Things in ArchiCAD I'd like to have in Revit....

[hand471037]

At the end of the day, the team and I have to plan for the lowest common denominator in our firm, not matter how much we would like the teams to actually talk to each other....

We go back and forth with that here at Gensler too. Do we aim to make our systems easier and more foolproof (which can never really happen) or do we aim to make our users less foolish (which is very slow and again can't ever really happen completely)?

Thing is that I believe you can't solve problems that have nothing to do with technology using technology. Sure, it can certainly make it easier to solve the problem, but in this example if the team isn't communicating effectively then the project will suffer no matter what toolset is used.

Revit, by throwing everyone together into the same pot and forcing them to actually coordinate things and work together, really brings to the surface team issues and communication problems.

So I personally tend to lean more towards the 'get them all talking and working together and working better' ideal then the 'better software will solve the problem' ideal. So a system of control over users via Worksets is a good idea, but thinking that it will solve any problem other than folks accidentally deleting or moving things when they shouldn't is a little too hopeful IMHO...

[robert.manna]

causing quoting would make it way too long...

Jeff,

I agree completely. Simply trying to make "better" software won't solve communication problems. But I think there is this grey area, where a little control will help reduce certain nightmares. . Like I said, I'm not inerested in preventing someone from accidently or even purposely deleting a door, or whatever, those are easy to replace and put back. But if you move the grid.... Ugh... or the example of deleting a section... In both cases as far as we know they weren't even intentional (espically the grid thing), and yeah, we use the "check out" workset(s) method to lock things, but as you said, something a littler cleaner would be nice. Furthermore, my concern still is, that it can't merely be a warning message, so if its not a warning message, what are you left with, some sort of permission(s) control. As one person once said to me, the software is supposed to allow me to focus on building a building. At what point, am I no longer focused on building a building, and instead focused on worrying about if my grid workset is checked out, or will someone delete my building section? At the same time, the issues of administering a burearcracy of controls would equally take me away from my focus (as you preivuously said). Another great example in my opinion is central and local files. At one point when I said we wanted a better way to handle this someone said I should train my users better. Why? Why can't a process like that simply be better automated so the everyday user doesn't have to think about it, and possibly screw it up. Its grey area, and perhaps what there really needs to be is different "levels" in the same way that you can buy Windows Server, or Windows Server Enterprise edition, a businesss of 12 people doesn't need enterprise, but a corporation of 600 probably does, and we pay different amounts for what fits our needs.

-R

[DanielleAnderson]

I don't necessarily advocate the following suggestion, but I will bring it up for the sake of discussion because this IS an interesting discussion:
As I have mentioned before, we are in the process of painfully, slowly implementing Revit here. We have a large-ish office and in a discussion with one of our PMs regarding training his team to begin a project in Revit he mentioned something that at least made me pause and think: He suggested training users to put them at certain levels - sort of an "ignorance is bliss" kind of deal where certain people just don't need to know how to do certain things so that they can't screw them up. Now - obviously this idea is loaded with potential for problems - but it is an interesting idea - only train selected/trusted few to do the more technical work and train the rest to more of a drone-level where they are able to do the production work but not necessarily set up projects, build components, create sheets, etc.
I suggested more of a "natural selection" process in that you teach everyone and let them find their own levels, but it does kill me, through all of this talk of implementation, that everyone wants to create a fool-proof system where they don't have to actually communicate with teammates...oximoron?

[robert.manna]

As Jeff has clearly stated, nothing is foolproof, and I agree. I also understand where you're PM is coming from Danielle, and it is certainly good to think about. Though I also more like the idea of letting people find their way, goes with my beleif that you can't really teach software, you just gotta show people stuff, and then they need to wrap their heads around it. However all that aside, I think the issues of training and surivial of the fittest speaks to the generational gap that is currently seen accross the board in all indsutries with regards to technology and familiarity with it. (recent article on Forbes on-line somewhere...) Sure there are the minority of "old" people who easily cross the bounds of technology, but they were probably the fools playing with home built computers in the 70's (no offense intended to anyone, age, etc...). As we continue to implement and adopt BIM (which means Revit as the primary tool of the moment) I would like to see us teach the really technical stuff of creating families etc to all new hires (out of school), as I think that is where and how they are going to start to learn to put buildings together as "tpyical" redlines are going the way of the dodo (yes there will still be "redlines") but no longer can you just sit someone down and say, here re-draw this, now everything they potentially do and touch has an impact beyond that one plan or or even detail. So where to start... build families... they're seperate, they're closer to the 3D modeling that they probalby were doing in school, and they're going to learn stuff. Best example I've got is I just did elevator families for our firm, and now I know and understand a heck of alot more about elevators, and what is important to an architect, then I did before....


So now that this conversation has gone off on another tangent......

-R

[Wes Macaulay]

This thread has all of a sudden become very interesting.

Jeffrey and Danielle have hit the nail on the head. Revit has a way of showing you who the team players aren't. Plus the software really requires people to work together -- more than people may wish. I've seen dysfunctional offices bicker about Revit's problems when the real one is, the people are all Lone Rangers whose egos collectively get in the way of meaningful collaboration.

Still, there are team-player people whose CAD skills are right up there with um, amoebas and they've managed to fake their way thru AutoCAD without being noticed. They can probably work with Revit where no fancy 3D work is needed, or do details, etc. just as you folks note. But these people need to know that lines in Revit aren't just lines -- they're floors and walls and you don't just delete them without looking at the Status Bar and seeing what the line is.

It's this distillation process that causes pain in many Revit implementations.

[Kevin Janik]

Publisher interface is very nice. I believe that is what it is called.

Kevin

[DanielleAnderson]

It's this distillation process that causes pain in many Revit implementations.

