Holy Cow, post: 409885, member: 50 wrote: I hope everyone is charging the true cost of doing it by the alternative method. Otherwise you are cheating yourselves. You are merely making less profit than what the project should be providing. If you aren't charging accordingly, you are contributing to the demise of the profession. Imagine a day in the not too distant future when you might have the technical capability to do all phases of the work, except the excavation of existing monuments and the setting of new monuments, in a matter of a few minutes from a remote location. Are you then going to send the client a bill for $99?
We don't charge enough. However, new technology forces us to reduce our charges to a degree, because we are more efficient. There isn't anyone that could today charge for a survey the labor rates it would take to do the survey with a transit and chain. Those that adopt new technology first reap the windfall, if they charge as if they used old technology. However, as the technology is more universally used, competition forces the charges down.
What need is there for competition? None. It's primarily in our own minds. Most of us are cowards who undervalue our worth for fear someone might tell us we cost too much. There is nothing wrong with costing too much. Everything else does too. And we buy those overpriced things every day. It may be the price of fuel for our vehicle or repair parts for some device. Everything is too expensive. Therefore, we must also be too expensive.
We must operate as if there is no price competition or we all lose. Being more efficient should increase our profits,not stifle them.
A high school boy who plays on the line for his football team spends a lot of time wrestling, in a way, with his opponent on the opposite side of the line. He figures if he lifts weights and becomes stronger he will more frequently defeat his opponent. The problem is that the opponent has the same thought and takes the same action. Both get stronger but neither gains an advantage. The winner is anyone they pay to help them get stronger. Neither of the boys wins anything.
A lady called last week about maybe doing a survey in a part of a nearby city where I have had very few requests through the decades. One leaped to mind that might have been in her block. After a bit of discussion on what it might cost to do her survey she decided she would have to save money for about six months first.
The memory of the old survey led me to my jobs index to search for exactly when and where. It turned out it was about three blocks away in a different subdivision so would not be of any help if she ever calls back. What blew me away was the invoice for that job. It had been at a time where I was taking every job I could get in order to get my name more well known and to widen my range of experience. My overhead was very low. I charged a fee that would amount to about $300 today. If my overhead had been higher, such as trying to pay for some very expensive equipment, the invoice would have probably been twice the amount, not less. It had been a very simple job with far more time spent on research and drafting than field time. Increased efficiency might have resulted in 15 minutes less time at the site but, due to the massive increase in overhead, the invoice would have been far greater to squeeze out the same little bit of profit.
I can't imagine performing a boundary survey without a total station and a bush axe in my neck of the woods. But I do use the hell out of some GNSS/GPS, turning a two man crew into two 1-man crews and doubling production on topo surveys.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm probably being too literal, but if GPS shuts down, I think there will be more problems than how surveyors will get their work done. GPS is used in so many applications, such as finance, communication, transportation, etc., that I would think the predicament would be cataclysmic.
If my own GNSS receivers shut down, I could not work the way I do. I seldom use the total station. There are times it's the best tool and I bring it along. I can still run a total station. I still know how to traverse. I can still calculate a traverse and if the need arose, I could work without a data collector. I would not want to though. I would not be nearly as profitable.
Holy Cow, post: 409903, member: 50 wrote: What need is there for competition? None. It's primarily in our own minds. Most of us are cowards who undervalue our worth for fear someone might tell us we cost too much. There is nothing wrong with costing too much. Everything else does too. And we buy those overpriced things every day. It may be the price of fuel for our vehicle or repair parts for some device. Everything is too expensive. Therefore, we must also be too expensive.
We must operate as if there is no price competition or we all lose. Being more efficient should increase our profits,not stifle them.
To deny that there is competition is like denying gravity. It's there, whether you like it or not, and there's nothing you can do about it. Price is a factor for ever single person that orders a survey. For some people, it's the only factor. For others, it's a minor factor, but it is a factor. Don't believe me? Start charging $10,000 for a survey that you typically charge $1000 for and see how many you get.
I price my projects to cover my time, cost of doing business (now and later), value of product and any aggravating factors. I don't care what brand x charges. It must work because I'm busy having fun and making money...
If your standard fees are in line with everyone else working regularly in your area, then there is no price competition. Decision making must be based on factors other than price such as experience, reputation and response time.
If one firm lowers their profitability simply because they can do something a bit faster than in the past, the other firms will follow. Then the short term advantage is gone and everybody's profits decrease.
If one firm decides to reduce their fees significantly for a specific type of job, let them do it and go out of business before long. Focus on being the most experienced, responsive and highly respected provider in the area, not the cheapest.
Tommy Young, post: 409979, member: 703 wrote: For others, it's a minor factor, but it is a factor.
These are the client's I'm after; the one's that are looking for value in service.
I've been told that I did not get the job because my price was lower than the other surveyors; I've been told that I got the job even though my price was higher than the other surveyors.
I'm not saying that there isn't competition; but competing on price alone is a fast track to going out of business. Convince your client that there is value in your service; they will beat a path to your door...
Larry P wrote a good series of articles on Value Pricing back in 2012, starting with this one. Worth a look...
Holy Cow, post: 409981, member: 50 wrote: If one firm decides to reduce their fees significantly for a specific type of job, let them do it and go out of business before long. Focus on being the most experienced, responsive and highly respected provider in the area, not the cheapest.
