Wikipedia defines value-engineering as: “A systematic method to improve the “value” of goods and services by using an examination of function. Value, as defined, is the ratio of function to cost. Value can therefore be increased by either improving the function or reducing the cost. It is a primary tenet of value engineering that basic functions be preserved and not be reduced as a consequence of pursuing value improvements.”

What does that technical language mean to you as your church considers a building program?

Simply stated, it means that when value-engineering is employed, you can enjoy more square feet of functional space in your new building, because budget is driving the design process as opposed to the design process driving the budget. An experienced church building consultant, working with an architect and general contractor, will integrate value-engineering principals into the design. This exercise alone will save the church thousands of dollars in a typical building program.

I recently met with a large building committee at a church in central Florida where the decision to build a new worship center had been made years earlier. Unfortunately, they had made the mistake of hiring an architect who knew nothing about value-engineering. The result was that the project was over-budget by about a million dollars.

I addressed the group, armed with a Power Point presentation that included an alternate design for their building incorporating the existing floor plan. Our design would bring the entire project to completion within budget. The group loved it and was eager to move ahead. 

A problem arose because of one of the committee members … an architect (not the design architect) thought the new look of the exterior would not blend in with the existing building. (Bear in mind that the only noticeable change in the exterior would have been to use a metal roof of the same color in place of the architectural grade strip shingle that had been proposed.) 

The senior pastor was noticeably shaken with the change in the committee’s attitude after the architect had injected his ‘poison pill.’ The pastor then spoke to the building committee regarding the expanded ministry they could enjoy as a result of my proposal; however at that point, I knew it was futile. 

This is a good example of an “expert” getting in the way of progress and possibly robbing the church of the excitement associated with growth in ministry, through facility expansion.

Posted: by Dick White