"We" Have Built a Snow Globe

[stuntmonkee]

I'm not really sure if this post should be here or out there, but I think it was more relevant to this area, so here it goes. (sorry if it ended up a bit long, and it is writen with a bit of sarcasim)

Roughly about 2 years ago I started having this idea about the way we produce architectural information. And I'm sure it's not limited to architecture, but that is the field that I am most familiar with, so that is the point of view that I’m speaking from.

Anyway, with the true arrival of Revit and the idea of parametric drawings, many of my ideas of CAD management, and the chain of operations have changed. Through the beginning of my production life things were simple. The project manager sketched it up, and I drew it by hitting the “L” key, a couple of mouse clicks, another “L” key, then maybe the “E” key, “Esc” a few times, plotted handed it back to the PM, and the he/she redlined it and started the process over until that particular PM was happy, at which point it was handed to the Principal Architect, and then we started from the first step again. Simple right? Right.

The key was that there was a simple chain of order.

1. Newbie Draftsman – Lack of knowledge in the chosen field, eager to learn, knew Acad V10, or 11, or 12, or 13, or V14, but didn’t really know what he/she was doing with it. Often spends more time drawing a bolt than a whole section.
2. Project Manager – Ex-Draftsman, been around the block a few times, enjoys being “The One” that now gets to be anal with redlines, had learned quite a bit, talks about having to draft by hand in the “Ole-Days” but is very proud of his new PEN plotter.
3. Principal Architect– Ex-Project Manager, been around the block more than a few times and decided that he has PM’s to do that “Block” thing now. Hates the “new PEN plotter”, brags that he could draft faster by hand than the “Newbie Draftsman” can on a computer.
4. CAD Manager – Behind the scenes, but often falls into the “Newbie Drafter” or “Project Manager”, depending on what the firm needs per every ½ hour.

But things have changed now. Now we have software that is discipline specific. You can no longer find a draftsman that is raw and have them be productive in your environment. Everything is custom and knowledge demanding. I.E. you can no longer get into the car and drive, you are now required to know how to fly a plane, tank, helicopter, or ship to get into the field of your choice.

So the challenge has now become finding an intelligent draftsperson that knows how buildings go together so they know when to ask what the finished floor height is. They need to know how to use roofs, walls, windows, doors, and floors, and have them all make sense so that you can cut a section. So to a certain level they are close to being a Project Manager. The only thing that this person may no know is the headaches of dealing with cities, and clients. And in my firm, that’s when we are looking for, “production” people that are self sufficient enough to put a project together on their own. Great! That’s fine and all, but in my world, almost all of those people don’t want to be “production”. They want to be project managers, designers and architects. These people have been production for a bit now and are trying to get out of the “Red Line Sea”, and into a seat of authority. I mean after all these are the same people that had enough drive and smarts to get into this industry and understand how buildings goes together, so those are the people that will excel in the business world.

So now it seems that it’s possible that we are beginning to eliminate the “Newbie Draftsman” which only adds more fuel to my next idea.

In that chain, there was a passing of redlines. During those “Ole-Days” it made sense. Either because it was by hand, or because the person redlining the drawings was far less efficient at using a CADD system. But now those Newbie Drafters are becoming the Project managers. And they are people that have grown with CAD, and are pretty well versed in their software, whether it be ADT, MDT, LDT, or Revit.

So why are they redlining. If I remember correctly, they used to be the newbie drafter that could out draw the hand drafter. So being a “CAD efficient Project Manager” why would I take time to redline something, pass it off to one of those entry level people, get it back, re-correct it, get it back, change my mind because now I see what’s going on, and then redline it again. Why not just draw it myself, save a ton of man hours, figure it out and jump over the possible misunderstandings, lost notes & missed redlines. Especially with the convenience of Revit keeping me from having to cross check sections and plans now.

My over all point here is that the “Building Trade” world seem to be in a huge snow globe right now. And every day that it starts to settle, a new technology shakes it again. It started with ADT for us, and continues with Revit. You cant deny the new software. You would simply be left behind, but those of you who are using ADT are having your ideas changed at least once a year now.

So the question is. . . . .How do we keep up to date, on schedule, productive, and maintain our sanity while still have fun doing what we all chose to do?

[Wes Macaulay]

You're right, and then you're right.

You're right that change is the order of the day. Technology is developing at a breakneck pace... there are more people on the planet doing more software development more than ever -- that is speeding change.

There is change in the construction industry. New products, new codes... builders also have to keep up to date with all of that.

And CAD software is always changing: Revit has in some respects (interface and general workflow) changed less than many other platforms out there, but its abilities have grown astronomically in the past few years.

I don't know what to say to your comment about the difficulty of getting good help; most firms do really need people with domain-specific expertise. I worked in construction for several years before getting into architecture. Most firms would love it if their staff knew enough so that redlining could be reduced by 50%; I don't know that Revit changes that need.

Since technology is a work in progress, I don't mind that development continues at a fast pace -- it will certainly keep me from boredom :lol:

I read a lot to stay up to date. And I ask a lot of questions -- I want to know what I need to know so I can focus on what I need to know and not waste time on learning things I don't need to know :screwy:

I can relate. This world hands out waay too much information...

[stuntmonkee]

I want to know what I need to know so I can focus on what I need to know and not waste time on learning things I don't need to know :screwy:

Ya know. . . . .I think I know what you mean. . . . .ya know?

