1/22/10 - 8-device universal remote offers full IR code learning, a dozen macros plus a new button layout.
1/22/10 - Two new basic hard buttoned remotes offer an updated design and loads of buttons for DVR users.
1/07/10 - Pair of new universal remotes includes the XTR100 with a 3.5" color touchscreen display.
1/07/10 - New touchscreen remote for television service providers offers 4.3" screen, 2-way WiFi.
1/07/10 - New products include a pair of hybrid remotes; 2-way ZigBee RF processor with IR, RS232 and Ethernet. Updated!
|
|
 |
|
|
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:
| Topic: | Design-Only vs. Design/Build This thread has 28 replies. Displaying posts 16 through 29. |
|
| Post 16 made on Tuesday August 10, 2004 at 09:22 |
PHSJason Advanced Member |
Joined:
Posts: | December 2002
811 |
|
|
In response to the original question: Design only firms are a relatively new concept in our industry. We have one in our area and the problem that we have(and this is just personal observation) is that the designer guys are slick salesman nothing more. Every company in town has had to deal with their past mistakes from when they worked for other firms and now no one will work with them on new projects. Installers know how this, but new customer don't. They ARE very good salesmen. Now they have become a "Design/don't wire/don't trim/do provide gear/Program company. These guys started with the idea of having partnerships with every install company in town. Now no one will work for them so they have the on-site electrician pull all of the low-voltage wire. If you think an electrician knows all the ins and outs of DVI length, wire specs/quality, placement of cables for noise issues, etc and has the know-how of a low voltage team, you are mistaken(sorry Larry, you are the exception).
There are some legalities involved also that designers tend to overlook. If your designer is "overseeing or arranging the work of contractors", you may need special licensing. In Oregon, you need a General Contractors license to do this. Our local design firm does not have this.
If you are going to use anyone, the questions above are all very valid, but I would add the most basic, check the CCB, make sure they are correctly licensed, insured, and bonded in good standing.
We are a design/build firm as will be 99% of the people responding.
Jason
|
|
|
| Post 17 made on Tuesday August 10, 2004 at 12:01 |
HDTVJunkie Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | March 2004
444 |
|
|
|
On 08/10/04 01:37, QQQ said...
8.Documentation. I would want to see what has
been produced for past jobs. And I would absolutely
insist that I receive as-built copies of EVERY
wire, every connection in the home.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here Q. Are you talking about schematics of the finished project?
|
|
| Post 18 made on Tuesday August 10, 2004 at 13:08 |
Ernie Bornn-Gilman Elite Member |
Joined:
Posts: | December 2001
13,225 |
|
|
If you call any of the talk radio computer shows and ask how to build your own computer, the first commandment you will receive is to stick with one manufacturer for as many components as possible. Why? So the mother board company can't tell you that the problem is the memory, etc.
PHSJason's story is EXACTLY what I expect to happen. If the designer is not in the loop to be stung by the asp he has specified, he can get away with mistakes where the result will be finger-pointing and a client with an ongoing problem.
What, indeed, if the architect specifies product that an installer cannot obtain? How will the customer deal with that?
Every company that has salespeople who are not the installers has to deal with feedback coming back to the salespeople to tell them NEVER to do THAT again in selling or designing a system. If these functions are in separate companies, the client will suffer.
Who designs it, should be intimately connected with building it. The designer will learn better design this way.
Who builds it, should maintain it, at least for a while. The builder will learn that, no, that was not enough slack, or it was dumb to put an F-RCA adaptor on RG-6 for video, et cetera.
|
I have ACTUALLY said this a thousand times: We can't help you much without the make and model of everything involved in the problem! Unless you want a vague answer. Or none. Your move. |
|
| Post 19 made on Tuesday August 10, 2004 at 13:20 |
Ernie Bornn-Gilman Elite Member |
Joined:
Posts: | December 2001
13,225 |
|
|
|
On 08/09/04 22:14, QQQ said...
The most frequently stated advantage on the part
a consultant is that their advice is unbiased
and not influenced by selling anything. If someone
wants to argue that point I'll respond :-).
Everybody's recommendations are biased. Once some dweeb was yelling at Frank Zappa during a concert and said something about "being in a uniform." Frank responded, "Don't kid yourself. Everybody's in a uniform."
