Is BIM really worth it?

[tconley]

I'm sure this subject has been discussed at length, but I guess that is a testament to how concerning it is to Revit users. In my office, we specialize in mid to high rise residential projects and we've been using Revit for just over 2 years.

Lately, we've been evaluating the success of Revit in our firm.
Is it faster?...Are you more lucrative?...Is the client benefiting?...These are some questions we are asking ourselves. We've come up with is list of concerns. I'm sure many are not unique, which is why I'd like to get some feedback..maybe even generate a checklist for the effective implementation of BIM:

Billing
Initial design phases in Revit require more time and/or fee to make up for amount of information to be input into model. 2d deliverables need additional time to be “dressed up” for presentation purposes.
Initial design phases don’t always go through to construction and it is very difficult to justify a heavier front end fee which is often financed by an individual who may not be willing to pay the added costs to produce a model at an early stage.


Staffing and work schedule
Initial staff increases because more work needs to be done upfront and time frames aren’t always adjusted to reflect additional information required to produce model. Too much input required at an early stage and currently do not see steady flow of project from one phase to another. Clients are not aware or not receptive to revised schedules for creating model at early stages in design. It’s very hard to educate when they have been accustomed to fee structure and schedules from previous performances- why change if previously successful?

Project Changes
We feel that Revit is a great design tool and the ability to see the building from all angles helps in the process. With the amount of information that is initially required for the project it appears to take longer. We do not see how the information that is supposedly to be included in the model will be delivered to the client and if he will be willing to pay for it on all projects- We can see it on specific projects but not every client will be interested. It appears that on large scale models there is different information required at different stages. Is a new model to be created for each phase. If not then it appears that the project file will become to large to work with. Do architects want to really supply the client/ or GC with all the information… I believe that opens up to a lot of exposure- which would be OK if the fee is justified- again requiring the client to understand the process and the liability associated with providing that information.
Why build a model?


Coordination
Coordination is a major strength in Revit. Although it often feels that to achieve this many items need to be detailed to a certain extent which would not be required in 2d and again adds substantial time to the project.
Plans still need to be checked and schedules verified.
Is a 100% fully coordinated set in revit possible or even necessary? I believe this creates a false sense of security. Architects need to do their job and remember that the program is a tool and that it will not coordinate all aspects of the project. It appears to take a major effort to learn the program and model the building which may be the same amount of time to have someone check the drawings and perform quality assurance. Note that Revit does not coordinate code instances without implementing parameters and that in itself takes time. In addition coordination in revit just checks to see if there are conflicts between objects- sometimes experience is required to know what to actually look for in the design.



I really want BIM to work for us, but we need to get these concerns fleshed out first.

[aaronrumple]

I'm sure this subject has been discussed at length, but I guess that is a testament to how concerning it is to Revit users. In my office, we specialize in mid to high rise residential projects and we've been using Revit for just over 2 years.

Lately, we've been evaluating the success of Revit in our firm.
Is it faster?...Are you more lucrative?...Is the client benefiting?...

Yes, Yes and Yes.
Any more questions?

[tconley]

Yes, Yes and Yes.
Any more questions?

How, How, and How?

[aaronrumple]

Billing
Initial design phases in Revit require more time and/or fee to make up for amount of information to be input into model.

Staffing and work schedule
Initial staff increases because more work needs to be done upfront and time frames aren’t always adjusted to reflect additional information required to produce model.

Project Changes
We feel that Revit is a great design tool and the ability to see the building from all angles helps in the process.

Coordination
Coordination is a major strength in Revit. Although it often feels that to achieve this many items need to be detailed to a certain extent which would not be required in 2d and again adds substantial time to the project.

Billing
I've found that my design time has gone way down. I can explore more options in less time and keep better control of the project budget and sq. ft. We're doing more 3D illustration in less time compared with any other tool. I'd say design time is about 35% of traditional techniques.

Staffing and work schedule
I've found that fewer staff are needed for all phases. In initial upfront design and layout it can actually be counter productive to put too many people on a project. Two or three are all I find that is needed for even large projects on the front end.

Project Changes
The project will change - that is always a given. Over modeling early should be avoided - with focus placed on what the client will see. Designers can be lured into building too much that doesn't end up getting presented. By the same token - I can present the client more work in much less time. Need a dozen perspectives? No problem.

Coordination
Sure Revit doesn't coordinate everything. But it does a far better job than anything else on the market. This frees you up to change your focus and concentrate on other QA/QC issues.

[tconley]

Billing
I've found that my design time has gone way down. I can explore more options in less time and keep better control of the project budget and sq. ft. We're doing more 3D illustration in less time compared with any other tool. I'd say design time is about 35% of traditional techniques.

I see what you mean. I, too, have benefited from the generation of many 3d views. But when the client needs some "before lunch", I don't have time to figure out how to build it Revit, I can just fire up cad draw a quick section, and fax it out. And if the client approves, then model it in Revit.

Staffing and work schedule
I've found that fewer staff are needed for all phases. In initial upfront design and layout it can actually be counter productive to put too many people on a project. Two or three are all I find that is needed for even large projects on the front end.

We're doing this as well. 2-3 people on a 20-story mxed-use condo tower. But as far as schedulimg, say of DD, are you using the same time frame as you did with your ACAD projects? Because when using CAD, at least in our firm, DD schedules were quite short. We knew that we would use CD time to tie up loose ends. But with Revit, those loose ends have to be tied up or the building just doesn't look right. Which means more time up front. Which means a bigger fee that the client may not want to pay..expecially when the project isn't certain to continue into CD's.

Project Changes
The project will change - that is always a given. Over modeling early should be avoided - with focus placed on what the client will see. Designers can be lured into building too much that doesn't end up getting presented. By the same token - I can present the client more work in much less time. Need a dozen perspectives? No problem.

We've definitely learned our lesson about over-modelling! Our pilot project was a cluttered mess. Now were on our 5th or so, and things are going much smoother. But I don't want the ability to generate "a dozen perspectives" to be the reason why the model is built in the first place. Especially if the client could care less about a bunch of 3D views, he just wants a unit count, parking count, and saleable area breakdown.

Coordination
Sure Revit doesn't coordinate everything. But it does a far better job than anything else on the market. This frees you up to change your focus and concentrate on other QA/QC issues.

Agreed...but I guess the concern is whether the amount it does coordinate justify the amount of time put into the model; as opposed to doing 2d drawings in less time and only drawing what you need. Either way, someone has to do high level coordination.