[ita]

Mentona, I believe you have cracked it in saying that "This world hands out waay too much information..." The real issue is not information or production or design or whatever - it is about information management.

When I started working as a student in a small practice architect's office, major projects were built using 4 or at the most 6 sets of docs. A small project would be built with 3 at the most 4 if the client paid for printing costs of the 4th. (A hundred years ago, most major buildings were built with two copies of the documents and even less in times before.)

Once the original docs were produced, change to the docs (and there were very few) came as amendment drawings (never more than 2 copies were made) one of which was pasted onto the master set so there was a base line of information.

So historically, it has been possible to build complex buildings with only a few copies of the final drawings.

Recently I was involved with a major fee bid in collaboration with a colleague of mine who runs a larger practice. Our submission was deliberately kept small yet it finished up as two telephone books in size and nearly 400 pages - because the Project Manger the client had engaged (to protect the client's interest??) requested that degree of information to select the successful architect for the client among a myriad of other consultants.

Other submissions made at the same time were conveyed in travelling cases on wheels and consisted of four or more telephone books - and nobody had the job yet!!!

The real issue is what are we working at - what is the purpose of what we do?

It seems to me that many people involved in the process of procuring a building only focus on their aspect of the process - not on the objective - producing a built or constructed object – as Stuntmonkey points out. Most people within the sphere of the industry want to be in part of the process of the project because people make their income from it. So, the process has become specialised and the knowledge base diffused and generalised and time wasting process continuue.

For over a decade I ran a small practice that employed a core of 5/6 people consisting of 4 architects and 2/3 or more graduates or student architects on practical experience. Employing that number of people required me to manage the business and I was an architect for probably an hour each day. The rest of the time I dealt with clients, managed the people in the practice etc etc. To be a successful "architect", you could no longer do architecture – unless you ran a very small or single person practice, stayed with residential and the occasional government commissions for a school renovation.

I love architecture, I love designing and documenting buildings for my clients and managing their construction. But what has made this possible has been the use of the information technology. I can do all the things that used to do in an office of 100m2 with 6+ staff . . . in an office of 6m2. If I have work or production overload I can email the files to another colleague and use their spare resources, I can mange my practice far more efficiently and effectively than with that large resource of space and people. I communicate with my clients by phone or email, they view their projects on a Revit (trial version) download and we can discuss it by phone. The drawings are emailed to the contractors by email and they communicate with me from the site using digital photos and mobile phones. The technology has changed everything.

From my office, using collaborative networks that the technology now enables, I can do virtually any size of project using the skills and knowledge of a diffuse but capable consultant network. So it may not be about too much information but rather how the information is managed and used.

Stuntmonkey, those practices that are still dividing their workload along skill based demarcation lines are dinosaurs. Practices run on those lines of management are really money production lines and from my observation, there is generally very poor skill development and very little technological change – because change means lost time and lost income. Time and technological innovation may well change those that live by that method.

For now, the technology and Revit mean that I am an architect again – working in an environment that does not limit my enjoyment of an interesting and fascinating profession.

[MartyC]

Ian, I agree with your thoughts.
Stuntmonkee, oh yes, good description.

My predictions:
1. The traditional technician/draghtsperson is a dying entity
2. The Revit phenomenon will devolve the typical hierarchical structure of the Architectural office.
3. The design professionals will re-develop their lapsed knowledge
4. Architectural/technical education will be revolutionised

Revit, as example, requires the user to know how to build buildings, and have an intimate knowledge of the performance characteristics of materials. The more knowledge the user has about the real craft of Architecture, the more effective a user is.

My background started as an Architectural technician (draugtsman) and developed through my own design business, to working for mid/large Architectural practices, to working for a practice training Architectural graduates, to study and registration and private practice as Principal. I have seen an interesting devolution of skill and knowledge over 25 years, and now seeing the probability of the whole profession going full circle.

Many years ago the Architect generally had the ability to work with, and understand the nature of materials and structures. Both the Architect and the Draughty worked with the trades and understood the meaning of what they were drawing and specifying before they committed it to paper.

I have trained new Architectural graduates how to draw, what a cross section shows and why it is drawn, and even why drawings exist. These were graduates of 6 years university training. This was in the mid nineties. I have trained technicians to think beyond textbook stuff and apply creation in the details. In a period of 20 years something got lost. Small practices often have a poor record of resolve and reliability, large practices have the luxury of sheer numbers to compensate by delegating tasks up and down the hierarchy and out to consultants. Accepted, this is the result of evolving processes and requirements, however, the primary knowledge power base has diminished to a point where decisions are often left to the person in the office that has the ability to stand up and make decisions, right or wrong. I am sure we have all had the frustration of design by committee in the office at various times, and what a waste of time and emotion that often is.

My experience with Revit has blatantly identified to me that my detailed knowledge of materials and structures that I started developing in the early days, right from the start gives me the power to produce way beyond what I thought possible. It is not just the software, it is the knowledge of architecture. I am sure I am not alone in this.

I believe that the appearance of Revit on the market has the ability to force change on the traditional practice model. Architects will need to know first-hand exactly what they are designing and why, and how, and the technician will need to be a true para-professional, intimately understanding the design intent, and intimately understand materials and structure.

I believe Revit allows the immediate elimination of one strata of management, the project manager, and allows the close association of an Architect (as PM) and technician/s as a small and dedicated team. A technician joining a practice will need to have a very high level of education in terms of understanding the architectural fundamentals, materials and structure, especially for large projects. An architect will need to have significant PM skills straight-off to justify their position above the technician. A much closer level of collaboration will be essential.

