Inter-disciplinary workflow

[Tom Weir]

The whole area of inter-disciplinary work is where I am heading this year.

How do we categorize the overall model objects into discipline specific responsibilities?

For instance does the architect put columns in as he begins schematic design, or does he wait for the structural guys to provide their model of the columns? Are there two sets of columns being modeled for awile?
Does anyone have or know of any written resources that might help one with examples or discussions of this subject?

Thanks and have a great day...

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[aaronrumple]

Worksets...

Architect can build the grid and place columns at the SD phase. Then thay can be transfered to another workset where the structural can refine the design at a DD/CD phase.

[Tom Weir]

But we are consultants and I was presuming we would have a separate model (thus no shared worksets) that would link into the architect's model.

I want to receive the architect's model and superimpose it on mine like receiving updated xrefs. Is that the wrong approach? I may have to break some 2D habits and conceptions here.

I am thinking that if I can tone the architect's model, then link it into my model I could then cut a section anywhere on my model and have a great looking section, or do the same for the plan views. Each cut would automatically have a toned background.

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[Scott D Davis]

Tom, I think you are on the right track with separate models for each discipline, each building on the Architectural as an 'underlay'. We should know more with the Revit Structures coming out....in fact, you should probably know more about this than most of us! ;)

Obviously some of the info in the Arch model will transfer to the Struct model, because the Arch model has parameters for bearing, shear, etc., and even has special display properties in 7.0 for representing structural type 'line' diagrams. The structural and architectural models will have to 'talk' to each other, and I'm guessing it will be something along the lines of Worksets, but with separate files. The Arch model will be the "central file" which you will make a copy of, make chahnge, add structural, then send back to Architect, and we will check it back in. The difference will be is that the changes will highlight upon check in, so that if you have increase a column size, the Arch knows he needs to change the furring.

[Chunk]

Check out, change, check in, trade file copies...sounds a lot like swapping xref files in the old world of Autocad. A lot of hoops to jump through. If you've seen my past posts this will be a broken record but a truly real-time collaborative model is where we are hoping Revit will evolve in the future. By using terminal server sessions in our office we've done some testing with consultants working collaboratively in the architectural model. They simply use an internet connection and Windows Remote Desktop Connection to log in to a secure session. We've had some success working this way remotely from international locations.

All files, central and local reside on our server. Data never leaves our network. It's still a beta-process but shows promise if Autodesk can manage to work out some issues to do with worksets and security....thoughts?

[Tom Weir]

The first point seems to be that the inter-disciplinary aspects of Revit modeling and the design process have not been fleshed out enough. That's a huge issue!

Scott, what you said sounds like what I have heard (though I have not heard much of late). And for those of making a gradual transition from Autocad 2D work it makes sense.

I have had the thought from the beginning that I was at a severe disadvantage as a consultant using Revit as opposed to a full service office (all disciplines in one office) that could approach the project more like Aaron discussed.

But Chunk's approach is very interesting. Though it sounds technologically demanding it would cetainly revolutionize our current workflow... of using xrefs, etc. It would sure help level the playing field for a consultant's office like ours if it did not matter whethor I was in the next cubicle or in another state. These days with work being done in places like India this could be an incrdible change and tremendous competitive edge.

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[Chunk]

It'll be interesting to see what develops. Our consultants have enjoyed the minimum exposure to Revit during our testing but obviously the software as it is today is architecturally biased. Structural, mechanical, electrical and civil disciplines have not been accommodated to date (SOM used Revit collaboratively on the Freedom Tower no doubt with non-disclosure access to beta-products...hints of things to come??). Regardless, the consultants had positive experiences and eagerly await evolution of Revit as a complete building information modeling suite. Something we are seeing with the development of the sturctural end.

One of the attractive aspects of working via RDP on a terminal session is the software licensing is purchased and managed by our firm. The consultants do not need to make a large capital investment to work on our Revit projects, we have provided capacity for them. The Remote Desktop Connection client is a free download from Microsoft and native to Windows XP and Server 2003. Technologically on our end it's been an investment in hardware with a couple dedicated terminal servers and appropriate licensing. Data security, network infrastructure, archiving, support...was already existing. It's really just been a growth rather than a whole-sale change.