I carry Yamaha and have liked it for years. I have hated Denon ever since I saw what you could not do on their front panels, and that their remotes have slide switches to change functions. I wear a uniform. I get Denon for my clients when they want it or, for instance, when they had built-in zone 2 power amps before Yamaha did. (I have thought for years that Yamaha did not know how to lay out remotes; since I often pick up only Yamaha remotes upside down, I figure they are doing something wrong.)
Architects are people, and they will come to like certain things based on experience and anecdotes, and not the entire truth. Hell, everybody is even biased when it comes to what planet they want to live on!
And manufacturers' specs for architects? The first such spec that I saw made no bones about the fact that this was text that the architect could use to specify their particular product, not generically what their product would do, thus having a lock on business throught that architect. The architect did not have to write a spec, his job was easier, voila a simple cost-cutting measure became a product bias.
|
I have ACTUALLY said this a thousand times: We can't help you much without the make and model of everything involved in the problem! Unless you want a vague answer. Or none. Your move. |
|
| Post 20 made on Tuesday August 10, 2004 at 14:59 |
QQQ Super Member |
Joined:
Posts: | January 2002
4,419 |
|
|
|
On 08/10/04 12:01, HDTVJunkie said...
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here Q.
Are you talking about schematics of the finished
project?
I edited my post to hopefully clear up any confusion. I meant that I would like to see samples of documentation from other projects at the dealers office (I would not expect to be able to take them).
And I meant that for my own home I would expect to be provided with documentation throughout the project including as-builts (and yes schematics) at the end.
This message was edited by QQQ on 08/10/04 15:05.
|
|
| Post 21 made on Tuesday August 10, 2004 at 16:32 |
|
On 08/09/04 22:14, QQQ said...
The most frequently stated advantage on the part
a consultant is that their advice is unbiased
and not influenced by selling anything. If someone
wants to argue that point I'll respond :-).
I have to disagree with this in part. Consultants often do develop affinity's for certain manufacturers and for certain products. The reasons can vary, sometimes becuase they believe in them, or have a level of confidence established from specifying them in the past. However, politics can and sometimes also enters into the mix. Case in point. A few years ago (more like about 10), JBL professional began offering "in house" acoustical design services for their dealers. This motivated dealers to venture out assisted by the team of acoustical engineers and throw in their hat without the strings attached to an independant consultant. This was the beginning of the design/build revolution, and that part hasn't changed. What did change was some consultants simply stopped specifying JBL products in their designs. Why would a consultant specify a product line that was competing with his or her services. Eventually JBL stopped offering in house acoustical design. In the meantime, EAW enjoyed an increase in sales into the same market.
My biggest concern with a consultant / build approach is that things always get lost in the translation between the end user and the consultant. a common phrase you might hear at the end of a job is " we thought it would be capable of doing this, you mean it can't?" Also, many large jobs evolve in real time on site. most consultants do the major part of their work at the beginning of the project, and at the very end. The period in the middle is where a lot of changes typically happen. Often these changes won't be possible due to the amount of time it requires to get everyone on the same page (some things have a finite window of opportunity).
|
|
| Post 22 made on Tuesday August 10, 2004 at 16:38 |
QQQ Super Member |
Joined:
Posts: | January 2002
4,419 |
|
|
|
Just to clarify, when I said "if someone wants to argue that point I'll respond", I meant if someone wants to argue in favor of that point, I'll rebut it.
|
|
| Post 23 made on Tuesday August 10, 2004 at 20:02 |
Larry Fine Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | August 2001
5,002 |
|
|
|
On 08/10/04 09:22, PHSJason said...
...(sorry Larry,
you are the exception).
Just checking to see if I was paying attention, eh? Thanx for the acknowledgement! I don't claim to be the only exception, but I guess I'm lucky to have my favorite hobby (well, one of them) so closely entwined with my work.
I have read articles about these same issues in general building discussions. Architects often design features into homes and other structures without consideration of the cost, difficulty, or even physical possibility, of building the damn thing!
It's easy to be "stuck" in the position of having to ask for more money to cover the cost of satisfying the final customer, while being pressured by the designer to accomplish the difficult and/or impossible within the initial agreed-upon price.
Contractors (when acting as sub-contractors) have to interact with the customer while having to refer her/him to the contractor. I'm looking at a contract that forbids doing direct business with any customer for a year after the job.
As designer/builder, I can walk room-by-room with the customer and discuss the specifics of each job, suggest alternatives and additions, and end up with a job that is satisfactory to the customer, while still profitable for me.
Then, when the work commences, the work ends up looking and functioning exactly as planned. All too often, designers spec uselessness, while overlooking practical functionality. "Just do it the way we told you" is a common response.