I am certainly finding in my residential projects that Revit has automated the technician directly out of the equation. Two mouse clicks and I have section, what do I need a technician for? With Revit, I am designer, project manager, technician and print-boy all in less time than I used to apply to any one of the above. And I even make my own coffee. My needs for a larger project are very limited.

I believe that educational institutions need to extend their game enormously to cater for the emerging needs by:

1. Expanded architectural knowledge incorporating intimate materials and structure knowledge and the thought processess necessary to create in a more holistic nature.
2. Facilites to elevate the existing technical staff to a higher level of performance and true para-professional status.

Properly applied, these things will allow people seeking careers in Architecture to actually be employable, and I believe, without the changes many would be redundant. Change will need to occur due to necessity.

Revit, really does I believe, have the ability to force the first really significant cultural change to architectural process. I think we will all benefit from this and be even better at what we do. The outcome for us is highly visible, and in the court of public opinion, I believe that the art and craft of the new Architecture will be evident and the profession can be firmly and universally reinstated at the high level it deserves in society. Finally, we have tool that we can leverage against to achieve more.


I think I might go and do some work now..........

CheersM

[ita]

Great coments Marty!! Yeh . . . . work . . . now where was I!

[stuntmonkee]

1.It seems to me that many people involved in the process of procuring a building only focus on their aspect of the process - not on the objective.

El WhamO!! Lawyers aside, When did more paper start meaning a better project


2.A hundred years ago, most major buildings were built with two copies of the documents and even less in times before.

Please note the architecture and amount detail of this time. . . .maybe we should go back to drawing in the dirt and with chisels on stone. Lets hear it for the Mayans!!!!


3. It is not just the software, it is the knowledge of architecture.

You all know that "Principal" I was tellin you guys about. . . .well he came to me just after I finished the Photo sims that I have posted in the gallery and said this. . . ."WOW, so you just dropped the photo in there huh. . .thats a great program.". . . . . . . .turned and then walked away. SO just so you guys all know, your skills have nothing to do with anything. . .REVIT does it all!!!!!

4. :puffy: <---whats this all about? (edited: thats the wrong icon showin up. . mine shows the ghostbusters mellow man dancing around)

[Martin P]

SO just so you guys all know, your skills have nothing to do with anything[/I]. . .REVIT does it all!!!!!


I am sure I dont work in the same firm as you, but we seem to work for the same person LOL - I remember my boss's amazement when we did the first draft of a door schedule with Revit - that it didnt know which ones to fire rate, have push bars, thumb turns , glazing etc etc etc it seemed to be a complete suprise to him - "I thought it did all that for you??" amazed me that is for sure..... next time I will just direct him to point 3. from Marty C......

[stuntmonkee]

It gave me the idea of the next time i see him sketch something up, walk up and say. . wow, so you just put the pencil on the paper huh. . .geez, thats must be a good pencil. :screwy:

[mlgatzke]

You're absolutely right. This then leads me to another thought/question. There used to be a traditional, intrinsic process one followed in the architectural profession. Graduates started as draftsmen and their drawings were scrutinized and critiqued by their Project Manager. They then learned how to put a set of drawings together and so document the construction of a building. Revit now begins to upset this paradigm and create a void in this process. Where do we start fresh graduates? What will the new process be?

Also, I don't think that the "Draftsman" is a dying breed. My experience shows that they are simply taking on more responsibility by picking up some of the more tedious tasks that used to be done by the Project Manager. This then leaves the PM to "manage" the project more and oversee more projects at a time. Thereby allowing the PM to macro-manage rather than micro-manage projects.

[ita]

Stuntmonkee, I am not sure I understand what that all means.

My comments were directed to Wes (metanoia) regarding too much ionformation. My comments were that the information has always been there in some form, and that people built complex buildings (for their available technological skills) with few drawings or documents - the communication systems were just different.

The "SnowGlobe" has come about through the diminuation of knowledge or an archiaic knowledge transfer system (trainee>apprentice >master) as you descrbed stuntmonkee. The Project Manager (who red-lined your work) got there from years of experience as the trainee apprentice etc. From my experience having properly trained and knowledgable professionals (architects engineers) obviates the need for the "line drawers and red-line markers". But that does mean that the buisiness has to invest in its people and train them to be knowledgable and independant. If a company holds its people by limiting their knowledge base,then eventually technology will change and the people will be confronted with a technology they do not understand. That is when we have fear - the rear of being left behind and those business fail because they have not invested in change.

What MartyC is saying is that in using Revit well, one has to have an understanding of design and knowledge of construction and/or construction systems. (MartyC have I understood you correctly?) If that is my understanding then from my experience with Revit, I agree with that. And by that I also believe the "SnowGlobe" is in the early stages of self destruction. To use Revit as the medium to construct the model, the modellors have to understand the current building technology and systems, and ensure those systems and technologies and systems are inheirent in the model as part of the design process. Once the project model is developed the need to have the line makers and the red-liners is significantly reduced.

Revit allows the person with the technological and design skill to have direct access to the interface of the medium and to use it. It is becoming (slowly) that there is no longer the need for the interpreters - the occupants of the "SnowGlobe". However that change will be conditional upon those with the knowledge taking up the challenge of using the Revit medium.

