Revit in the Office

[JayCon]

So, I've been an intern at an Architectural Firm in St Louis now for 4 months, and I've noticed some real issues within Revit that aren't necessarily a matter of the program being faulty as it is the issue of utilizing Revit to its full potential.

While in an office meeting (dealing more with FTP than anything) a conversation sprung out about our architecture firm's need for certain elements of Revit, to the point where some of the older architects were commenting that "we need to just create Construction Documents that are understandible and not just pretty." This of course led to a discussion of Contractors possibly trying to create their estimates from our Revit Model and how that in effect could leave us liable to their overestimates.

I know that certain aspects within the building model get fudged for the sake of time. I've even had the opportunity to start the plans off, implementing a 3D model from previous CAD(or even PRE-60's plans scanned to PDF's) for additions to be made, however, I was capped to create it quickly, and not necessarily dead to real. So, since I'm still fairly green to the whole process, having worked on a number of projects with various stages of completion, I'm curious to see how other firms(or users) are using Revit to it's full BIM potential or for Construction Documents and Marketing. Has there been success stories, or have you just shifted to what you're comfortable with. There was even talk of packaging a number of options to which we would work on the model to the point where a contractor could do the estimations off of our model, but charging more and expanding the schedule.

Thanks everyone,
-JCon

[graphite]

You should read up on Level of Development. The AIA E202 provide some clear language on how this functions. Also for a more visual explanation this might help. http://thebimmanager.blogspot.com/2012/02/revit-level-of-detail.html

[JamesBaker]

BIM and Revit are two totally different things. We do Revit at my firm. If a firm tells you they are doing "BIM" and they don't have licenses for 3dsMax and Navisworks, nor a better PIM solution than a dropbox site, they aren't fully doing Building Information Modeling implementation....only a certain percentage at best.
I've worked for 4 different firms over the past 10 years and interviewed at 6 different firms in the midwest over the past 16 months...there is a WIDE level of adoption and serious misunderstanding between all of them. However everyone of them claims to be BIM...
To answer your question my advice is to model everything you can (for things that make sense too!) If you cut corners and rely on filled regions and drafting lines you won't ever get better at REAL modeling. Plus you will get really fast at 3D if you model more stuff. ;)
Yes, time crunches are tough to deal with but if you develop bad habits during those times, they tend to become problems later.

-James

[rbcameron1]

Couldn't agree more. BIM will be a learned process for every architect. I haven't seen a firm yet who doesn't have something wrong about it.
Jaycon - Just keep plugging away as your manager directs you. However it won't hurt every once and a while to pipe-up and say you know how to efficiently model something that will instantly save time. It'll take quite a few of those to get management's attention. It'll also draw interest from the higher-ups in your firm to go to you for their drawings since you are willing to go the extra mile.
There are probably quite a few posts below at the bottom that relate to this, take a look if you have a minute.

Cheers!

[MikeJarosz]

Think about this: The Architecture profession is changing profoundly. There are architects who will not survive the transition. At my age, I am better placed than some to see what is happening. I attended a seminar at the NYC Harvard Club given by an attorney for the AIA for Principals only, about the liabilities architects face during this transition to 3D. There was lots to think about, but one remark struck me. He said that the AIA keeps track of project starts in 3D BIM. The AIA believes that more projects are now started in BIM than traditional 2D. He says we have reached the tipping point in 3D.

Look up Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). This alone will scare many a firm who are stuck in the projective geometry rut. There already are venues where only the model is submitted for review, no paper. The GSA reviews projects for compliance to GSA regulations using Solibri software that reviews only the model. I had one come back full of issues to fix. The NYC department of Buildings has begun to accept the model under limited circumstances. My next big project for them will be entirely in BIM all the way to as-builts.

[damon.sidel]

"we need to just create Construction Documents that are understandable and not just pretty." I know that certain aspects within the building model get fudged for the sake of time.