Enough ranting and raving for now, dinner is calling. (It's saying "Yo, Larry! Don't I smell good?" (It always does; my lady is a great cook!} "Feel your stomach rumbling? Feed it!!!")
Ciao for now,
Larry
www.fineelectricco.com
|
|
|
| Post 24 made on Wednesday August 11, 2004 at 02:39 |
Audible Solutionns Select Member |
Joined:
Posts: | March 2004
2,192 |
|
|
20 per cent of the work I do is as a consultant/progammer. I see the other side of the equasion. Serial cables missing or miswired. Equipment changed due to price considerations does not perform as advertised ( as in the *******Optoma serial protocol not containing a power on code that works ). Job delays result in a new model being installed and it has a different RS-232 protocol or firmware that does not work. Poorly soldered RCA's cause intermitant operation. Cable box not programmed ( you mean I need to program the outlet on the rear?) Emiters wired backwards. 1 pair shielded used for stereo line level ( "it's a common ground so.....")CAT-5 cables wired with split pairs, Speakers all wired differently, some red+black some red+green (these are the really fun jobs).
Who has control is important. If I design and build I control the job. I can ensure that the work is done on time and I can test the program should a new model arrive in house. I may not be a Zentith dealer or use Optoma projectors but I can get them into the lab for testing. And I can make sure that all wires have been tested before the programmer ( me ) arrives. If I do not have control I may have to stay longer and try collecting on those charges.
All installers complain about the sales staff and everyone knows that any problem on a job is due to the program. As to problems after the fact, Q is correct. I was called to a job where I was told there were programming problems. The actual problem was the emitters had fallen off; or there were network issues that caused the problem; or problems created by a poor installation not ventilating heat.
Those of us who do electrical control systems know this to be an issue. Is the problem due to the equipment we supplied or programmed or to the electrical work. Ever note how dsl improved once the local Telco began to offer the service in place of just the line? One head needs to control the body if everything is to run smoothly.
Alan
|
"This is a Christian Country,Charlie,founded on Christian values...when you can't put a nativiy scene in front fire house at Christmas time in Nacogdoches Township, something's gone terribly wrong" |
|
| Post 25 made on Thursday August 12, 2004 at 00:29 |
QQQ Super Member |
Joined:
Posts: | January 2002
4,419 |
|
|
|
On 08/10/04 00:04, lhl12 said...
I'll be happy to answer your question, but before
I do I'd like to solicit the opinions of those
professionals (which I am not) who have experience
in the area.
I think it's your turn :-).
|
|
| Post 26 made on Thursday August 12, 2004 at 07:51 |
I believe a design/build firm (of any sort -- not just A/V) has an inherent conflict. When the person doing the design is the same one doing the implementation then some level of accountability and control is lost. If there are problems, is the problem with the design or the implementation? Which subcontractor needs to be replaced?
In a job where design and implementation are separated, then the designer becomes the owner's representative, responsible for interpreting his/her wishes to produce a design and specification but not for pulling wires or selling equipment. The wire pulling and equipment selling can then be hard bid, allowing the owner to get the best price possible from the "body" without having to sacrifice or cross-subsidize the "head" (using Alan's analogy).
My sense is that design and programming services are much more of the value added in larger A/V jobs while equipment markups and high hourly labor rates are simply ways to subsidize them. I would much rather that everything be transparent and separate. I would rather pay lower margins on equipment purchases and lower hourly rates to techs who are doing low-skill jobs. At the same time I am willing to pay high hourly rates to design professionals and software developers who are doing high-skill jobs.
Again using the "head" and "body" analogies, it is critical that the body be located physically close to the job so that good service can be provided. However with the internet and e-mail, the head can be anywhere. I personally would want to hire the best designer and programmer I can for my job and I don't care what city they are in. They can do nearly all of their work in front of their computer at home and can make an occasional site visit when necessary. I wouldn't want to restrict the hiring of my designer/programmer only to local firms because it's unlikely that the very best firm just so happens to be in my city. Architects do jobs in other cities all the time -- they don't restrict their practice just to their immediate geographic radius.
QQQ, in your question you said "let's assume you are working with outstanding people whichever approach you use." That assumption is hugely non-trivial. It's exactly the difficulty in determining who is an outstanding implementer that makes me want to separate design from build. If I make a good decision on the designer (which is admittedly still a tall order) then they can help me find a good installer and manage them properly. When selecting a good A/V designer, though, the owner at least has some frame of reference with other design professionals he/she might have worked with in the past (like architects, landscape architects, MEP engineers, Lighting Designers, HVAC engineers, etc.)