My observation is that currently senior architects and designers are resistant to using the computer as a medium of expression and communication and as long as that happens the "SnowGlobe" will continue to survive. The corollary to that is that the young graduates from the architecture schools have much higher skill levels in using the electronic medium, but they have almost no knowledge of construction systems; and most cannot produce drawings that communicate appropriately with the coonstruction industry. the schols no longer see the training of their graduates to document as part of their responsibility.

So maybe the face of the "SnowGlobe"just changes!! :neutral:

[stuntmonkee]

Stuntmonkee, I am not sure I understand what that all means.


what are you confused with? I have had a few posts, and the topic has changed a bit from my original post.

I think you might be a bit confused with my "Snow Globe". What I was trying to say with that, was that just when things start to get orginized, and your happy with what you have the industry gets shaken again. And now you have to revamp your cad system, or the over all chain of the way things are done.

My first post was to bring up how i think we are currently in that shaken up environment, and although things seem to settle a little bit, I cant help but thing we are in the the hands of someone that keeps shaking it, and that someone is us. And I also think that eventualy you will have to find a medium that sticks and can be built on top of similar to the way CAD was in the begining. You could say that we are past records, still have some 8-track and tapes, but well into CD's and starting to really get into MP3's

or did i just make a bigger mess of things.

by the way, i think its great to get all the feed back. Interesting to get some thoughts out there.

[MartyC]

Hi

I guess I was taking a bit of a step further. To take an analogy, the snowglobe has been shaken and when the flakes settle, instead of a number of people standing in a group shoving a project at each other, a single indivudual is left shining in the sun, full of knowledge, full of ability, and basking in the knowledge that he/she has the power to be all things architectural, and able to express clearly what he/she was creating.

Line drawings on paper first, AutoCad was a shake, Archicad was a shake, ADT was a sideways nudge, but I beleive it is Revit that has provided the critical mass that delivers a new paradigm, closing the circle back to the Architect as master. However, for the Architect to be a worthy master, the Architect has to actually know the full extent of the art and craft of architecture, materials and structure, to be able to clearly, effectively and honestly articulate intent. This new and evolved way of simplifying the expression of our craft forces the Architect/Technician to expose their strengths and weaknesses in knowledge. What could be fudged in the past, cannot now.

It is easy to tame the pencil. Over the past15-20 years, architectural staff have to a degree been a slave to the tool, and possibly as a result lost the power, however now, armed with knowledge, the tool becomes the slave, but only if the master has the knowledge.

I think this Revit thing has cracked it. I dont imagine another big shake for a while, I imagine a settling and refining period, and that individual in the snowglobe growing and expanding until bursting forth, exploding that snowglobe, and getting a snowglobe of his/her own to shake...................yes, yes, back to work!

CheersM

[PeterJ]

Recently I was involved with a major fee bid in collaboration with a colleague of mine who runs a larger practice. Our submission was deliberately kept small yet it finished up as two telephone books in size and nearly 400 pages - because the Project Manger the client had engaged (to protect the client's interest??) requested that degree of information to select the successful architect for the client among a myriad of other consultants.

Other submissions made at the same time were conveyed in travelling cases on wheels and consisted of four or more telephone books - and nobody had the job yet!!!
This is a different issue. I think the provision of telephone books for proposals is not related in any way to your selection, which is still done on the pretty-drawing/firm-handshake/polite-about client's-golf-swing/oh-and-fee-about-right basis that it always was, though I understand that Christopher Wren did not secure the instruction for St Paul's in the 19th hole.. The telephone books are about what you say you will do and what you have done before in sufficient detail that if the stuff about your nice smile, the clients back swing and so on proves wrong they subsequently have all the tools at their disposal to remove your hindquarters in the courts.

If, as designers we were to refine our working methods in Revit we could still use a technician's skills to their utmost and I don't see that skill disappearing. As an example of this I recently used massing tools for a development of 40 flats, just to put something on the table in front of the Council. When I wanted to add some windows I simply selected View Shell and added them, got them aligned about right, printed and closed the drawing. If you look at the model all the walls will be generic 200 mm thick, or whatever the default is. If I had wanted to delineate materials further I could have just split faces and painted on some materials to sharpen up the elevations and so on. From that an able technician could produce a real building. Martin P does some work for me and the level of detail he returns is impressive, but he does it without me providing a fully detailed spec. or reams of notes and redline. He works from planning submission models that typically have an outline drawing only, though probably the walls are of the right type.

With the above in mind I think that the humble dumb draftsman is probably already dead but that the skilled technician has a long future.

Of course, none of this answers the issue of paper generation, but Martin and I have only once swapped paper and use relatively little redline.

[Martin P]

Also, I don't think that the "Draftsman" is a dying breed. My experience shows that they are simply taking on more responsibility by picking up some of the more tedious tasks that used to be done by the Project Manager. This then leaves the PM to "manage" the project more and oversee more projects at a time. Thereby allowing the PM to macro-manage rather than micro-manage projects.

I agree, the term 'draftsman' may be dying, but the 'job' is still there, just different... My boss certainly would not sit down for an afternoon and create a bunch of familes, or for that matter "draw" a building with Revit - and what about detailing - still needs to be done - setting out drawings, siteplans, coordinating engineers drawings etc etc etc... . . . Revit is great, but it is still just a drawing tool - same as, as a pencil, same as Autocad... it produces 2D bits of paper at the end of the day the same as always, and that is ALL the client and builder care about at the end of the day - it just does all of it in a very clever fashion.

