LIGHTING SPECIAL HEAD TO HEAD
The result of a contractor changing this uplight specification was fittings filled with water (right). The supplier also provided different colour temperature lamps
scrutiny but, in my experience, it is often a combination of some, or all, of the above. VE as it applies to cost (money) value is
the most common, as budgets are always tight. Time value can come from specified products being delayed in the factory and contractors wanting to find alternatives. VE with regard to visual impression might be summed up by the client wanting to know if those ‘feature’ light fittings are really necessary. Attention to user satisfaction value usually increases – rather than decreases – the light specification, with items such as dimming control. Finally, quality is often driven by a
VE is part of the construction business and we need to engage with it and really understand the client and the project drivers – Dominic Meyrick
number of design team members, with the visual appearance of the product itself usually paramount to the 3D designers, and the light quality most important to the lighting designers and end user. So VE may mean questioning one or all of these criteria – not just the capital cost of the specified lighting products. The next question is how to defend
against VE. In my experience, lighting is always under review and therefore knowing the client and the project drivers from the start is critical. It is also essential to clarify what is non-
negotiable in design terms – that is, agree what can go well before the final design stages – and it is important to remember that VE exercises happen after the final specification has been issued. It should be emphasised that design payment equals design responsibility, and the lighting
44 CIBSE Journal December 2011
designer is being paid to take design responsibility for the products he or she has specified, not fittings that other design team members have selected. Finally, the quality factors of light and
product must be considered by the whole design team to ensure the lighting design approach is appropriate, and therefore hopefully avoiding questions such as: ‘Why would you not light that 3D element, bearing in mind the client is spending that much on it?’ This may all seem obvious, but I am
amazed how many projects I see under VE pressure in their final stages because these fundamental questions were not asked at the beginning of the project. We may be absolved of responsibility, but
a VE exercise at the end of a project that affects the lighting does not leave a good taste in the mouth – as designers we want the space to look as we intended it. VE is part of the construction business
and we need to engage with it. By making sure we really understand the client and the project drivers – by asking pertinent questions and explaining the lighting design principles we apply – we have the best possible chance of maintaining the scheme’s integrity. This is, after all, likely to be the best outcome for everyone, including the client, the design team and the end- user.
l Dominic meyrick is lighting principal-partner at Hoare Lea Lighting
www.cibsejournal.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68