[David Conant]

As Revit moves to serve the engineering disciplines, we are working on the issues of workflow as well. The problems of interdisciplinary workflow are due as much to industry organization as to software/hardware limitations. Currently, there is a high level of fragmentation in the industry (at least here in the US). Many architects, engineers, contracters, and owners are reluctant to provide direct access to each other's information due to real or perceived issues of control and liability. Increasingly however, organizations are looking to integrate processes to gain efficiencies. Each strategy has its own distinct workflow problems. Although we believe that the industry will move to greater process integration over time, both attitudes must be addressed in order to serve the market adequately.

For those looking at a high level of design integration, a workset based approach is already feasible for co-located teams. For hte future, we are looking at how to address specific workflow and data control issues. Geographically dispersed teams suffer more from data transmission limitations than from the actual software functionality. Workset usage requires moving large amounts of information during save to central and get latest operations. To improve this process, we are continually working on ways to reduce the amount of information we need to transfer at any one time.

New strategies will be required to best serve more fragmented teams. Different organizations in these teams want exclusive control over their work, but not all things are exclusively controlled by one party. Decisions made by one part of the team must be communicated to others in such a way that coordination is maintained even though each team member's data is self contained. Since different design processes proceed in parallel but discreet streams, there must be methods for synchronizing data. Not a trivial task, but we are working on methods we believe will address them.

[Tom Weir]

What I am seeing is that the industry is finally starting to moving to these new methods. The synergy of powerful workstations, and the maturing of the internet are making it so much easier to communicate our data....anywhere in the world.

We work with 60-100 architectural firms in the Southern California area. I see quite a bit of interest and movement to Revit so I am poised to interact in some way, and hopefully it will be at first by linking in the architectural model. I just took one of Scott's models and linked it in as an underlay and it seems to work ok. I took a section and could tone his model. It's time to Rock and Roll.....

Like you say the control and liability issues will definately get in the way.

[Chunk]

It's certainly a complicated issue. I have no doubt Revit will evolve and bring industry along with it. One of our theories to handle the control issue, based on our model of terminal server and RDP session, is to somehow revise the origin of the Revit session user name.

Pre-Revit 7.0 the username value used to take control of worksets was set by editing the revit.ini file. Easy to alter at whim. I believe it could also be changed under Settings - Options.

Revit 7.0 doesn't seem to use the .ini file method anymore and the user name is set by the Windows log-in when the first session is run after install. Problem is control/release of worksets can be over-ridden by simply changing the username under Settings - Options.

We realize worksets were never intended to offer any level of security, simply a method to restrict others from changing model elements being edited by others. If the Revit workset username could be tied to the Windows log-in authentication it would begin the process of introducing data security and control.

1. No ability to manually change the username prevents anyone from forcing release of control. Understandably, if workset control is retained by each discipline, electrical always maintains control of electrical worksets, et. al., there would have to be provision for an administrator or project manager over-ride for instances where release of control needs to be forced (user is away, hit by a bus, etc.).

2. Each discipline could retain control of their own worksets preventing editing of each others model elements. Note, if this were a possibility it would be nice to have ability to pick and choose what control is released on a save to central.

3. Terminal sessions allow multiple users to log on virtually to one server and run individual sessions of software depending on the number of terminal seat licenses purchased. (ie. 8 unique log-in's can each run the same software whether Outlook, Word or Revit) Each running instance of Revit pulls a license from FlexLM so no problems there. Unfortunately with workset username not tied to the log-in authentication control is taken under the name last entered. Tie the workset username to the windows log-in and each session runs as if on individual workstations.

Just some thoughts on how control might be dealt with between disciplines. Liabilities are another issue that each member of consultant teams will need to address. The consultants we have beta-tested with have had no reservations about the building information model residing on the prime consultant's server. I sympathize with the complexity of the issues the Revit developers have to deal with. I don't think it's insurmountable with intelligent feedback from industry users....

[Scott D Davis]

just took one of Scott's models and linked it in as an underlay and it seems to work ok. I took a section and could tone his model. It's time to Rock and Roll......
Speaking of which....I have a consultant agreement to discuss with you!