It has changed the way my boss designs stuff, absolutely I agree - but he very much likes having me to do the donkey work, he just scribbles on my prints same as always - we just produce 200% more drawings and can take on even more work (one of the benefits of having me produce drawings while he is out getting and running jobs) he gets a much clearer view of his design with 3D views.I do get to have a bit of input, coming up with possible alternative solutions to a roof etc - its works well for us. When it comes to construction stage we are detailing etc, so I would always have done that Revit or not.

Quite the opposite from feeling my job is threatened by Revit - I feel it has become far more secure (though I AM glad to be in at the start!) I have been using it 3 years and am still learning, methods of working etc.

[ita]

Hi Pete, maybe it got confused in the writing.

Wes mentioned "waaay too much information" and I agreed with that sentiment in part. But what I was saying was that the information being generated was/is in the main somewhat superfluous to the objective. And . . maybe it isn't the information but rather the way the information is being used.

In the the case illustrated, the volume of paper created for a bid. The point I was also attempting to make was that because there are so many intermediaries in the process of procuring a project and the designing and building a building (say) that many along the way seem to get caught up in the process rather than focus on the objective - the project. e.g. cad>paper plot>checked> redline>cad> paper plot . . <endlessly repeated> which I have seen in offices where the cad team are not included or integrated into the objective (the building) but rather are directed to the production of documents alone.

The fact that Revit can (at the architectural level at this stage in its development) place the architect/designer back (once again) at the coalface of the design/production will (IMHO) reduce the intermediaries mentioned in earlier threads - refer "Snowdome" thread where this all strated.

Architects/designers can once again become involved in the evolution of the (electronic) BIM model more directly than they have been in the last 20 years because (over that time) many did not have the required skills to be effective in the cad medium - partly because of historical timing and related training.

For me (and isuppose that goes for all of us), understanding the professional environment saves me money and effort. For instance, in the telephone book submission episode, I went back to the client (not the project manager) and and asked them about the submissions (BTW we were not successful). What I discovered was that the Project Manager had delivered a 5 page assessment document for each of the prospective firms for the client to make the selection from - which in reality was made by the PM - however the client saw nothing of the (phone book) submissions. Another form of the "Snowdome"???

Pete, this thread and topic is all about hypotheticals but they are interesting as they give some clarity and vision on what happens in the professional communities - for me it gives an insight into the macro view of where it is all going!! And may be not!! Time for a :beer: ?

Thanks for the response.

[ita]

BTW, in this part of Oz the Project Manager on medium to larger type projects is often external and appointed by the client to manage the project - the architect has become a consultant along with the rest. Part of this I (IMHO) attribute to architects not being prepared to do the hard yards top become proficient inthe game and they have dropped the ball. People who have trained as an architect but have professionalised the management role are taking over managment - however the consultant archiotect still seems to be doing the same work (for a reduced fee) but dancing to the PM's tune.

The containment of the intellectual property in an application such as Revit may return some power back to the architect rather than an ongoin diminuation of the architect/designer's role.

[PeterJ]

BTW, in this part of Oz the Project Manager on medium to larger type projects is often external and appointed by the client to manage the project - the architect has become a consultant along with the rest. Part of this I (IMHO) attribute to architects not being prepared to do the hard yards top become proficient inthe game and they have dropped the ball. People who have trained as an architect but have professionalised the management role are taking over managment - however the consultant archiotect still seems to be doing the same work (for a reduced fee) but dancing to the PM's tune.

The containment of the intellectual property in an application such as Revit may return some power back to the architect rather than an ongoin diminuation of the architect/designer's role.
I certainly agre whole-heartedly with this comment. As the designer Ithink the architect is often, though not always, the person best placed to be the lead consultant, however one thing we seem to have allowed ourselves to drift away from as a profession, in the UK at least, is working with a client to define a real brief and the project managers often do just that and hence poistion themselves as the first stage of the game.

[Wes Macaulay]

My training in the architectural environment is first technical (how to construct the building) and secondly design. Part of the training was how to create and organise the documentation required to construct a building.

In my experience, many graduates from architectural schools have not been trained and are not able to product this documentation; they have had to learn it on the job. Some of them never really do learn this skill, perhaps out of lack of interest. It is not a wonder to me that architects have lost their role as master builder because so many of them have no idea what is actually in a building -- they have been taught to be more concerned about the space and form than the construction.

And now Revit: Revit has been perceived erroneously by many as merely a design tool for architects. It is that. But it is also a construction documentation powerhouse. Detailing, scheduling and technical drawings are also its forte.

How does Revit inform the design-oriented and technical-oriented architect? It tells the story of the project in both form and function. I don't think it will teach a design-oriented architect how to build the project (though it may help), but to technical types it's a godsend in that they can better visualise the form to analyse its function. As an example: a building with overlapping spaces and occupancies can be thoroughly sectioned to ensure that construction assemblies in all planes provide the required fire separations.

If architects want to get back in the driver's seat, they should visit the job site. See how it all goes together -- see the problems / how they were created / how they are solved / how they can be prevented. And they should have excellent product knowledge... I'm a huge fan of Hilti's products. Who knew intumescent collars could be so cool? I am ever behind in this regard, but it's fun to see the new stuff!

I echo Peter J's observations about PM's who manoever to the lead of the team -- architects have to gain the lead position strategically. I've seen this happen several times to the real detriment of the eventual users of the project!

