Comments on: The Biggest Mistake in Church Design http://amiccs.com/2008/01/the-biggest-mistake-in-church-design/ Church Consulting and Coaching Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:08:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SteveA http://amiccs.com/2008/01/the-biggest-mistake-in-church-design/comment-page-1/#comment-9 SteveA Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:14:28 +0000 http://amiccs.com/?p=18#comment-9 Don makes a couple really good points:<br/><br/><i> I come from a design build back ground and have found that the strategy works best for owner builders and not so great for churches.</i><br/><br/>and<br/><br/><i> ... it starts with an experienced church consultant that does a ministry needs assessment ... </i><br/><br/>As a church building consultant, I could not agree more with the church's need to perform a feasibility study. In fact, I wrote a white paper on this very fact entitled <i>Insights Into Creating a Positive Church Building Experience</i> that is available on my <a HREF="articles.htm" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">church consulting</a> web site.<br/><br/>While design-build is generally better than design-bid-build, as Don points out it has some drawbacks, the worse (in my opinion) is that since the architect and the builder have a joint financial goal (maximize profits), they can make design and construction decisions that achieve that goal, to the detriment of the church. It is very unlikely that cost savings achieved in construction will pass along to the church, especially in fixed-price or guaranteed maximum price contracts.<br/><br/>I remain a proponent of the open book method of contracting, preferably with a construction manager working in concert with a church architect. Don makes a couple really good points:

I come from a design build back ground and have found that the strategy works best for owner builders and not so great for churches.

and

… it starts with an experienced church consultant that does a ministry needs assessment …

As a church building consultant, I could not agree more with the church’s need to perform a feasibility study. In fact, I wrote a white paper on this very fact entitled Insights Into Creating a Positive Church Building Experience that is available on my church consulting web site.

While design-build is generally better than design-bid-build, as Don points out it has some drawbacks, the worse (in my opinion) is that since the architect and the builder have a joint financial goal (maximize profits), they can make design and construction decisions that achieve that goal, to the detriment of the church. It is very unlikely that cost savings achieved in construction will pass along to the church, especially in fixed-price or guaranteed maximum price contracts.

I remain a proponent of the open book method of contracting, preferably with a construction manager working in concert with a church architect.

]]> By: Don Lovell http://amiccs.com/2008/01/the-biggest-mistake-in-church-design/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Don Lovell Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:24:00 +0000 http://amiccs.com/?p=18#comment-8 I was a senior project manager for company that focuses on churches. I come from a design build back ground and have found that the strategy works best for owner builders and not so great for churches. Not because it is a bad system, it just has some very pronounced weaknesses. When ever a single entity whose bottom line is affected by the design there is a tendency toward greed.<br/><br/>I struggled watching this occur, thus I am no longer involved, so I came up with a different method. <br/><br/>It is not really my idea - as I discovered after researching it. It is called " The Design-Build Process Utilizing Competitive Selection “ Essentially it starts with an experienced church consultant that does a ministry needs assessment MNA. The results of the MNA converts to preliminary plans with specifications. As part of this process a close examination of the other parts of the equation such as entitlements, development fees, off site work , utilities and so forth are running concurrent with the MNA. This real is a feasibility phase with a solid amount of project knowledge complete at the end of it.<br/>What I propose is that you use this information to put together an "Request for Proposal" and send them out to design build companies.<br/>You then have competition working in the churches favor. The upfront work is of value to the project even if after it is complete the conclusion is "we must wait" or "lets not do anything". I can't tell you how many stories I have heard of churches spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and in the end have nothing to show for it. What went wrong BAD FEASIBILITY STUDY. I was a senior project manager for company that focuses on churches. I come from a design build back ground and have found that the strategy works best for owner builders and not so great for churches. Not because it is a bad system, it just has some very pronounced weaknesses. When ever a single entity whose bottom line is affected by the design there is a tendency toward greed.

I struggled watching this occur, thus I am no longer involved, so I came up with a different method.

It is not really my idea – as I discovered after researching it. It is called ” The Design-Build Process Utilizing Competitive Selection “ Essentially it starts with an experienced church consultant that does a ministry needs assessment MNA. The results of the MNA converts to preliminary plans with specifications. As part of this process a close examination of the other parts of the equation such as entitlements, development fees, off site work , utilities and so forth are running concurrent with the MNA. This real is a feasibility phase with a solid amount of project knowledge complete at the end of it.
What I propose is that you use this information to put together an “Request for Proposal” and send them out to design build companies.
You then have competition working in the churches favor. The upfront work is of value to the project even if after it is complete the conclusion is “we must wait” or “lets not do anything”. I can’t tell you how many stories I have heard of churches spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and in the end have nothing to show for it. What went wrong BAD FEASIBILITY STUDY.