I believe the separation of design from build is a good thing in virtually all building trades above a certain size and I think A/V and Control, with its high complexity, falls into the same category. There is certainly a minimum efficient scale below which separation isn't economical and at that level design/build probably makes sense. Above that level, though, either model could work economically and so the question is what produces the highest quality of service with the best accountability.
This message was edited by lhl12 on 08/12/04 09:17.
|
|
| Post 27 made on Thursday August 12, 2004 at 09:27 |
PHSJason Advanced Member |
Joined:
Posts: | December 2002
811 |
|
|
|
On 08/12/04 07:51, lhl12 said...
I believe a design/build firm (of any sort --
not just A/V) has an inherent conflict. When
the person doing the design is the same one doing
the implementation then some level of accountability
and control is lost. If there are problems, is
the problem with the design or the implementation?
Which subcontractor needs to be replaced?
Did you not read the above posts regarding this topic? When there are more contractors on the job, there is more finger pointing when things don't work right. Having a seperate designer will make this worse, especially if they are out of state.
I personally would want to hire
the best designer and programmer I can for my
job and I don't care what city they are in. They
can do nearly all of their work in front of their
computer at home and can make an occasional site
visit when necessary.
Once again, did you miss the information about how a job changes during the pre-wire and trim stages on-site? Your designer will have to be on-site during this entire process to make sure they are kept in the loop. With that comes the biggest issue. It is most likely not even legal to do what you are asking. In the scenario you just described, your "designer" will be a second general contractor on your job and will need to be licensed, bonded, insured, and have a business license, etc from the state you are building in. Some states have laws that allow out of state contractors to work under another state's license, but not many. Most require that for general contracting work that the designer submit an application, provide proof of business license, bond, and insurance, take an exam, and them wait up to several weeks for approval before they can work in your state. With your scenario, your designer will need to be licensed in every state.
Architects do jobs in other cities all the time -- they don't
restrict their practice just to their immediate
geographic radius.
Architects don't "oversee or arrange the work of contractors" which your designer will be doing. Architects draw a plan and then re-calculate changes if required as they relate to structural safetey etc. If your designer tells you that as long as you choose the subs, you are OK, he is telling you a lie. If this person or firm is operating in the manner you described above, without the proper licensing, or telling you they don't need it, you are running the risk of having your job shut down by an inspector. We have seen it before and I'm sure we'll see it again.
If I make a good decision on the designer (which is admittedly
still a tall order) then they can help me find
a good installer and manage them properly.
If you like the designer, have them get licensed, then hire not just them, but thier install crew as well. Ship the whole crew up to do your job. A designer is only as good as his installers. You seem to think that with a good plan, anyone can do this "low-skill" wiring thing. How wrong you are. I have seen desingers at companies come and go. On a side note: the term "Designer" seems to attract the slickest, laziest salespeople who seem to always be looking for a "get rich quick with minimal work job". Most designers are great salesmen so beware. I have made stupid designs work by my sheer desire to please a customer. You CANNOT seperate the designer from the installers completely and expect anything near what was promised. Your designer got to where he is with the help of lots of people and he still needs those same people to have the same results.
I believe the separation of design from build
is a good thing in virtually all building trades
above a certain size and I think A/V and Control,
with its high complexity, falls into the same
category. There is certainly a minimum efficient
scale below which separation isn't economical
and at that level design/build probably makes
sense. Above that level, though, either model
could work economically and so the question is
what produces the highest quality of service with
the best accountability.
In a perfect world, your designer can draw a plan and then a crew of migrant workers can build it. This is reality though and you are talking about skilled labor and skilled design. These two things are so dynamic and have to be so fluid in how they function that you cannot seperate them. There is no accountability in your plan that isn't there with a design/build firm. If a wire needs to go point A to point B, both ways are going to have that wire listed on a checklist and have one person ultimately responsible for making sure it gets there. In your vision though, if the client wants to add one more feature that needs 3 wires point A to B, then he tells the installer, who tells the designer, who calls the customer, who tells the designer again, who then has to get a new bid from the installer for the equipment so he can tell the client the new price, which takes a day to get back to the office, revise the estimate, e-mail it to the designer, they approve it, e-mail it to the client, who says OK, then the designer has to call the installer, tell him OK, he has to go back to the jobsite and add the 2 wires. Since he has already left the jobsite, he fills out a change order for additional time and labor(since the paperwork took too long)which he sends to the desinger before he goes out........By the time he gets back to the jobsite, drywall is up. Hire the designer.....and his crew. Just make sure he is licensed.