The "snow globe" effect is a bit of an illusion, I suppose -- we are always told that the Right Answer is changing (butter's good for you today, bad for you tomorrow, good for you again next week). So people either throw in the towel, permanently glaze their eyes over, or decide that all answers are equal. Well, post-modernity is ****. Sure there's too much information, but the truth will come out in the end. Society has such a short memory now that we jump to the current conclusion. Ah, for a long-term perspective!

How Revit will affect the architectural community remains to be seen. For desigers, they can better analyse space. For techs, they can better analyse the function and form. For accountants, everyone can be doing all of the above about 30% faster. For the shrinks, everyone at the office is a hell of a lot happier. And that's today.

I look forward to how Revit will be applied tomorrow, especially in saving money on visits from the f*** up fairy, and in making architecture more sustainable. And who knows what else.

And frankly, I'm just looking forward to the next load of laundry being done so I can get the smell of my kid's vomit out of my house. You think I like being up at 5 am on a Sunday morning?

[adegnan]

they have been taught to be more concerned about the space and form than the construction.

That is very much the way I feel about my architectural education. (On the other hand the spacial education was what I needed at that point also!!

For the record, I only did my B.Arch and did not complete my M.Arch or become licensed since I work in residential exclusivly and do not need the license at this point (It seems much of that was left for the later years and for on-the-job experience.)

Anyway, my point of view is that one of the best things I did in college was to take a job as an estimator in a commerical company instead of working as a draftsman/cad-jockey in an office. THis gave me the opportunity to review the plans from dozens of offices and Architects, on hundreds of commerical and some high-end residential projects. I got to get to know different CD standards from the firms (and I quickly learned what I consider to be the traits of best-readable plans and whose plans I didn't like!!!) And I also got to view many different construction details that have enlightened me in my own practice now.

So Wes, I'm not sure that there is one right answer. All this is what you make of it, right? The space/form training was what I most needed and I only wish I had learned more of it sooner or had a little more mentoring in high school. So people need to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses and take the classes that suit their needs, get help with what they are lacking, and make decisions that will benefit them for the long haul!

Don't be afraid to make a different decision on the job route either. :idea:

[ita]

metanoia,
. . . . I thought i had said enough on this topic, but then Wes said . . .

[I][QUOTE]If architects want to get back in the driver's seat, they should visit the job site. See how it all goes together -- see the problems / how they were created / how they are solved / how they can be prevented. And they should have excellent product knowledge . . . . . . QUOTE]

I could not agree more!! Architects are their own worst enemy.

My training was with an architect (Peter Parkinson who was a grad from the AA School in London) who had about 20 years experience in England and Australia when I worked in his office. His approach was to give me a small job to design and document - then introduce me to the builder and I became the builder's shadow for the projects duration.

This happen for 2 or 3 projects and over 2 years I learnt most of what I know today about documentation and construction and project management.

On every Saturday, in the quiet of the office (apart from the coffee perculator) the design work for the following week was done. I would sit with Peter at his drawing board and work through the design process - asking questions, discussing the philosophy etc etc. That time was so valuable and I was fortunate to have such a talented and gifted personal tutor and mentor.

Additionally, Peter's approach to any project was for one person in the office to follow the golden thread. One person followed the project from start to finish and built the relationship with the client. The current system - in OZ anyway - of having designers and documenters and supervisors all dealing with specific aspects of the project, leads to the "SnowGlobe", through the need to change alter and correct from lack of undrstanding or lack knowledge of the project.

From my obsrvation, most arch grads today do not know how to construct a building far less know how to slice up a building design to convey the requisite inforamtion to build the structure; and most drafties don't understand that the design process is more than producing the plan, elevations and sections. Somehow the splitting of the skills has lead to poorer abilities in both groups. Perhaps the education process for archies, drafties etc should be the same and the individuals select where their future lies in relation to their skills and passion.

A further observation is that many who teach in schools of architecture are people who have not paractised architecture and have not got the skills to pass them on. Computer graphics are more highly rated than the basics of good construction and good design.

Fortuneately for some students, Peter Parkinson (now 80+) still teaches in a school of architecture nd he primarily teaches design and drawing using pen and paper!!!

[MartyC]

Ita, your experiences sound familiar to mine.

Thinking about the basic educational proces, it appears to me to be quite simple; a common curriculum, 3 years materials and structure, graphic methods and design appreciation/understanding providing a basic technical qualification for a para-professional status. A further three years of advanced structure manipulation and hard core design theory, professional practice, business modelling, etc.

On-site time should be mandatory, building some stuff, connecting timber, making some formwork, pouring some concrete, welding some steel, digging a hole, joining some pipes, visiting factories making materials and components. These are the artisitc media that the architect and technician deal with. Its just like oil paint and canvas to the artist.

With this sort of knowledge, sitting down with Revit, putting objects together with some sort of rational intent becomes pretty damn straight forward, without the knowledge the same old confusion and document shoving goes on and on.

Somehow too many graduates have become too precious to want to deal with the real things in their profession. Some of the profession, in a lot of ways, has become a little detached in its thinking, a bit like an out-of-touch politician.

CheersM

[ita]

Hi MartyC, thanks for the response. The most concerning trend for the profession is the schools of architecture are no longer teaching basic drafting and cad skills. They are relying on the employers to do that - and unfortunately, most of the employers have staff that cannot prepare docs as well. Looks like the shark eating its own tail.

