Best use of manpower with revit

[david.kingham]

I'm struggling to find a good practice for this as we implement revit so I thought I would ask all of you what you have experienced....In making the transition from stupid 2d drawings to BIM I've found that there is much less of a need for drafters, in fact drafters seem to struggle the most because they have only learned how to draw in autocad, not put buildings together. Which of course is what you must do in revit.

I'm wondering how you have setup projects with manpower...do you have drafters working on the project or just Architects and job captains?

What I envision is one revit expert on a project that will get into the nitty gritty of making sections look right and do most of the modeling. Depending how large of a project there could be a low level drafter doing details and annotating. The job captain and Architect also need to work in revit, but not too in depth like the revit expert. Then there would also be a BIM manager that would build content as needed, help with any problems in a project and train new reviteers.

Does this sound reasonable?

[Lashers]

In a previous life . . .the architect/job captain/project manager/person in charge would do the design, define the callouts and sections etc. Farm these out for detailing and then be responsible for pulling these back into the CD set.

Pretty straightforward and still allows the whole food chain to be used people and software available.

Now I do all these jobs totally in Revit, life's great!

[hand471037]

Those that only know 'drafting' can be put on Details, within Revit or AutoCAD really, as long as someone who knows Revit creates and names the Drafting Views for them (and, if the Drafting is still being done in AutoCAD, xref them into those Drafting Views). They can also do whatever annotation work and redlines are needed within the Views themselves once they are set up.

Then the Architects/Job Captains can work within the model, tagging things with Detail Keys, while the drafters just draft or pick up redlines on the details & views themselves.

Also keep schedules in mind. I used to grab totally non-technical people at one office, I mean like Admin staff, sit them down in front of Revit, open the project for them and go to a schedule (and even check out whatever worksets they might need prior to 8.1), and then hand them a list or redmarks, say "hey, see, this is just like Excel, and can you make these changes for me..."

There's still lots that 'drafters' can do within a Project, depending on it's size.

However, you'll still need someone/a team to 'pull things together' and do the actual building modeling, and another (or the same folks on a smaller job) to generate the needed custom content (Families) for the Project. And if the Building Model and those Families are well made, and the details pretty typical and already pulled into your template, well, you're right, you won't really need that much drafting work.

So, hate to say it, you either scale up the amount of work you do or you let some folks go...

[Scott Davis]

We did the same thing...put some of the less experienced on Schedules. This worked pretty well except for one particular portion: Door Schedules. Our door numbers were not correct, and another person had marked up the hard-copy door schedule with corrections. The doors in the schedule were in numeric order, so the draftsperson went right down the list, typing in the new door numbers, and all the door information. This caused room 100, to have doors 113A and 106B, instead of 100A and 100B. Oops.

We then had to re-explain that one should go to the plan first, change the door number per each door tag to correspond to the room number the door was in, then go back to the schedule (which was now in the 'correct' order!) and fill out the rest of the info.

Life would be easier if we could have Revit assign door numbers automatically per room number.... :-)

[Rols]

That's pretty close.
I'm having a small problem with upper management understanding the processes in Revit. They think that wall sections are generated automatically. Which they are, to an extent. You still need drafters to flesh out the details in wall sections and draw details. I figure that the Revit building model will get you through building sections without much drafting. Wall sections and details are entirely a different story.
I targeted project architects and job captains first because they are right in the middle. They're young enough and savy enough to learn the software quickly, and they no how a building goes together. Things went great.
I'm now spreading the implementation to drafters and project managers. The drafters seem to be doing very well. They're usually technically savy enough to pick up the new software OK, and most drafters with some experience know quite a bit about puting a building together.
The project managers are a different story. They usually have over 10 years experience with Autocad. Therefore, they know everything there is to know about cad and thusly, they don't see any need to learn anything more. They feel that Revit is just silly because it doesn't work more like Autocad. Heck, if they've done one way for 10 years, why should they have to change the way they work?
Anyway, we're finding that we can staff a project with 2 people instead of 3 or 4. It hasn't caused us to reduce any head count yet. That will be a few years out yet. If you try to put more people on a Revit project, it just causes problems with worksets as people are stepping on each others' toes.
This is a topic that has interested me for quite a while now. I'd love to get together at AU and have a chat about this stuff.