]]> By: SteveA http://amiccs.com/2008/01/the-biggest-mistake-in-church-design/comment-page-1/#comment-3 SteveA Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:12:51 +0000 http://amiccs.com/?p=18#comment-3 Thanks for pointing out a possible miscommunication. It is important not to confuse the church's <b>maximum project budget</b> with the <b>construction budget</b> (how that money is allocated to various aspects of the building program). The point that this post is attempting to make is that the church MUST have a reasonable and fact based maximum budget for the project before they get into the design process. <br/><br/>While the financial process is a somewhat detailed (that's why I devoted a chapter to it in the book), it is simple once you understand the process. As a consultant, when I help a church with a needs and feasibility analysis a maximum project budget is one of the deliverables.<br/><br/>The basic MAXIMUM project budget is the sum of:<br/><br/>- The money you now have that can apply to the building program, plus<br/>- The money you can borrow, plus<br/>- The money you can realize from the sale of assets, plus <br/>(optionally)<br/>-The money you can raise from a capital stewardship campaign before you begin construction. <br/><br/>While the formula is basically simple, determining the lending and fundraising amounts takes some effort and experience. Thanks for pointing out a possible miscommunication. It is important not to confuse the church’s maximum project budget with the construction budget (how that money is allocated to various aspects of the building program). The point that this post is attempting to make is that the church MUST have a reasonable and fact based maximum budget for the project before they get into the design process.

While the financial process is a somewhat detailed (that’s why I devoted a chapter to it in the book), it is simple once you understand the process. As a consultant, when I help a church with a needs and feasibility analysis a maximum project budget is one of the deliverables.

The basic MAXIMUM project budget is the sum of:

- The money you now have that can apply to the building program, plus
- The money you can borrow, plus
- The money you can realize from the sale of assets, plus
(optionally)
-The money you can raise from a capital stewardship campaign before you begin construction.

While the formula is basically simple, determining the lending and fundraising amounts takes some effort and experience.

]]> By: Jon http://amiccs.com/2008/01/the-biggest-mistake-in-church-design/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Jon Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:33:00 +0000 http://amiccs.com/?p=18#comment-2 SteveA: Thank you for your post. I appreciate you pointing out the importance of church leaders and architects discussing budget considerations before embarking on a design. However, I think your post oversimplifies the issue to some degree. I am getting the impression that a church can determine their maximum construction budget (based on the formula in your book, which is unknown from this post), and then simply communicate that number to the architect, who will be able design a building to that number. In actuality, I believe the process is much more complicated. First of all, while "rules of thumb" and "formulas" are good starting points, there are often so many complexities in a church's building construction budget that getting any sort of real number at the outset of the process is at best a guessing game. Real estate values & giving projections are two variables which can be very unknown. Nonetheless, this is not an excuse for not even discussing the budget at the outset. <br/><br/>Second, construction cost escalation is an unknown, and a huge variable in determining the final cost of the project. With the timing of the project often dependent on raising funds, it can be difficult to factor in an escalation projection of any real significance. <br/><br/>I work for an architecture firm that specializes in designing churches. It seems to me that the best approach for a church to use an experienced architect to lead them through the master planning process to create a 'scalable design'. This allows the church to build what they can afford, and build the rest later, without extensive design modification and exhorbitant architectural/ engineering fees. A construction manager brought on board early in the process will help determine real costs.<br/><br/>So, while I would be interested in seeing your formula, and would agree that the discussion of budget from the very outset of the project is critical, I believe that the issue is ultimately more complex then your post would seem to imply.<br/><br/>I look forward to reading more of your blogs.<br/><br/>www.TheMinistryCafe.com<br/>www.ChurchArchitects.com SteveA: Thank you for your post. I appreciate you pointing out the importance of church leaders and architects discussing budget considerations before embarking on a design. However, I think your post oversimplifies the issue to some degree. I am getting the impression that a church can determine their maximum construction budget (based on the formula in your book, which is unknown from this post), and then simply communicate that number to the architect, who will be able design a building to that number. In actuality, I believe the process is much more complicated. First of all, while “rules of thumb” and “formulas” are good starting points, there are often so many complexities in a church’s building construction budget that getting any sort of real number at the outset of the process is at best a guessing game. Real estate values & giving projections are two variables which can be very unknown. Nonetheless, this is not an excuse for not even discussing the budget at the outset.

Second, construction cost escalation is an unknown, and a huge variable in determining the final cost of the project. With the timing of the project often dependent on raising funds, it can be difficult to factor in an escalation projection of any real significance.

I work for an architecture firm that specializes in designing churches. It seems to me that the best approach for a church to use an experienced architect to lead them through the master planning process to create a ‘scalable design’. This allows the church to build what they can afford, and build the rest later, without extensive design modification and exhorbitant architectural/ engineering fees. A construction manager brought on board early in the process will help determine real costs.

So, while I would be interested in seeing your formula, and would agree that the discussion of budget from the very outset of the project is critical, I believe that the issue is ultimately more complex then your post would seem to imply.

I look forward to reading more of your blogs.

http://www.TheMinistryCafe.com
http://www.ChurchArchitects.com

]]>