Revit Collaboration - Architecture - Structure.

[G_J]

The idea of Revit and BIM is to increase productivity, and decrease coordination time....

I'm working for an International multidiscipline consultancy based in New Zealand, with offices in Australia, UK, and Canada. We are in the process of implementing Revit Structure, MEP, and Revit Architecture has been used for a number of years now.

The problem I am having is collaboration. I have tried a number of approaches, linking and copy/monitor on my first project (a very small refurb) it worked ok, but the problem comes when Architects delete things, and re-model elements.

The next one was a single cnetral file with both Architecture and Structure collaborating, this was a new build school block, with refurbishments to existing classrooms, a much larger project than the first one, I found this to work really well although I know it is not the "advised method."

I'm currently working on a new build aquatic centre, 4 swimming pools, 2 storey, sloping roof, a combination of timber and steelwork, with concrete columns, not overly complex but tricky enough. We started the design stage pretty early, the architects were still updating and revising their model, as I was modeling the structure. We opted for the linked approach as they are an external company.

Having modeled most of the structure, foundations, steelwork, roof framing, pre-cast panels for the pool walls, I receive an updated architects model and they have dropped the floor level, pool level, roof level, made the building footprint bigger, moved 2 of the pools, and on top of that when making the changes deleted and re-modelled walls, grids, floors, etc.

So the problem I face is number one, a long list of co-ordination warnings, having to delete and re-copy elements, in addition the time it will take to drop all the levels. Initially my framing was locked to the U/S of the rood, but because the architects have deleted and re-modeled the roof, it doesn't exist anymore, a very painful task and I am contemplating starting from scratch... I know this is the kind of thing we are used to from our AutoCAD days but it is far easier to manipulate linework in 2D, I think the workflow needs to change when using Revit, the Architects will need to have the model pretty much finalised before the structural model starts, what do you think?

How are other companies approaching collaboration? Single or Linked files? Should the Architectural model be 90% complete before the Structural model is started? Or do we just accept the architetcs will make loads of changes, and get on with it...

I don't think the "collaboration tools" in Revit are as good as the resellers make out, but also users need to be educated in the use of such a powerful tool if we want to make it work.

What are your thoughts?


Thanks.


Glenn

[hand471037]

Technology can't solve problems that are rooted in process.

I think the reason that the 'all in one' project worked better for you is that it forced all your team to talk to each other a lot more.

While you don't have to wait until the Architects are 100% done before structure can begin, you can't let them work in a vacuum either.

Linking vs. not-linking doesn't matter if you've not got people really working as a team, and just expecting the technology to solve those issues.

For example, deleting and remodeling a large element (like the roof) should really have prompted some sort of call or at least e-mail between the teams as to what they were doing and why. It would be no different if the Structural team suddenly thickened up all the walls 4" for more shear or something.

Big changes late in the game can be done, but only if the team's working together. Otherwise the more 'powerful' technology only causes much bigger problems.

So it sounds like in order for this to really work within your company is to get your Architecture team to have regular coordination meetings with the other teams. Or force them all to work in the same model if you can't change anything about the office culture, so that no one can run off and make huge changes without everyone else noticing right away!

[Craig_L]

The idea of Revit and BIM is to increase productivity, and decrease coordination time....
The problem I am having is collaboration. I have tried a number of approaches, linking and copy/monitor on my first project (a very small refurb) it worked ok, but the problem comes when Architects delete things, and re-model elements.

So the problem I face is number one, a long list of co-ordination warnings, having to delete and re-copy elements, in addition the time it will take to drop all the levels. Initially my framing was locked to the U/S of the rood, but because the architects have deleted and re-modeled the roof, it doesn't exist anymore, a very painful task and I am contemplating starting from scratch... I know this is the kind of thing we are used to from our AutoCAD days but it is far easier to manipulate linework in 2D, I think the workflow needs to change when using Revit, the Architects will need to have the model pretty much finalised before the structural model starts, what do you think?

What are your thoughts?


Thanks.


Glenn

Hi Glenn,
Well, I understand your pain. I have recently completed our first inter-office multi-disciplinary revit model. It was a hell of a learning curve. I will list for you a bunch of problem/sollutions that might make your life a bit easier based on the lessons I learned during the process.

