Why the industry Is walking away from value engineering
There was a time when “value engineering” was seen as a pragmatic solution: tighten the budget, tweak the spec, save a bit here and there.
Today, more councils, contractors, and landscape professionals are abandoning the false savings of value engineering. The real cost—financial, environmental, and reputational – is too high to ignore.
Value Engineering simply doesn’t work.
Landscape architects and council officers are under constant pressure to deliver more with less. Value engineering promised a solution: save money without reducing scope. But that promise rarely proves true.
The logic is simple: swap out a specified item for something cheaper and pocket the savings. The result is often thinner materials, weaker finishes, and products never designed to withstand the Australian climate and public realm wear and tear. The outcome? Premature failures, higher maintenance costs, and frustrated communities.
The money saved on paper evaporates in the real world through constant repairs, early replacements, and reputational damage, quickly dwarfing the original “saving.”
Quality is an environmental investment.
The hidden cost of poor-quality products is environmental waste. Products that should last 10–15 years are tossed after five.
When we specify cheap, we design for landfill.
This is why the fall of value engineering is about more than cost – it’s about sustainability. High-quality, durable products don’t just reduce maintenance calls. They stay in service longer, cutting down the volume of waste sent to landfills and the emissions tied to manufacturing replacements.
Communities expect better
When products fail early, they take public trust with them. When the community plans a day out in the park for a celebration, only to deal with broken infrastructure, it rightly questions whether its rates are being used wisely.
Poor-quality public infrastructure:
– Damages public perception
– Increases safety risk and liability
– Saps maintenance budgets
– Creates unnecessary environmental waste
In contrast, durable materials withstand years of weather, wear, and use, reflecting the professionalism of the council and the care taken in design and construction.
The industry is pushing back
Designers and project managers are leading the shift away from value engineering.
Landscape architects choose fit-for-purpose products that perform well over time and stay true to their vision long after handover. Council project teams oppose short-sighted substitutions that undermine quality and longevity and burdens them with frequent repairs.
This isn’t about selecting the most expensive option. It’s about choosing the right products that have been tested, proven, and capable of lasting the distance.
Reputations are at stake
When a project fails, no one remembers the “saving”. They recognise the rust, the rot, and the inconvenience. The community doesn’t see a tender process. They see a council that didn’t care enough to get it right.
That’s why professionals are moving on from value engineering. Because it doesn’t just damage the project—it damages your name.
False savings are still a cost
– If you’re faced with a substitution request for a product that you know is best-in-class, ask the hard questions:
– How is the substitute product made cheaper – through inferior materials, components, or labour cost?
– Will the substitute last under public-use conditions?
– What’s its real-world track record?
– How soon will it need to be replaced and generate waste?
– Who’s responsible when it fails – the specifier, the manufacturer, the contractor, or the asset owner?
If the answers don’t hold up, neither will the product.
Building a Better Standard
The best public landscapes are the ones that still look great decades later. They weren’t value engineered into mediocrity. They were built to last – intelligently specified, carefully delivered, and proudly maintained.
That’s the standard we should be aiming for.
Ultimately, the real value is longevity, performance, reducing waste, and creating places that serve and inspire those who use them. It’s time to leave value engineering behind and build for the future.