What if new technology allows them to lower their rates and they end up with higher profits than those that are using the old technology?
thebionicman, post: 409886, member: 8136 wrote: We are the only Profession I know of that spends most of our profit on tools to reduce billable hours...
Manufacturing?
Loss of GNSS would affect me nearly zero.
Larry Best, post: 409986, member: 763 wrote: Manufacturing?
Loss of GNSS would affect me nearly zero.
Manufacturing generally charges by the item, not time. More items in less time can increase profit. Most Surveyors (that I am aware of) price by time, completely overlooking the value of the product.
I generally don't give man-hour information on non-transportation jobs. My proposal says what I will do, when I will be done and how much it will cost with any qualifying clauses. Most of my clients have a good idea how much my services are worth to them and don't bat an eye.
Why cut profit per job? Ever? If the job was worth $3400 before, it's still worth $3400 after. Being able to do it a bit quicker is irrelevant. Nearly 100 percent of my clients have no idea what a survey like theirs should cost. They can call around and get similar estimates from a number of places but normally the difference in dollars is outweighed by how quickly the selected firm can get the job done for them. There is no collusion involved, BTW. We have all sort of learned that a certain category of work will be worth around a certain price to most potential clients. If the potential client thinks that is too expensive, they can do without a survey.
I will agree that there are times when certain clients have certain pricing expectations. They will bring in someone from Timbuktu with zero local experience simply because they quote a lower price than anyone local would ever agree to. Bottom feeders, low ballers, whatever you want to call them who are merely keeping some workers busy during an otherwise slow time. Those jokers come in, screw things up, grab the money and run. By the time their errors are discovered either no one remembers who they were or they have restructured under a new identity and claim no connection to the past project. Meanwhile, those who are known locally catch the brunt of the complaining even though they had nothing to do with the problems that were created.
I have no interest in working for those types of clients. If they want to tell me what the job is worth, that's fine so long as their number is a lot higher than mine. Otherwise, they can pound sand.
Remember Kent's thread about the crew from Oklahoma City who were attempting to work in the heart of Austin where only a very few local survey firms have sufficient knowledge to do the job correctly.
If you're not regularly losing jobs because your estimate is too expensive, then you are not charging enough.
Holy Cow, post: 409990, member: 50 wrote: Why cut profit per job? Ever? If the job was worth $3400 before, it's still worth $3400 after.
You're not talking about the same thing there. It is entirely possible to charge less, and make more profit. No one is arguing to decrease profits.
paden cash, post: 409786, member: 20 wrote: We all probably depend on the GNSS in some form or fashion nowadays. Some maybe exclusively, some maybe not so much. I'm sure it depends heavily on the type of work in which one specializes.
How many of you would still maintain a positive work load and income if the GNSS was either compromised or destroyed?
I suspect that we would all be just fine - the work we do is needed whether or not GNSS exists.
Regarding how much we use GNSS: Too much. I tell our crews - GPS is the tool to go to when there isn't a BETTER (faster/appropriately accurate) tool/method available. That's what I tell them but quite frankly the majority of younger surveyors don't have the experience with other tools necessary to recognize when other tools/methods would be a better choice. Just ask them about using a right angle prism and rag tape. Additionally, most of them simply don't have the experience (and related judgement) to recognize what appropriate accuracy is for a particular task.
I'm not knocking younger surveyors... it's our fault if we don't take the time to teach them how and when to use these tools.
Just sayin...
Back on topic...We use a local CORS station as a base station for work within a 6-8 mile radius . Just hop out of the truck and go to work. Several months ago the CORS station failed. It is operated by our State Land Department, who I would bet money barely knows it even exists, much less "operates" or "manages" it. (No one returns calls when you leave a message.) Fortunately, we have a contact on the University campus near the CORS receiver that has been willing to run upstairs and reboot the server it runs through, which usually fixes things. In this instance there was something else wrong and we went without for serveral days. Was a HUGE problem on sites where we had not set local control. It was impossible to establish new control with any hope of it being on the CORS frame of reference. Close -perhaps, with several days of work, but not exact. We have changed our procedures and now leave control everywhere...
Jim in AZ, post: 410009, member: 249 wrote: Back on topic...We use a local CORS station as a base station for work within a 6-8 mile radius . Just hop out of the truck and go to work. Several months ago the CORS station failed. It is operated by our State Land Department, who I would bet money barely knows it even exists, much less "operates" or "manages" it. (No one returns calls when you leave a message.) Fortunately, we have a contact on the University campus near the CORS receiver that has been willing to run upstairs and reboot the server it runs through, which usually fixes things. In this instance there was something else wrong and we went without for serveral days. Was a HUGE problem on sites where we had not set local control. It was impossible to establish new control with any hope of it being on the CORS frame of reference. Close -perhaps, with several days of work, but not exact. We have changed our procedures and now leave control everywhere...
Do you have static capabilities? I've overcome that by setting up the base and cooking static with the Rover on a few passive marks. Hold one of them fixed, process baselines through your on-site base and check into the other...
We don't use it at all.......yet.
Holy Cow, post: 409854, member: 50 wrote: find the square root of 67
About 8,2...:p
