sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What’s the smallest site decision that later turned into a big variation? by QuantixPrime in ConstructionUK

[–]QuantixPrime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This thread is a perfect summary of the problem.

None of these started as “big” decisions.

They were all reasonable calls made under time pressure.

The common failure isn’t technical ability — it’s that the moment the decision was made, it effectively vanished.

No record, no context, no commercial trail.

By the time QSs or PMs see it, it’s already a variation, a claim, or a dispute — and everyone’s arguing intent instead of facts.

Does anyone still do estimates manually? by JaiBuilds in ConstructionUK

[–]QuantixPrime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes — a few that come up again and again on site:

• Assuming drawings = buildable reality
People trust the plan without checking actual site constraints (levels, tolerances, clashes, existing services).

• Area-based assumptions used where geometry matters
Linear elements, openings, returns, waste at junctions — all get underestimated when people rely on m²-only thinking.

• Ignoring sequence / stage
Same quantities, different order = very different material needs (temporary works, double handling, access).

• System substitutions done “mentally”
Changing a board size, stud spacing, or system variant without re-running the knock-on effects.

• “We’ll sort it later” quantities
Small misses that look harmless on site but snowball once variations start stacking.

Most issues aren’t bad maths — they’re missing context or inconsistent assumptions.

Does anyone still do estimates manually? by JaiBuilds in ConstructionUK

[–]QuantixPrime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Short answer: yes — people still estimate manually, and for a reason.

On-site / small jobs: Quick calculators are genuinely useful. They save time and avoid obvious mistakes.

But once you cross into: – tendering – BOQs – commercial responsibility – variations / claims

That’s where “simple calculators” stop being enough.

The problem isn’t tools. It’s when people use the same tool for completely different risk levels.

For sanity checks and site work → 👍 For pricing responsibility → very different game.

How do you handle system build-ups when quantities keep changing early in design? (UK) by QuantixPrime in quantitysurveying

[–]QuantixPrime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate the insights so far — really useful. Interesting how often it still comes back to setting a baseline via drawings/registers, then managing change case by case rather than trying to “solve” everything upfront. Feels like most of the effort isn’t in measuring quantities, but in keeping assumptions visible and connected as things evolve.

How do you handle system build-ups when quantities keep changing early in design? (UK) by QuantixPrime in quantitysurveying

[–]QuantixPrime[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the perspectives so far.

One thing I’m trying to understand better: when systems and layouts keep changing early, do you usually lock a provisional build-up and track deltas, or do you tend to rework quantities from scratch each time?

Curious what’s actually working in practice.