Last week I described three common estimating approaches: analogous (top-down), parametric, and bottom-up. We looked at how these approaches increase both in accuracy and in the effort required to complete them, with the analogous approach being the least accurate and fastest to complete and the bottom-up being the most accurate and most-time consuming to generate. However, each approach to estimation has a time and a place, and this week we’ll take a look at how and when to best deploy each approach.

Generally speaking, there are three major estimating milestones in most theatre design processes: the beginning of the season, when budgets for each aspect of a production are set; the so-called “preliminary design” deadline, at which a basic representation of the set is presented to the team; and the “final design” deadline, at which the completed, fleshed out version of the set is presented. (Some venues may have different names for these milestones, and even have a greater number of intermediate steps as well, but these three major milestones generally represent the major phases of the development of a design.) As a production’s design progresses through these major milestones, it gets increasingly more detailed; consequently, it only seems appropriate that the estimation process should progress along the same lines.

For example, I typically utilize the analogous model during the process of creating each annual budget—sometimes I’ll have the opportunity to do this knowing which shows will be in which slot, which means I’m comparing each production to similar productions we’ve produced in the past. Other times, I won’t know any of the shows, and I’ll be forced to come up with averaged numbers, which I’ll then ask to revise later, once actual productions have been determined.

This is an important step for anyone at the beginning of the season! Many of us who are technical directors will generally try and skip the whole “reading the play” part of the production process—we’ve got a thousand other things to wrestle with, and generally someone else has read the play, right? However, while in many summer stock situations we may be brought on board too late to suggest changes to the amounts budgeted for each production, we can still offer our insight into whether staying within those budgeted amounts might be difficult, or whether doing so might require some special considerations. This is the perfect place for an analogous approach.

Take a play like, say, The Glass Menagerie. Like so much of Tennessee Williams’ work, this play blends unit-set realism with dream- and memory-scapes. We can imagine, from previous experience, that we’re looking at a unit set with some kind of architectural realism, but that will have to somehow provide a space for memory and dreams to live—this may mean “broken” walls, or a world that transitions from hard surfaces to soft fabrics, or something similar. In the past, this has cost, in our space, something like $4,000 to $5,000 to create—particularly if we do move into the world of soft fabrics, as that is generally more expensive (especially as you move into the land of sheers).

Once we reach the preliminary design milestone, the design team should have a pretty clear idea of the direction in which the design is headed; the designer will probably have a fairly well-defined ground plan and an idea of the broad strokes of the scenic units. This is a great time for a technical director to provide valuable feedback about the feasibility of the direction the design is headed and about potential bottlenecks in terms of time or materials. In the best of all possible worlds, this would be a quick process—there is generally not enough detail information available to make the effort required for a bottom-up estimate worthwhile, and what details are available are likely to evolve as the design continues to develop. A parametric estimate, however, doesn’t depend on specific details and can be generated pretty quickly, perhaps even while the design presentation is happening. Additionally, if a technical director has developed a fairly robust set of modeling parameters, this estimate can be relatively accurate, within about 10-20%. Ideally, we can use such a parametric estimate to provide a clear enough picture of the cost (in terms of both labor and materials) of the project that the team can make any major adjustments to scope required to ensure the project falls within budget once the design process is completed.

The final design presentation generally reflects the entirety of the team’s vision of the set. By this point in time, there should be enough detail information to permit the technical director to embark on the process of completing a thorough, bottom-up estimate. The result of this estimate should be an estimate of the total cost of the project, with 5-10% accuracy, and to provide a baseline for the value-engineering process (that sometimes unfortunately painful process of finding a way to make a project that is over budget affordable). Because of the accuracy required, as indicated last week the bottom-up estimate process can be time consuming, and it is important that space be left in the calendar to provide time for it, and for the value-engineering which follows.

When deployed in this fashion—with an analogous estimate early in the season, a parametric estimate at a mid-point in the design process, and a bottom-up at the end of the design process—final estimates are not only relatively accurate, but also generally fall within 5-10% of the budget for a project. This is because running the estimating process in tandem with the design process allows both of these aspects of a project to continually inform each other. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon in the sometimes fast-paced world of theatre, for the deployment of these estimating approaches to happen in other ways; most commonly, I’ve seen the analogous approach deployed somewhere in the mid-point of the design process, and a combination of analogous and parametric approaches applied at the final design presentation. For someone who with a lot of experience under their belt, and who knows a space, a designer, and available materials incredibly well, this can be an approach that works reasonably well. However, there is a lot at stake in choosing to approach the estimation process in this way, and the decision to do so should be made in consultation with the artistic team on the project and with the production manager of the producing organization, as errors or variances in accuracy can lead to serious cost overruns in materials and labor.

Next week: the value-engineering process.