A friend of mine (a very experienced QS) recently showed me a set of drawings from a reasonably large and significant (??) Perth architect's office for a reasonably large project ($10m+) and the docs were nonsense. e.g. site plan and layout was located in the cabinet details (well the first group of cabinet layouts - there were 3 groups of cabinets layouts spread among some 50 A1 sheets in the tender-set) and had cabinet layouts on the site layout. The drawing list schedule in the speci did not match the issued sheets - or the document transmittal note - drawings delivered some 10 days after the Bill of Q's and there were 2 days left for close of tender - just for starters. The drawings were simply all the Autocad models thrown onto sheets where they fitted best - no layout story for all to understand the project. Sheet numbers all over the place and often not consecutive and a myriad of 1:100 and 1:50 details (??) - the details were blobs that the tenderers had to decipher for themselves.

I don'tt often get embarrassed, but some of the things that my fellow professional do - do!!

Back to the keyboard and Revit - Ahh well!!

[gfulton4]

This is a very interesting thread. Central to it are the comments relating to architectural training and education. Revit has stirred up the "snow globe" considerably and creates some possibly troublesome issues. I believe that any architect has a responsibilty to himself, his client, and to our society to create buildings that are endowed with beauty and function. That must be the ultimate goal. If that can be done in todays world with pencil and paper, great. More and more, economic realities dictate more efficient approaches i.e. CAD, BIM, etc. It is for each architect to choose his method (within contractual realities, of course)

I believe that Revit and other BIM packages (there are and will be more others) are changing the rules for design and documentation. The need for the entry level draftsperson is diminished considerably. If detailing standards and project types are set up with good planning, most drafting occurs at the very end of the project. There is little or no drafting of plans, elevations, and sections anymore. That sort of drafting is now limited to modifying appearances and touching up. That means that 75 to 80 percent of the actual work is now more design than drafting. That's a good thing but the big question is, who is doing that? An entry level draftsman is probably not the best one to do that because he doesn't have the experience to know code issues, clearances, mechanical and electrical requirements, structures, etc.

If a designer does that work (ideal situation) it takes a long time but most of the drafting is taken care of by the program and the data is very organized. That shifts a large portion of a projects time budget from lower paid draftsmen to higher paid designers meaning that it costs more to do a project. It's been my experience that, for one of a kind projects, about the same amount of time is required with Revit as with 1st gen CAD programs. Any thoughts about this?

I believe that anyone contemplating this field MUST get some hands on experience in framing, laying out, basic concrete work, etc. with a lot of time spent watching as many different types of projects built as possible. Just as any painter must know and understand his medium (oil, watercolor, etc) and a sculptor must understand stone, an architect must have a good understanding of the elements with which he is creating.

George F

[Wes Macaulay]

...Revit has stirred up the "snow globe" considerably and creates some possibly troublesome issues...

George FWhile we are creating a 3D model of the building and enojying the benefits thereof, there is much that has NOT changed:

Revit models are now being created in most cases by the CAD techs who were creating the 2D CAD drawings before
many designers, project managers, and principals, in my observations are quite happy to not us a computer at all save for e-mail -- Revit changes nothing in this regard except that they like what it's doing for the company
someone's facility in Revit is still tied to some degree to their facility with computers in general. I have yet to hear of a principal who was so enthused with what Revit does that actually bought a computer for themselves (though I can imagine that happening)
Being on the reseller side gives me the opportunity to see how the software gets used in a variety of environments. It's been interesting to see what has changed: firms are getting the 3D visualisation they've always wanted, and there's no time wasted using Form-Z or Viz or 3DS to make a pretty picture that's basically a throw-away. And they're getting coordinated drawings and schedules. And interior elevations. The other applications from this technology will probably be developed as Revit's market share increases.

[stuntmonkee]

6 years later, And it's still shaking.

Dug this up for someone, and thought it was funny to bring it up again. Been a long time.

[trombe]

Ian, Martin Stunts and others, this, is a really good thread guys.

I think Ian's point about PMs is bang on as are Martins comments about management and Architects however, referring to stunts Globe and the obvious shakes with what you have all noted......the biggest thing that worries me is how to manage the future changes in my own market / country.

We have a proposed licensing regime to become fully implemented in 2012 that covers off construction groups and design groups. Yes Architects will be included in the overall regime but have always carried this mantel anyway.

What I have been seeing for a while is AutoDesk continuing to advance the paradigm and possibilities that Revit offers long term, via their resellers and also press, to the Owner and Contractor groups.
The IPD thing now covering the world is just Partnering from the 80sm given a makeover to provide for the BIM paradigm.
I am not opposed to the ideas and recognise I am powerless to stop, or even direct the outcomes in my country (most of which are still to dawn on much of the market here even at this date).
I am disturbed that Revit presents not only rich opportunities as Martin and you other guys have noted, but in my country, a significant threat to the erosion of any power , influence or control I might have ever had as an individual over my own market destiny.

I originally trained as a Carpenter before doing the double arch degree program, and throughout those years the largest construction company in NZ regularly came to the residential market whenever the heavy and medium construction projects dropped off. They would drop in such low bids to keep their core workforce intact that no one else could get the work and so many experienced players in that market got squeezed out and or left the country (yip, to go to Australia !!)
This market cycle happens regularly here since 1976 that I know of.

