I grew up on a farm and always remember dad's eternal lament of the way or more importantly amount he was paid for his produce.
It had nothing to do with the cost of production rather how much the agents and companies were prepared to pay for the commodity.
Nothing in that area has changed. Farmers don't dictate prices, only the multinationals.
I read today that honey is scarce do to a poor season on account of weather conditions. So Up goes the price.
A frost in Brazil affects the coffee prices.
When I entered the work force as a private surveyor I soon learnt the cost of a survey was geared to supply and demand.
Lean times saw undercutting, heavy workloads saw the opposite. Name your price to get a job done.
Not all worked to those 'ethics', but it was common.
So to take the example of the honey shortage (and similar with bananas, tomatoes due to cyclone Debbie) why don't surveyors in lean times when there's not much work apply the same principles?
Instead of undercutting to survive, double the hourly rate?
Yes there is a difference, but there are similarities.
Nice thought Richard. We could pull it off it lean times meant fewer surveyors, but the number of surveyors remains the same. Meaning each surveyors portion of available work is diminished. This generally means the opposite of what you've described. In comparison to the available workload the number of available surveyors appears inflated. Hence actually driving the cost down.
Now if we could all get together and somehow spirit our competition onto a slow boat to Shanghai the theory of supply and demand could be equalized. 😉
Richard, post: 423558, member: 833 wrote: So to take the example of the honey shortage (and similar with bananas, tomatoes due to cyclone Debbie) why don't surveyors in lean times when there's not much work apply the same principles?
Instead of undercutting to survive, double the hourly rate?
That probably is true in some types of contract work for governmental entities where the basis of "qualifications-based selection" turns out to be the hourly rate for different services, but for the rest of the surveying sector, the phenomenon is the fixed-price shedule that involves offering to perform an incompletely known amount of work for a fixed fee.
Land surveys are similar to car repair in that to do them properly, they take what they take in time and expenses, so offering to fix any car anywhere for some low flat-rate price would be fun to watch someone else try to do. The auto mechanics have the advantage, of course, of charging to diagnose problems in the first place and of having the benefit of others who have made the repairs on the same model of car and have developed good estimates of the time required in the form of a flat-rate manual of charges.
Surveyors would benefit considerably from a similar estimation manual. In the US, it would be much more difficult to develop than a time estimate to change an alternator on a 2006 Maserati Quattroporte, but would at least bring something closer to the reality of the work into view since many of the flat-rate fees that surveyors might offer to accept would obviously be completely insufficient to perform the work under even the most optimistic assumptions. "Sure, you lose something on every project, but you make it up on volume" is more of a lifestyle choice that is unsustainable for professions.
All I have to sell is the amount of time my knowledge will be applied to the client's project rather than to some other pursuit.
The flat-rate (fixed-fee, in the survey world) approach may have its downside, but it has an appealing upside as well. If I make my hourly charge rate all year I do fine, but it's the busy years doing fixed-fee work that make my bottom line sing.
Jim Frame, post: 423615, member: 10 wrote: The flat-rate (fixed-fee, in the survey world) approach may have its downside, but it has an appealing upside as well. If I make my hourly charge rate all year I do fine, but it's the busy years doing fixed-fee work that make my bottom line sing.
The downside, of course, is that it creates the impression is that all survey work should be performed for a fixed fee and when the market is slack, price competition should be easily able to destroy whatever gains were made in the sing-along market you mention.
Kent McMillan, post: 423566, member: 3 wrote: That probably is true in some types of contract work for governmental entities where the basis of "qualifications-based selection" turns out to be the hourly rate for different services, but for the rest of the surveying sector, the phenomenon is the fixed-price shedule that involves offering to perform an incompletely known amount of work for a fixed fee.
Land surveys are similar to car repair in that to do them properly, they take what they take in time and expenses, so offering to fix any car anywhere for some low flat-rate price would be fun to watch someone else try to do. The auto mechanics have the advantage, of course, of charging to diagnose problems in the first place and of having the benefit of others who have made the repairs on the same model of car and have developed good estimates of the time required in the form of a flat-rate manual of charges.
Surveyors would benefit considerably from a similar estimation manual. In the US, it would be much more difficult to develop than a time estimate to change an alternator on a 2006 Maserati Quattroporte, but would at least bring something closer to the reality of the work into view since many of the flat-rate fees that surveyors might offer to accept would obviously be completely insufficient to perform the work under even the most optimistic assumptions. "Sure, you lose something on every project, but you make it up on volume" is more of a lifestyle choice that is unsustainable for professions.
It depends on what your goals are. Whether you see surveying as a business or if you see yourself more as a public servant. The problem with hourly work is that you don't have the ability to extract a high amount of money from particular jobs when there is high demand without constantly changing your rates, which can get weird.