[tc3dcad]

Never forget the drafter because most of us fell under that classification at one time. Having said that, I often wonder what they are teaching the students these days because some do not seem to know everything that they should and most seem to think they know better than the person that has been doing it for years.

I am a designer and therefore put all of my models together myself. Let the drafter do the schedules and details and leave the more complex issues to others such as yourself.

As for the person that posted about Revit not being liked. I have found that it shaves houres off of the design time, drawing generation time, and just about every other aspect. However, I have found that sometimes I find myself saying "gee I could do this in ACAD, how the heck do you get the same result here". If you do not dedicate yourself to it then it only makes it harder to learn.

[Lashers]

Never forget the drafter because most of us fell under that classification at one time. Having said that, I often wonder what they are teaching the students these days because some do not seem to know everything that they should and most seem to think they know better than the person that has been doing it for years.

. . . . . ..
You are sooo right! both technical staff and newly qualified architectural students can't seem to get beyond 1:100 without getting dizzy! Most get taught to use CAD software but not how buildings should be put together . .

With revit I can at least set out the defining parameters (there's that word again! ha) which reduced errors.

I would advocate moving back to apprenticeships, which I will try to do when I start employing in my business!

Sorry moved off topic slightly . . .

[Shaun v Rooyen]

Never forget the drafter because most of us fell under that classification at one time. Having said that, I often wonder what they are teaching the students these days because some do not seem to know everything that they should and most seem to think they know better than the person that has been doing it for years.

I am a designer and therefore put all of my models together myself. Let the drafter do the schedules and details and leave the more complex issues to others such as yourself.......


Spot on! The natural progression in our industry as a newly qualified architect is to get slapped with the technical team until you have mastered the ability. In that time I clearly remember the project architect, used to check our work, and in the proccess, teaching us further. Eventually as the big wheel turns.... you know the rest.
I also question what gets taught, but now that I look back on it all, I too was there, Green; young; willing; arrogant. It is up to us to further young'uns skills.

We adopted a student skills development programme here a few years ago!! Students are contracted on a 12 month basis. It is all part of requirements needed for State Tenders
To our amazement the younger they are, the quicker they seem to get Revit. Its almost like SIM CITY to them. Some students have turned out some gr8 models.
We generally start them on the typical dog work. Parking layouts; Schedules Casework. Then move them onto details, and later Families.

David going back to your original ??

I'm struggling to find a good practice for this as we implement revit.......

I'm wondering how you have setup projects with manpower...do you have drafters working on the project or just Architects and job captains?

What I envision is one revit expert on a project that will get into the nitty gritty of making sections look right and do most of the modeling. Depending how large of a project there could be a low level drafter doing details and annotating. The job captain and Architect also need to work in revit, but not too in depth like the revit expert. Then there would also be a BIM manager that would build content as needed, help with any problems in a project and train new reviteers.

Does this sound reasonable?.

It does sound reasonable and is so similar to the infrastructure we have built and tried to perfect over the last 2½ years.
Our Principal Architects, design in Revit and Sketch up.
Project Architects work in Revit and oversee the Technician, also all on Revit.
We have 1 top Technician per team of 3 to 4 who coordinates with the Project architect.
In other words there are 4-5 in a team on one project, all on worksets.(smaller projects=smaller technical teams)
One Technician of each team is the "Master Family Builder". That way we control the standards set in families as well as the filing thereof (consistency).
We have an open door policy in the office. Anyone who knows anything about anything must remain approachable and pass on knowledge when asked by juniors. Here in lies our training. Certain people know more about Revit, others, more about the built industry and so on...
Hope this helps!!