While this is normal behaviour in a market, for our small market, such large and obvious practices and effects, can significantly disrupt skilled and experienced labour as we continue to see in many other industries in NZ.
The same company started up a large national DIY chain in the early 80s, and targeted the home owner for a more direct cash flow, so immediately the practice of labour only construction became normalised country wide.
The immediate effect of this was to marginalise the construction players power and influence (we knew these people often as Builders or Contractors) , because now the Owner was dealing direct with the supplier and discounts were being applied to them while margins to contractors were cut hugely.
More and more decisions were being made between the Owner and the large DIY chain company owned by the large local construction company (now multi national).

This firm has been pretty much primarily responsible for the huge changes to our construction industry that cost large numbers of very good , well trained, well experienced and reasonably well motivated people their jobs. What was left in the aftermath was many new migrant workers without acceptable local skills, training or knowledge, or a care to get them.

This company is reputed to have a well resourced business unit specifically to lobby central government (for example) in the same way as done everywhere around the world in all spheres.
In recent years, the large company has extended its influence to target the home owner in new ways , by putting in computerised design stations into its nationwide DIY chain in a strong overt move to reduce dependencies upon design professionals and cut them out of the market also, so as to leverage not only the supply of materials decisions, but the design decisions and so to attempt to control more and more of the market in certain areas (for now).
Yes this is a legal and fair business strategy however when one player can control so much, the possible outcomes and opportunities for a market and indeed a country like ours, are significantly reduced.
I do acknowledge that it seems like every construction , supply or materials /systems web site now has a design it yourself applet one way or another.


IPD and Revit may now be the device to market direct to construction companies and large institutional players for reasons unrelated to life cycle costing or space planning.
I see that in a short time, the so called IPD model will quickly overtake the role that Architects and Draughtsmen / women, have had in a traditional and revised marketplace.

Having the BIM paradigm available to all is a remarkable change for sure and I am happy to move forward with it, watching all the time for what and where things are likely to go and try and stay in the game however.......
In our market, when the construction companies have parity with Architects, Designers, Draughtsmen / women and Owner has the same access and control over these stages to the same extents as the design groups (and in an IPD model), this could be a disaster for many people for their role will diminish without necessarily experiencing a comparable reduction in liability (in NZ context anyway).

Wes comment about how too much data is salient here...
Already, my clients have access to a level of information completely beyond their understanding (for the most part - talking about interpreting it) and beyond their needs (yet these can be highly educated or skilled people).
We chuck a model their way with the sill and head heights, volumes etc. data at their finger tips and so they quickly move to try and do the design work themselves with little or no training and absolutely no consideration for the things designers need to / do consider. (here is where too much information is not a good thing and open sharing is not necessarily the best option however as things are moving, its going to become default isn't it ?)

Some of you will argue this is a good thing and for those in a commercial group environment / multi disciplinary teams who need to exchange vast amounts of information all the time, it probably is the most logical thing to have and I agree its a soild and useful development.
However the tools and methods are not only transferable but are typically effected by culture so that their use rapidly becomes absorbed by the masses without the contexts necessarily being tagged along with this transfer.

In smaller markets, Owners and Builders with this level of access, represent a dangerous and troublesome thing not necessarily a good thing at all - in NZ I will hold that this is definitely the case.
How the new paradigm is handled by me/us is a critical element of the value associated with and accorded to, the idea about group access to a central digital model and all of the associated and downstream elements, aspects and outputs.

While I am not seeking to blame the manufacturer for the opportunity they saw in the product we currently know as Revit, nor their vision for it, I draw a direct parallel with the idea of marketing to Owner and construction players, with that of the large local construction company here who has screwed an entire market for their gain, without leaving it either in a better shape or the results better off - for the country or for the community. On that example basis, the future value currently tagged to the open sharing model is highly questionable.

For me right now, the thought of the Owner and construction groups having control over my work is an insidious , dangerous and problematic idea because (for a start) our local laws and practices are several decades away from being able to cope with the fallout.
(for example in NZ, the doctrine of joint and several liability is prevalent even in all cases where it might otherwise be obvious to a considered mind, that its effect, meaning or application, is irrelevant).
While Revit also offers many exciting opportunities and helps make my day fun, how the output is managed in this globe you speak of is of significantly more importance than much of the output /information possibility.
I am also more than extremely wary of a concept like the large local construction company who can put me out of a job or cause my role to be marginalised for no other reason than their own control, after already screwing the other part of the industry for their own gain.

These aspects of the BIM-Revit-IPD drive seem to me to be ignored more or less and left to anyone / everyone else, to deal with the actual problems of implementation which is fine, however , this does point then to a more singular reason for its raise to glory.

In this model, I am struggling to see how the broader skills base is changed beyond efficient use of Revit / the software in that the same manner, as when AutoCAD came upon drawing with a Rotring 0.10 mm (ugh) pen on film / tracing on a board.
I mean there will still be the need to have the knowledge, while Revit, is just another AutoCAD for its time. In 5 years, there will be another Revit. It might be that the Owner and Contractor will be telling you what to do with it (the knowledge) in a more direct manner. Question is, how to get the most out of this situation.

Is the Owner, going to pay you for your software, hardware and training investment or more exactly, how do we extract a more reliable and suitable return on our investment in this (Revit-IPD-BIM open sharing ) model when we are not large firms with lots of admin people top help us out ?, price fixing is illegal and our competitors all want our clients !!

cheers
trombe