Kent McMillan, post: 423627, member: 3 wrote: The downside, of course, is that it creates the impression is that all survey work should be performed for a fixed fee and when the market is slack, price competition should be easily able to destroy whatever gains were made in the sing-along market you mention.
There is nothing to prevent one from switching to an hourly rate model during lean times so money can be recouped when extra effort is required. If you are actually losing money during a recession then you've got a flawed business model.
roger_LS, post: 423640, member: 11550 wrote: There is nothing to prevent one from switching to an hourly rate model during lean times so money can be recouped when extra effort is required. If you are actually losing money during a recession then you've got a flawed business model.
The reality, though, is that fixed fee pricing tends to become the norm in slack markets for surveying services that are widely available, except for government contract work where the hourly rate becomes the de facto basis of selection.
I've said it before. We are at where we are at today as a profession because of the actions of business acumen of those before us. I've only been in this profession for 16 years, so I consider myself a young buck it's the guys who mentored my generation and the generation before mine that got us into this mess as a whole
In addition we live in a microwave society, where we want everythijng fast and cheap.
TXSurveyor, post: 423671, member: 6719 wrote: In addition we live in a microwave society, where we want everything fast and cheap.
RADAR, post: 423673, member: 413 wrote:
I don't disagree with that one little bit. It's society as a whole that thinks that all services are equal and some guys are just out to screw them on a price. Then again how hard is it to tie flagging on the fences that have been there for years and look through the "camera". By the way I had a guy tell me the other day surveying has gotten so much easier for surveyors since we got smart phones.....
I've said it numerous times on this site. I price to cover my time, the cost of doung business, aggravation and the VALUE of my product.Time and materials not to exceed is no longer in my vocabulary. I'm expensive and I'm worth it.
thebionicman, post: 423678, member: 8136 wrote: I've said it numerous times on this site. I price to cover my time, the cost of doung business, aggravation and the VALUE of my product.Time and materials not to exceed is no longer in my vocabulary. I'm expensive and I'm worth it.
Not a thing in the world wrong with that in my opinion. Problem lies with guys stuck in the rut and guys like me just starting out in business. I'm trying to be a high quality service provider but middle of the road pricing and we are faaasssst compared to most because we don't have a backlog. On the other hand we get probably 20% of our work from people who have been waiting on other surveyors for 6+ months and can't begin to give them a timeframe of when they can get to it. These are the same guys that can't give a price up front because who knows how much it will cost.... completely different ends of the spectrum from an earlier post I know. Point is surveyors as a whole have never been on the same page. Last time i heard of some guys doing just that, a big fit was thrown in Arkansas.
Perception is everything. The public perception is based on what we portray. Our state society's should be shoving the importance of a survey and the varying roles of a surveyor down the publics throat but it doesn't happen in my state, they mainly try to convince the youngers that surveying is a good career path.
TXSurveyor, post: 423679, member: 6719 wrote: Last time i heard of some guys doing just that, a big fit was thrown in Arkansas.
There is a BIG difference between a price-fixing scheme (as evidently happened in Arkansas) and an agreement as to how much time various elements of survey work typically take for different types of projects. This is why a time estimation manual would be useful to practitioners in estimating fees and to regulatory boards in identifying prima facie evidence of incompetent practice. What services should cost and how much time they typically require to do competently are two entirely different propositions.
Contractors have books full of cost estimating guidance.
If you buy a D6 it comes with a book which estimates the time required to do various tasks.
Kent McMillan, post: 423684, member: 3 wrote: There is a BIG difference between a price-fixing scheme (as evidently happened in Arkansas) and an agreement as to how much time various elements of survey work typically take for different types of projects. This is why a time estimation manual would be useful to practitioners in estimating fees and to regulatory boards in identifying prima facie evidence of incompetent practice. What services should cost and how much time they typically require to do competently are two entirely different propositions.
In my opinion, there is so much variation in the efforts involved from survey to survey that a manual would be impossible to create. I'm guessing there is also a great deal of variation of skill level and efficiency between surveyors. One firm may do a better job in a shorter amount time as compared to another.
roger_LS, post: 423688, member: 11550 wrote: In my opinion, there is so much variation in the efforts involved from survey to survey that a manual would be impossible to create. I'm guessing there is also a great deal of variation of skill level and efficiency between surveyors. One firm may do a better job in a shorter amount time as compared to another.
I don't find that there is that much variation in the time required to perform various tasks/components of a survey if the circumstances are properly categorized. For example, if you are surveying a tract in or near an urban area in Texas, that was originally surveyed in 1880 and that has been conveyed since then using the same 19th century description, that typically involves a much different level of research than a tract that was originally surveyed three years ago by a reputable firm.
The amount of time required for research has several components, one important element of which is the number of chains of title from which title to the present tract arises and the number of adjoining tracts whose boundaries are to be investigated and the nature of their descriptions, i.e. lots in platted subdivison or separate metes and bounds tracts by a multitude of different surveyors.
