house
400sqm - 600sqm size

The architectural working drawings will comprise of (approx.)

7 x A1 sheets - which is made up of...
site plan
floor plans (incl. roof plan)
elevations
3 to 7 sections(1:100) - depending on complexity
3 to 5 construction details
1:50 room layouts for wet areas (incl 1:50 stair layouts with elev/sect)
electricals
external door & window schedule

This should take 60-70 hours drafting total
(this obviously includes model creation)

My final fee will usually equate to say min. $750 per A1 sheet (no less) -
more the better!!

This formula usually rings true for me, generally speaking...

For design work plus working drawings...different ball game
probably would be 2 - 3 times this approximation.

Any thoughts on this as a comparison to others experience

Peter

[TomWaltz]

I think it's trying to measure the wrong thing. It's like measuring a manager by how many meetings he goes to. It might be a number that you can get from the company's finance department, but you have to ask whether it is cause or effect or neither.

By-sheet estimates are not taking into account accuracy or quality. You might have drawn a detail, but is it right? Will it work in the field? Is it somehow against local practice standards?

What about research? What if it takes two hours to look up a manufacturer (finding one you like and want to use), calling the sales rep, and getting the details that apply to your situation?

What about the budget? If someone charges the client for 30 hours per sheet and it takes 35, who's problem is that? The poor estimator? Or the person doing the work?

What about the client and the project manager? What if the client made lots of changes? Did the PM go after the extra service fees? Or just let them slide?

Lastly, is it the person? Do you have a hotshot CAD operator who knows nothing about architecture and documentation and both requires a lot of guidance and makes a lot of mistakes? Or an average CAD user who's an experienced architect who does not need as much guidance and makes fewer mistakes because he understands the end result?

Now, anyone who has had both manual drafting and computer should be able to compare the numbers of how long a project took before computers and after
computers. At the same time, they need to look at all the above factors (and more). It's not just about looking at "30 hours per sheet" vs "25 hours per sheet." It's about what those numbers really represent.

[Rakela Raul]

D.A.

15 to 20 yrs ago, this company (and rough first glance estimate only)
calculated 40 hrs per sheet..agreed with your friend.

i will get back to this post x more 'uptodate' info.

let me correct the above:

40 hrs per certain type of sheet
30 hrs x others
10 x other type and so on.

(i dont go by hrs per sheet myself)

[Anonymous]

TomWaltz wrote:
By-sheet estimates are not taking into account accuracy or quality. You might have drawn a detail, but is it right? Will it work in the field? Is it somehow against local practice standards?

What? Does KA charge less for inaccurate and incomplete drawings? How do you calculate the delta?

I too have seen the 40 hours per sheet figure, but only as a rule of thumb to serve as a rough gauge of the complexity and scope of a project. Obviously there is a big difference between a 100,000 sf Butler building with a dozen sheets of standard details and a 10,000 sf custom residence where each trim piece is milled to the architect's specs - even though both buildings may take around the same number of sheets overall.

Just like estimating building cost per square foot, per sheet cost has its place, but I certainly wouldn't base a fee structure on it.

[TomWaltz]

Matthew wrote:
What? Does KA charge less for inaccurate and incomplete drawings? How do you calculate the delta?

That's kind of my point: It's a cost, not a charge. If we only charge for 30 hours per sheet and it takes 50 because if inaccuracy, that's a really bad thing!