My thoughts on BIM

[cwade.109269]

Here are a few of the issues with sharing like never before:

- If we create a family, we have a copyright on it; therefore, if I share my Revit model with someone how do I keep that family from being stolen?

- If we share a Revit model with someone and it is kept around so that in the future people can see what is going on with the building and down the road they open it and say change a valve to a different one (bth in the model and actually in the building), but something goes wrong with it, who is responsible for it?

- We spend time making schedules work just right and setting things up, how do we prevent these from being stolen? I know it's similar to the first one, but it's there.

With AutoCAD people have stolen details, LISP routines, etc. but it's nowhere near the work that goes into creating the Revit families and such. In addition it is fairly easy to prove whose code a particular LISP routine is or whose detail it is, it is not so easy to prove whose family something is, unless there is some identifying information that I don't know about in them.

Everyone says that there will be a new form of deliverables, what exactly are those?

How will a contractor (who will not purchase Revit due to cost) build without a paper set of drawings?

How will DSA (the few people who do have AutoCAD are still on release 12 last that I heard about a year ago) going to check drawings without having Revit or a Paper Set, although they are starting to review PDFs, but that is very recent and is still very much in a trial mode?

How are other plancheckers going to check the drawings? Again many of them don't even have AutoCAD, in some areas they don't even have computers.

I only bring these up to point out that I don't see how deliverables are going to change, now I do see Revit having benefits, but these and other important issues must be addressed first.

Unfortunately as of right now we don't see any extra money in our firm for Revit projects, many think that a Revit project should be cheaper than an AutoCAD project on the design end.

[Admiral McAwesome]

REVIT is overcomplicated, clunky, and mostly just too much for an electrical consultant to use efficiently. When I'm doing structural, I think it's great, the same with the mech. and plumbing. But for electrical, it is too slow and quite honestly, not worth the financial investment or the time to learn. I have no need for a symbol that contains an isometric, 3D and normal plan view all contained within.

[ejsanford]

- If we create a family, we have a copyright on it; therefore, if I share my Revit model with someone how do I keep that family from being stolen?

You can protect your families within the IPD agreement. The same protection needs to be in place for those who you enter into the agreement with. IPD also requires a social shift within the AEC industry. It's a process of sharing information and working together as a unified team in order to deliver the best product as possible with as little finger pointing as possible. If the model is a deliverable doesn't it ultimately belong to the client, content included?

All concerns need to be addressed up front and in a written agreement. Other than that it's faith in your team that they won't steal your content.

[TerribleTim]

. . . If the model is a deliverable doesn't it ultimately belong to the client, content included?. . .

Right. That's the wall I've kind of run into as well. But how do you bill for it? I mean, it shouldn't fall under normal deliverables. At best it's an extra service, but even that doesn't give it it's due diligence in my opinion. I mean, there's some serious monetary investment there, right?

And then, should we get royalties for that model being used by others in the future who work for that client? Wouldn't that be nice?

[RobertB]

And then, should we get royalties for that model being used by others in the future who work for that client? Wouldn't that be nice?

It would, but how is that any different from an owner using our provided DWG files and extracting all content?

[bbeck]

I understand that there are a lot of concerns by many firms out there across all disciplines about releasing a BIM to the client or contractor. We faced these same concerns back in the late 80's when we were worried that our dwg\dgn files were going to be floating all over the place. I view our firms commitment to BIM as further proof to our clients that we are leveraging the latest design and analysis tools to deliver a product that will excede their expectations, short-term (construction) and long-term (life of the building). If I can push BIM farther then the next guy, I will retain my clients and through word-of-mouth gain more clients. Honestly, reverse engineering someone's family, model or template is not always that easy. In fact, that's just a small portion of the BIM. A larger part is how I have worked with the entire design team to come to an understanding and agreement to our work-flow and processes to create a BIM. I am looking at this situation from our firm/client/project type perspective (+50-man firm/educational facilities) and realize that this isn't necessarily the same scenario a smaller scale residental architectural firm would be in.

[TerribleTim]

. . . I am looking at this situation from our firm/client/project type perspective (+50-man firm/educational facilities) and realize that this isn't necessarily the same scenario a smaller scale residental architectural firm would be in.

Actually, that bit right there is rather helpful. My situation is more of the small commercial firm (10 people/GA/DOC/Education/Commercial projects). So in your mind, the actual BIM IP is not so important, right? I'm trying to get a feel for how others view this theory as we move into it. So that was very insightful.

[bbeck]

Hey Tim,

What I was trying to really say in my rambling there is, I've spent a lot of time with our engineers building our interpretation of what our BIM is and how we each interact within it. Our workflows and best practices have shifted. This has made our design teams even more dependant on each other then ever before. For better or worse, it is now harder for an outside engineering firm to join in and become part of our BIM solution. I'm sure a day will come when the industry as a whole has a better understanding of how we use BIM and what is a "standard", but until then we are pioneering an approach that doesn't exactly match what others may be doing.

Our firm has a 95% client return rate over 25 years. We work hard to sell our ability to service our clients. That's our mantra. I would like to believe that our "Intergrated Project" is very unique to our design teams, at this time. The re-use of our BIM by others could be done. Could they then take the same approach on a similar project? It would take some doing. I feel that a BIM, because it is more complex and intergrated, is more difficult to copy by a firm not familiar with the creation process. It's one thing to look at someone's dwg/dgn file and tweak it for your needs. It's a whole different ballgame to grab a BIM and do that.

[cjehly]

I've briefly read this thread, and this comment isn't directed towards anyone in particular. With that said...

I've found in my long CAD life that the people that were more concerned about protecting themselves and their "Intellectual Property" were the ones that seemed to fade away as the world progressed.

I don't want your IP, I want your expertise and your accuracy.

(hope nobody gets offended by that...)

[TerribleTim]

. . .(hope nobody gets offended by that...)

No, and I know what you are trying to say. But the IP thoughts are a reality. I find that the younger people are less concerned about IP rights and more interested in the "give me now" and "I want it free" mentality than the "This is time and money invested" mentality. I have no problems sharing IP with team members, it's when that IP ends up used by those outside the team that I get worried.

Make sense?