Mines, after becoming operational, often retain the same support and reinforcement designs developed in the feasibility study. These designs are conceived from limited drilling data and regional experience, thus having an empirical flavour. Empirical designs are perceived to be conservative, catering for a variety of failure mechanisms, which are not always present in mine development drives.This begs the question: If you were to invest in the necessary resources to obtain sufficient data and complete the required analyses for the different development drives in the mine, to engineer a support and reinforcement scheme with the capacity to match the demand of the rock mass, what is the difference in cost when comparing an empirical design to an engineered design?To answer this question, mine tunnels with different geometries and orientations, where detailed structural data was available, were selected for a comparative design exercise. Material cost, development cost, cycle time and professional fees for engineered and empirical designs were estimated. The outcome is summarised in the following paper that discusses the process followed and the results of the design comparison.