There is a huge list really of things learnt. I don't know if I can really cover everything for you quickly and easily - however I can offer a few points that will probably help you out and that seem to relate to your problems.

Co-ordination - Paramount. This was a huge killer for us. The architect almost assumes that his changes will be noticed, but as things are changing live and there is no notification of changes these will slip thru the cracks without a good method of co-ordination between disciplines. I would suggest a weekly co-ordination meeting (or at least fortnightly in later stages of the project) an hour once a week for your project team will translate to saving alot of hours down the track when things go haywire from lack of communication. I also suggest demanding that your architects are basically an issue ahead of the structural team. This means the architect needs to be well organised and adjust your issue dates accordingly when the project is initially planned out and the dates set. Architects really need to not be moving structure 2 days before a major issue (which is what was happening to us).

It sounds like your architects (and I know architects probably are hating me right now, but these were my observations) are behaving in a similar manner, you need to encourage them to talk to you more and not to ignore "warnings" that pop up when deleting ENTIRE elements such as a roof. I would also suggest not locking anything to the architects model, but rather creating reference planes that you can much more easily adjust should things be deleted or moved - if you name these ref planes well you will know exactly what they relate to and you will immediately see in your sections/views when they are not matching what they were originally aligned to. It does seem that in the revit world architects have the mindset that because it's easy to manipulate the model that they are quite happy to change alot more - but there is often not alot of consideration how this will "trickle down" and, again co-ordination is the key here. I agree that the best method is to perhaps have them set up all elements in one model to begin with and finalise their design/development phase. Once this is done split the model up - or assign worksets and permanently sign out structural elements - this will stop them moving things without contacting you, ie they will be forced to communicate to make changes to structural elements and this is exactly what you want.

Purging/cleaning - I would recommend a weekly purge/audit of your model. Make sure on the monday morning EVERYONE working on the project re-creates a new local file from the central file. Failure to do this will mean that the first save to central from an OLD local file, will re-save all of the junk you purged and audited out the weekend earlier.

[Scott Womack]

The problem I am having is collaboration. I have tried a number of approaches, linking and copy/monitor on my first project (a very small refurb) it worked ok, but the problem comes when Architects delete things, and re-model elements.

Your architectural staff does not seem to know, or possibly CARE what their changes are affecting in the other models. They need to be educated. This is even more true if you begin working with the energy analysis of Ecotect, or the IES plugins, etc.

The next one was a single cnetral file with both Architecture and Structure collaborating, this was a new build school block, with refurbishments to existing classrooms, a much larger project than the first one, I found this to work really well although I know it is not the "advised method."

Autodesk is aware of this, and the 2010 product may make this a little bit more viable. This still has issues, since without communication, changes can still go "unnoticed". Also, the whole dynamic may change when Revit MEP is thrown into the entire model as well.

How are other companies approaching collaboration? Single or Linked files? Should the Architectural model be 90% complete before the Structural model is started? Or do we just accept the architetcs will make loads of changes, and get on with it...

Yes, changes will be made, but the architectural staff needs to be informing the engineering staffs what these changes are. This is certainly true when the engineering staffs are different companies that the architects, and the MEP is probably a different company from the structural. Revit does not decrease the need for communication, it actually exponetially increases the need for communications between team members.

I don't think the "collaboration tools" in Revit are as good as the resellers make out, but also users need to be educated in the use of such a powerful tool if we want to make it work.

I disagree with you, but any powerful tool if abused, will cause greater pain, than a less power tool will. Your point about educating the users in the use of the tools is essential to their success. In your point, did you monitor the levels of the architectural model? If so, the relative heights should have been automatically adjustable via the coordination monitor report.

The structural engineers we deal with have begun drawing their own exterior walls, and then monitoring them to the architectural walls for structural detailing purposes. This also eliminated the issue of the openings in the monitoring report. They then use elevational views to coordinate their columns, with the openings, and to create the lintels as well. When I know grids are being monitored, I may have to delete one, or two, but I'll move as many others as possible. I then send an email telling the engineers what I have done. Then they may call, or email, saying Don't do that, etc.

[G_J]

Thaks for your replies guys, it has all been noted.