Simon knew what good work looked like
Nathan has known Simon for thirty years and describes him as the best professional he has worked with. Simon brought around forty years of quantity surveying experience to the experiment in this chapter. He had tried AI before and been disappointed.
They uploaded a real project’s files and spent about ten minutes explaining the required bills of quantities, construction schedule and cash-flow forecast. Simon specified the standards and formats.
Production and review were separate jobs
The files took roughly two hours to produce. Simon would normally have expected about two weeks of production work. He then spent another couple of hours reviewing and spot-checking the output before being happy with the figures.
Both the brief and the review belong in the timing. Nathan could be impressed by a spreadsheet; Simon had the experience to assess whether it was suitable.
Sometimes the challenge teaches you something
In a later roof takeoff, Simon challenged an area he thought was wrong. Following the calculation through showed changes in the roof shape that he had initially overlooked. On that occasion, the AI’s result was correct.
The story matters because Simon questioned it carefully and understood why the answer differed. A confident answer alone would not have resolved the disagreement.
Bring your expertise to the test
Start with work you understand well enough to assess. Specify the inputs, standards, output and review method. Ask for the origin of figures and visible assumptions. The aim is to give your judgement useful work to examine.
This is Nathan’s account of one professional’s experience, not a guarantee of speed or accuracy for other projects. Use the professional brief.