ETH Value Method

As transparency and fairness become central to public procurement, the Value Method provides a clear and verifiable approach to calculating planning effort and professional fees for Architects, Civil Engineers and Building Systems Engineers.

Developed at ETH Zurich, the method is based on two core principles:

Legal transparency (equal treatment, non-discrimination) and methodological traceability (transparency in information and calculation).

Instead of relying on construction costs, the Value Method uses measurable and documented values – so-called transparent determinants such as square metres, cubic metres or unit counts. These are linked to a labour input, based on standardised base models. Project-specific factors are incorporated through an adjustment factor, using the Leadership Framework for Decision Making as a systematic foundation.

The method is implemented digitally:

The ValueApp is currently available in two national versions –

for Luxembourg, in partnership with the OAI,

and for Switzerland, in collaboration with the SIA.

Watch the film to see how the method works – clearly explained and illustrated with examples.

This presentation is part of our contribution to the Public Procurement Conference 2025 and shows how transparency, fairness and efficiency can be applied in planning practice.

Base Models in the Value Method

How Prediction Intervals Are Formed

The Value Method relies on base models to calculate planning effort in a transparent and traceable way. The starting point is the process of feature identification: More than 1300 completed projects were analysed with regard to type of use, area, and service level.

Each model defines a prediction interval that covers 80 % of comparable cases. This interval is not a line, but a rangewith internal variation. It is based on deciles – tenth-based distribution bands. The middle range (for example, between the 5th and 6th decile) is the most accurate. However, uncertainty increases in the outer deciles – especially in the 1st and 10th. These cases suggest special project requirements and should be further assessed qualitatively.

Important: The prediction interval is not interpolatable – it does not represent a fixed formula, but a data-informed range. The focus lies not on numerical precision but on methodological plausibility.

The Six Base Models in Architecture

The Value Method uses six deductively developed usage-based models, each with their own validated prediction interval. They reflect typical architectural project types and assume 100 % basic services.

The six models are:

• Housing

  (e.g. multi-family housing, residential care)

• Working / Services

  (e.g. office buildings, administration)

• Industry

  (e.g. production halls, factories)

• Storage

  (e.g. warehouses, logistics facilities)

• Learning / Research

  (e.g. schools, universities, labs)

• Healing / Care

  (e.g. hospitals, nursing homes)

These models serve as a transparent reference for calculating the labour input. They were most recently validated in February 2024 using real project data.

Recognising Decision Contexts – The Leadership Framework

The Leadership Framework for Decision Making, developed by Dave Snowden (2007), helps decision-makers classify situations based on the relationship between cause and effect. This enables appropriate responses across varying degrees of complexity and uncertainty.

The framework distinguishes five domains, each defined by its own logic of action and decision-making:

1. Clear (formerly Obvious):
   Cause and effect are straightforward. Decisions follow established best practices.
2. Complicated:
   Relationships can be analysed but require expertise. Decisions are guided by good practices, based on expert knowledge and assessment.
3. Complex:
   Cause and effect can only be identified in retrospect. Effective solutions emerge through experimentation and pattern recognition.
4. Chaotic:
   No visible order. Immediate action is required to stabilise the situation before analysis becomes possible.
5. Disorder:
   It is unclear which domain applies. This requires deeper evaluation to determine the nature of the situation.

The framework is typically visualised along two axes:

• Vertical: How clear are the project requirements?
• Horizontal: What type of approach is suitable – categorising, analysing, probing, or reacting?

Application in the Value Method

The Value Method applies this framework to determine the Adjustment Factor (AF) in a structured and transparent way.

Project-specific challenges – whether technical, organisational, spatial, or design-related – are mapped onto the Leadership Framework. Each challenge is assessed by:

• How clearly the requirements are defined
• What type of approach the task calls for

The result is a position on the framework surface. The centre of gravity of all mapped challenges determines the project’s Adjustment Factor.

For instance, projects located in the complicated domain typically use a reference value of 1.

More complex or chaotic challenges may require an increased time-effort estimate to reflect the added uncertainty and coordination effort.

In this way, the framework becomes a practical tool to support fair, context-sensitive, and traceable fee modelling.

Contact

Axel Paulus

paulus@arch.ethz.ch – at ETH Zurich for questions regarding the Value Method

apaulus@arcexperts.ch – at a r c experts AG for questions regarding the application