Is measurement for valuation a dying art?

I was struck by how little measurement of the Works is being used for valuation. I cannot see how you can properly value the Works if you cannot measure. If a detailed measure is undertaken for say a Variation, referenced back to the design information, it makes life so much easier in negotiating a price for those works, rather than citing lump sums with no methodology to that price.

It is also a skill of knowing how to build the asset that is not shown in the design information and then including those missing issues in your valuation, but this comes over time with experience.

I am interested to see how much measuring is being conducted these days for the valuation of variations and if not much, are you content with this drift in skill set, or if you are not worried about measuring the works, then what is your method and why do you adopt this?

My position is, I prefer measurement as the starting point for valuation but I do not mind if it is mixed with very minor lump sums for those works that cannot easily be measured. However, I do not think that the valuation of a variation by stating lump sums with no build-up demonstrate the proper valuation of the issue.

If you agree with me then what can be done to improve this situation as it all starts from training to my mind whether this is self taught, experienced passed down or both. I also recognise that time pressures play a role and of course, laziness and no experience, but these can be dealt with.