Along with an unbelievable lack of problem solving skills.

[cphubb]

This thread has gotten interesting.

I am guessing that the people who think the Archicad system is complex have not really used it or they used it with a control freak that turned on all the functions password etc.

Also all the discussion about communicating is really great and we have learned that Revit or BIM needs good communication. My co-worker and I were just discussing we had both drawn the same detail, one drafting view the other a detail view. However, there are many instances where people do not communicate for whatever reason and then the damage is done. Anybody have a grid move? Anybody spend an hour trying to figure out who did it and how to roll back the central file? These things used to be problems with the distributed cad model, in BIM they can be catastrophes and involve consultants contractors etc.

My request for administrative control comes from my long use of Archicad for Teamwork and the great tools available to the teamwork team. Everybody in a team should have a primary role and should do their best to play that role on a regular basis. One thing we discovered is that in Archicad when you do not have the rights to do a particular task you will go and talk to the person who does coordinate the task and complete it in the best possible way. No disappearing views no unreferenced views showing up cluttering the model, people mostly draw in the correct workset. It makes the problems easier to solve and less frequent.

[hand471037]

This thread has gotten interesting.

I am guessing that the people who think the Archicad system is complex have not really used it or they used it with a control freak that turned on all the functions password etc.

It's not just that. I think it's a problem with those of us who have used Revit for a while now. Autodesk's M.O. with AutoCAD is to add another layer of complexity to solve whatever problems someone is having, which in the end doesn't solve any problems and tends to add new ones. When someone recommends adding complexity to Revit, it's my natural, yet biased, stance to vote against complexity for efficiency. I don't care or need to do everything and anything, I need to get work done quickly. What I have seen of the ArchiCAD teamwork looks complex to me. Now, I understand that not everyone uses all of it. However, just the fact that it's there will lead some to think they are adding value by using all of it, when they are really just hampering the Project Team with over management.

So while I agree with you that adding Workset user control to Revit would be a good thing (even thought my voice in this matters little, Autodesk will do what it wants) I'd like to see it done as a stripped down version of what we see in ArchiCAD, or even more simple than that.

Also all the discussion about communicating is really great and we have learned that Revit or BIM needs good communication. My co-worker and I were just discussing we had both drawn the same detail, one drafting view the other a detail view. However, there are many instances where people do not communicate for whatever reason and then the damage is done. Anybody have a grid move? Anybody spend an hour trying to figure out who did it and how to roll back the central file? These things used to be problems with the distributed cad model, in BIM they can be catastrophes and involve consultants contractors etc.

I also think a better solution to this problem wouldn't be keeping people from being able to make mistakes via locking or permissions, but make it easier to recover from stupid mistakes. Revit does some of what source code control systems do, but it doesn't do one very important part, and that's version everything. If there was a way to know exactly who did what when, and to 'unroll' single contributions and/or edits, and to see two different versions of changes side by side, well, it would 'protect' the model by making it easy to recover, instead of the other way around where you've got to keep people from messing it up (and once messed up it's still hard to recover). Modern source code control and document management systems have such controls, and with Worksets Revit is halfway there. However, I have no idea what the file demands of such a system would be; the aforementioned systems just deal with text files or word documents, that's a far cry from the large models we deal with...

My request for administrative control comes from my long use of Archicad for Teamwork and the great tools available to the teamwork team. Everybody in a team should have a primary role and should do their best to play that role on a regular basis. One thing we discovered is that in Archicad when you do not have the rights to do a particular task you will go and talk to the person who does coordinate the task and complete it in the best possible way. No disappearing views no unreferenced views showing up cluttering the model, people mostly draw in the correct workset. It makes the problems easier to solve and less frequent.

This is an interesting thought. It's almost like the SUDO command in a way with unix-based systems, where when I do something that would make serious changes it won't let me unless I type in a password. Makes one stop and think about what you're doing. Having to ask your coworkers for permission does force them to at least talk to each other a bit, and that could lead to them at least not both working on the same detail (as I have done as well lol)...

[robert.manna]

It's not just that. I think it's a problem with those of us who have used Revit for a while now. Autodesk's M.O. with AutoCAD is to add another layer of complexity to solve whatever problems someone is having, which in the end doesn't solve any problems and tends to add new ones. When someone recommends adding complexity to Revit, it's my natural, yet biased, stance to vote against complexity for efficiency. I don't care or need to do everything and anything, I need to get work done quickly. What I have seen of the ArchiCAD teamwork looks complex to me. Now, I understand that not everyone uses all of it. However, just the fact that it's there will lead some to think they are adding value by using all of it, when they are really just hampering the Project Team with over management.

So while I agree with you that adding Workset user control to Revit would be a good thing (even thought my voice in this matters little, Autodesk will do what it wants) I'd like to see it done as a stripped down version of what we see in ArchiCAD, or even more simple than that.

Since this thread started out with talking about competing software vendors....

Another way to resolve this would be the development tact that Bentley has taken (sort of) Bentley Microstation can be customized like crazy. You can lock stuff, down, deny access, etc, etc, etc... In any case Autodesk has started to implement the API. Why not just open it up enough such that an outside developer of firm could write whatever they need or want to allow whatever grain of control and permission they desire. This leaves it to other people to determine the level of complexity that best fits their needs while keeping the base platform "relatively" simple.

I will point out that some of the more complex tools that Microstation now ships with, were actually developed by architects, and later incorporated by Bentley into the platform, not to mention there are some rather famous architects that have written some extremely complex tools for form generation in Microstation that suit their needs, but most of us would probably never be able to make heads or tails of them without a PhD.

As Jeff said though, we can only voice our opinion, Autodesk will do what they feel is the best solution.

-R