Jason
This message was edited by PHSJason on 08/12/04 09:35.
|
|
|
| Post 28 made on Thursday August 12, 2004 at 09:58 |
Audible Solutionns Select Member |
Joined:
Posts: | March 2004
2,192 |
|
|
Separate design and build is the way things are done in the commercial world and while jobs are completed I do not think it enhances the project for many of the reasons stated by Jason.
Lighting control systems are often installed this way to the detriment of the client, I think. The manufacturer has his sales force sell the job to the archetect, his distributer than puts a specification out to bid and the factory sends someone out to program the job. In a perfect world this works fine but as Jason aptly discribes the situtation the design changes. It is done this way so the job can be put out to bid or because an approved contractor is not involved and the manufacturer does not want to lose the sale. But neither the manufacturer nor the distributor are in the business of project management. If a control system later comes into the job might it not be a good idea to make use of it?
If design changes are made who is able to advise how to adjust the specification. What happens if shades are added to the job? Do the keypads need to change to accomodate the new sub-system? How about if a new product comes into the line that is superior to the one specified? In the Lutron world the Q96 is a superior way to control their QED shades than the QED CCI. Will the bill of materials be adjusted? How about color changes? How about ensuring that the control wire meets code ( plenum when required? )
In theory separating these functions should bring about benefits but in reality it only adds confusion, and as Jason put it " finger pointing." More importantly, I doubt any cost savings will accrue to the client. A good contractor catches the mistakes the archetect made and fixes them. A poor contractor follows the plan slavishly. Talent or competence needs to be compensated. The consultant, like the real estate agent, in reality work for themselves. They do provide a bid specification that permits the job to be put up for auction. Other than that they charge hansome fees for very little work, produce lovely ( and often inaccurate ) CAD drawings and pass responsibility for their ineptitude off to others.
The job does get done but not with any cost benefits to the client. It is merely an opportunity for clever sales people to move into an other business, more often than not at the expense of everyone involved. After all, who is more valuable in the end: the rainmaker who can obtain work or the individal who performs the labor? In the busniess world those who bring in work are compensated most. Worker bees who actually do the work receive far less.
But sales margins will soon errode to the point that no contractor will provide the equipment installed. I see few plumbers providing any material save pipe and I have not seen the price of plumbing drop. I suspect that while these changes will force many firms out of business it will not decrease the ultimate cost of installing these systems-unless the dream of UPnP actually bcomes a reality. Anyone care to place a bet on that?
Alan
|
"This is a Christian Country,Charlie,founded on Christian values...when you can't put a nativiy scene in front fire house at Christmas time in Nacogdoches Township, something's gone terribly wrong" |
|
| Post 29 made on Thursday August 12, 2004 at 12:06 |
Jason -
1) Yes, I have read all the above posts and have considered them carefully before each of my posts. You should assume this to be true for each of my future posts as well.
2) You've made several emphatic statements about the correctness of your points of view as if they were self-evident, which they are not. Also, you haven't addressed the huge numbers of problems with the design/build approach which many many end users have experienced to their great regret.
3) With respect to the subcontractor and legality issues, the installer would be a subcontractor of the GC, not of the designer/programmer.
4) You seem to equate "designer" with "salesman", which is not how I view the relationship. I think the designer/programmer is a skilled professional in the same category as an architect, MEP Engineer, HVAC Engineer, Lighting Designer, etc. In each case the good design professional will be agnostic with respect to various equipment lines that they might specify and will have no economic stake in what is specified or selected. I would want any designer/programmer I hired to have no install crew. I suppose the installation firm hired for the job might have designers and/or salesmen as part of their firm, but they would not be part of the project.
Alan -
I think the issue of cost/benefit that you raise is at the heart of this. I acknowledge that my approach might end up having a higher cost (although I don't concede that it necessarily will.) Regardless, I also think it will provide greater benefit by eliminating many of the problems that seem endemic to this industry. I am willing to pay for this additional benefit and I suspect many other end users would be willing to as well.
This message was edited by lhl12 on 08/12/04 12:26.
|
|
 |
Before you can reply to a message... |
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now. |
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
|
|