JayCon, you are right that certain aspects of the building model get "fudged" because of time constraints. However, (and perhaps unfortunately for your for the short-term) I think you'll find that you'll only learn through experience what aspects of a project need to be modeled in 3D and what just needs to be documented in 2D. It is unfortunate, too, that the "older architect" who made the understandable vs. just pretty comment attributes the quality of the work to Revit. Revit was created to make the process of design and documentation of architecture better. If you put two people head-to-head, one with 10 years Autocad experience and the other with 10 years or Revit experience (assuming all other things equal like intelligence and architectural experience), I think the person doing the project in Revit would produce a more coordinated, complete, accurate, and yes, even better looking set of drawings than the Autocad user. So the implication, and certainly no offense to you whatsoever, is that it isn't the tool, it is the user that didn't live up to the "older architect's" expectations. That could be because you are not experience enough architecturally or because you are learning a new software, or both.


To answer your question my advice is to model everything you can (for things that make sense too!) If you cut corners and rely on filled regions and drafting lines you won't ever get better at REAL modeling.

James, I'd strongly emphasize the "for things that make sense to!" part of your statement. To JayCon's question, it takes experience as an architect and as a Revit user to know what should be modeled in 3D and what should be drawn in 2D. That's true of Autocad and hand drafting too... the amount of detail depends on the scale and purpose of the drawing.



There are probably quite a few posts below at the bottom that relate to this, take a look if you have a minute.

RBCameron, I never noticed that! How fantastic!


Think about this: The Architecture profession is changing profoundly. There are architects who will not survive the transition.

Mike, you may be right that some architects won't survive, but BIM and IPD have been in the works for quite some time and will continue to be a slow transition. I think most architects will adapt before being put out of a job, don't you? Besides, I guess that the older generations are the owners and managers that can rely to some extent on others to fill in the blanks until they retire. :)

Final thought: JayCon, start reading up! As graphite noted, the AIA and other organizations have a ton of information about BIM and IDP. This has been around for quite some time and there is plenty of information if you look for it beyond the software/Revit world. Good luck!

[MikeJarosz]

Mike, you may be right that some architects won't survive, but BIM and IPD have been in the works for quite some time and will continue to be a slow transition. I think most architects will adapt before being put out of a job, don't you? Besides, I guess that the older generations are the owners and managers that can rely to some extent on others to fill in the blanks until they retire. :)

When I joined SOM many years ago, there were hundreds of drawing boards and just 16 terminals connected to the VAX that was running SOM Draft, their in-house CAD system. With only 16 terminals, we were restricted to plans and RCPs for construction documents only. Everything else was done by hand. Slowly, over the years, more and more work was done in CAD, but not by the hand drafters trading their drawing-boards for key-boards. There were some magnificent draftsmen and women who just disappeared. Then, expensive VAX equipment gave way, first to workstations, then to relatively inexpensive PCs. As the cost of hardware dropped, more and more architects were using computers until finally PCs took over everthing. When SOM moved to 14 Wall St., the new office had NO drawing boards. Almost no one was over 40. It is true that the senior management relied on others, but they were a tiny percentage of the staff. Very, very few of the staff back in the drafting room rose to the front office. And major layoffs claimed most of the staff. Around 1984, I saw the NY office shrink from over 400 to 88. Many of them changed careers. The NY AIA calls them the missing generation.

Retire? I can count on one hand the number of retirements I saw, and those were in the old days. I am one of the few who did adapt. Remember, when you contrast the daily difficulty of this profession againt the money it pays, there is strong incentive to bail out early.......

[damon.sidel]

Very, very few of the staff back in the drafting room rose to the front office. And major layoffs claimed most of the staff. Around 1984, I saw the NY office shrink from over 400 to 88. Many of them changed careers. The NY AIA calls them the missing generation.