[janunson]

Definitely a shift in workload distribution occurs. Our firm started looking at revit at version 1.0. by 5.0 we were sure that was where we were going, but didn't implement it office-wide until 6 and 7. In the time between 5.0 and 7.0, we started hiring a lot more mid-level architects instead of drafting staff, anticipating the requirement for more knowledge about how buildings go together. Currently we're struggling to get our designers more imersed in the program so that we can take advantage of the preliminary design features and manage our design time better w/ Revit as well.

One Technique we've been looking at is called Pair Programming, or Extreme Programming; a computer programming technique that involves seating the software architect and a programmer together at the same computer. Studies show that in the right environment, these 2 people sharing a single workstation can be more productive than the two of them working separately. There's a whole syntax of working where the keyboard is passed back and forth as each person alternately 'drives' while the other helps navigate.

In Revit terms, I think this will equate to a design architect and a revit guru sitting together w/ a single model, perhaps sometimes sharing a computer, other times working together in worksets, depending on the relative proficiency of each person. This way our architects get better OJT in Revit, and our best computer people get more education on 'Putting the Building Together'. It seams that the two qualities - Computer (Revit) proficiency and Construction Proficiency are a hard pair to to hire in a single person, perhaps this technique could help elevate the lacking half of the pair in 2 people.

[kpaxton]

That's pretty close. I'm having a small problem with upper management understanding the processes in Revit. ... The drafters seem to be doing very well. ...
The project managers are a different story. They usually have over 10 years experience with Autocad. Therefore, they know everything there is to know about cad and thusly, they don't see any need to learn anything more. They feel that Revit is just silly because it doesn't work more like Autocad. Heck, if they've done one way for 10 years, why should they have to change the way they work? ...
I Feel I have to resurrect this Topic.

I started off searching the Forum to see how other people are actually doing their sections and details - and if it's working for them. However, I'm going to leave that for another post. Rols actually hits a large nail on the head with his statements (that I've paraphrased) above...

We know that Revit is a Paradigm Shift in a way of thinking and a way of creating in the CAD environment. From posts I've read here, and from personal experience, we've all had many a discussion regarding the 'Old Guard', who are reticent to change the method that they are used to and comfortable with. How many times have you heard - "I could have done that faster in AutoCad." ?

How does one properly implement the program, which requires a different way of thinking, into an existing process? And how does one win-over those of the 'Old Guard' who dig in their heels? Typically these are they who have a certain level of responsibility, and therefore sway within the company. Thoughts like "because it doesn't work more [or look] like Autocad" dance in their head like sugar-plum fairies at Christmastime. It can be a terrible uphill battle to make your case if you happen to swim upstream in this downstream of negativity.

We know that in the end, no matter which program we're using, we have to produce a set of documents that will clearly show, guide and inform the Owner, the Building Official and the Contractor how the product is to be put together. This simple fact does not change. The path which you take - be it pencil, AutoCad or Revit, is the only deviation. Again, why is it that some get so caught up in the minutiae?

In our Industry, change is inevitable. Companies are constantly producing building components that are more efficient, better for the environment, less costly. Our building codes are changed and modified every 4 years. Our designs have to be flexible and respond to the demands of the Marketplace. Is the concept of drawing a wall differently that far out of reach?

I'm not surprised at all with Zeds statement that "To our amazement the younger they are, the quicker they seem to get Revit." Technology has always been grasped earlier by the younger mind - it's more flexible. Where does that leave the 'Old Guard'? Do they somehow feel left out? Threatened by something they don't fully comprehend? I know from personal experience that I do not. - but then I have an open mind.

Based on what others have said - Is there an environment of producing the documents that better suits Revit? Individual user? Teams? Production lines? And do the 'Old Guard' get relegated to the sidelines as Mentors and Red-liners, even if they were fast-producers while using AutoCad?


Thanks for letting me Rant...
Kyle

[Colquhoun]

Life would be easier if we could have Revit assign door numbers automatically per room number.... :-)
Scott, I am also interested in this feature. If fact, I asked this question in another thread," Help with Door Annotations". No one bothered to answer me though. So, Am I to assume Revit 8.1 will not do this in any shape, form, or fashion?

[Scott Davis]

no, revit 8.1 will not automate door numbering by room