That's all very interesting to hear from somebody who was there, but I think you are conflating a few issues. I've certainly heard of the "missing generation", but that was during the '80s recession. Correlation does not imply causation, so I'd be interested to know how much influence the widespread adoption of CAD had on what you describe. I'd be surprised if CAD was the cause of so many people leaving the profession rather than the economy. On the other hand, I might hypothesize that those who had left may not have returned after the economy improved because they didn't have a chance to adapt. In that case, it would be the adoption of CAD that played a larger role. Very interesting topic to think about and research... I think I'll go looking for some analyses and articles.

[JayCon]

JayCon, you are right that certain aspects of the building model get "fudged" because of time constraints. However, (and perhaps unfortunately for your for the short-term) I think you'll find that you'll only learn through experience what aspects of a project need to be modeled in 3D and what just needs to be documented in 2D. It is unfortunate, too, that the "older architect" who made the understandable vs. just pretty comment attributes the quality of the work to Revit. Revit was created to make the process of design and documentation of architecture better. If you put two people head-to-head, one with 10 years Autocad experience and the other with 10 years or Revit experience (assuming all other things equal like intelligence and architectural experience), I think the person doing the project in Revit would produce a more coordinated, complete, accurate, and yes, even better looking set of drawings than the Autocad user. So the implication, and certainly no offense to you whatsoever, is that it isn't the tool, it is the user that didn't live up to the "older architect's" expectations. That could be because you are not experience enough architecturally or because you are learning a new software, or both...

Final thought: JayCon, start reading up! As graphite noted, the AIA and other organizations have a ton of information about BIM and IDP. This has been around for quite some time and there is plenty of information if you look for it beyond the software/Revit world. Good luck!

I really appreciate the response. I'll admit, after hearing some of the concerns of "pretty vs practical," I quickly addressed a couple of the project managers overseeing my work to confirm how my effort and outcomes were perceived. Luckily, and I know this to be true, their perception of my work is I'm more OCD than attentative. That is probably the main reason I posted this question, my paranoia towards perfection. I'll admit, I'm a high motor guy who doesn't allow excuses to creep, however, I'm also well aware of my place to date, and don't feel I can out someone within a meeting. I would much rather collect my personal confidence, get a better scope of the situation, and then bring up my opinion of the firm's use of Revit, at least to a point where I understand where they are going with it.

Maybe the current state of architecture permits the firm to use it, IMO, at 75%. It still gets the job done, but if there are other avenues... I would like to head down that path at some point. In no way do I feel I should know more about the program than some of those brought in and assigned to numerous projects, however, I didn't like hearing that there were some in the office who voiced opinions how "that can't be done."

[damon.sidel]

Maybe the current state of architecture permits the firm to use it, IMO, at 75%.... I didn't like hearing that there were some in the office who voiced opinions how "that can't be done."

Just to be clear, in your opinion do you think you can only use Revit at 75% because of the current state of how your firm practices architecture? Or are you saying you think Revit use is only at 75% of architecture practice in general? Yes to the former, not to the latter.

As for the opinion "it can't be done [in Revit]" is very frustrating to hear. It would be more accurate to state "it can't be done that way in Revit" or "we don't know how to do it in Revit". In terms of what gets printed/reported, there have been very few instances where I haven't been able to figure out a way to get what I want. I challenge your colleagues to put together a list of things they think can't be done in Revit and post it here. I'd put money on this community to solve every single problem.

[JamesBaker]

In terms of what gets printed/reported, there have been very few instances where I haven't been able to figure out a way to get what I want. I challenge your colleagues to put together a list of things they think can't be done in Revit and post it here. I'd put money on this community to solve every single problem.

Agreed damon. I have another quote for all the naysayers, "Revit can do it, its just that YOU can't do it in Revit."

Wait, can it build me a robot that does my Revit for me???

[USMCBody]

O I don't know... I think Revit for architecture is better along than Revit for every trade. It is still not really made for the low voltage trades the way it could be... To many work around if you ask me... But then I will admit it is hard to keep up when the program changes every year rather than every 3 years... And there is more money in it for Autodesk to get the other trades fixed to the point that the Architecture trade is to...