The New BIM Population

You might have noticed them, invading your user groups, listening intently at every event, asking different questions, and then they introduce themselves… Facilities groups. Owner representatives with increasing expectations and a pressing need to leverage technology. Sound familiar? Well it should. Facilities use of BIM is a decade behind the AEC industry and long term owners are now becoming aware of BIM and asking for it. Are you ready?

These are usually organizations in flux, expanding or under corporate mandate for a massive technology shift. They find themselves needing to assert themselves where they haven't before, without clear direction as to the ramifications of what they are asking for. 

Usually facilities groups are educated in BIM when new construction projects are in the design/documentation/construction process. Attending a BIM coordination meeting , they see the value of the model and they are hooked. What they miss is all the steps it took to get there. The mechanics of collaboration seem straightforward, just put the models together, coordinate, and build better buildings.

This situation turns the architect/engineer/contractor into a BIM educator when the stakes are high. Oversell and the expanded scope eats your margin up. Undersell and you risk seeming unsophisticated in BIM and losing future work. The right balance of education and added value for you and your clients could spell tangible success. Success that you can both wear proudly, success that shepherds your firm into the next decade of model integration.

User Created Worksets

One of the first things I look at when performing a Revit Health Check for a client is their use of user created worksets. First, is the list very long with some worksets representing information that could possibly be used for downstream use (e.g. Revit schedules, Navisworks search sets, e-SPECS bindings)? Second, are the objects correctly assigned to their respective worksets? 
 

More often than not, the list of user created worksets is very long and the components are not placed on the correct workset (Thanks to Revit 2012 which makes this process much easier). Worksets should never be used to represent data that needs to be extracted because defining an object's workset is a manual process. The beauty of Revit is that it eliminated the manual process of defining an object's type/layer. Also, the data inside of the Revit components was organized inside of database that was part of every object in Revit. Revit MEP systems are a perfect example of this, as you connect the objects of a specific type (e.g. Hydronic Supply, Return Air) it populates with that data. In essence you couldn't be wrong with Revit.

 

Worksets should instead be broad categories that more directly relate to job roles. Limit the number of worksets and your users will get it wrong less, allow them to "set it and forget it" (If I may steal a line from the infomercial giant Ronco Inc.). The worksets will be easier to manage, and you can confidently use all the great performance enhancing benefits of user created worksets.

 

Look for more content on User Created workset best practices for all disciplines on the IMAGINiT Portal and ProductivityNOW.

Being a Bad Background

In an earlier post I described how architects and MEPF engineers can learn to benefit from a multi-discipline Revit environment by respecting and anticipating the pain points and natural workflows of the other. Now I'd like to talk about structural engineers.

The reliance on linked geometry to host elements really isn't present between Revit Architecture and Revit Structure. In stead there is the issue of redundant modeled geometry and the documentation reliance on structural elements in architecture.

Many firms have worked through the first of the two issues by defining clearly what elements the structural engineer will own and which the architect will. Structure might own the slab, architects might own the floor finishes. Structure might own the roof deck (usually modeled as a floor) and the architect will own the roofing above the deck (usually modeled as a roof). It takes a thorough LOD document, but it can and has been accomplished.

The other issue here is a little more troublesome, an architect's reliance on structural elements to complete certain document deliverables. A lot of architectural firms fake in structure so that they can get documents out the door (e.g. foundation and stoop conditions, trusses, framing). Significant and detrimental time is lost when this is necessary to do but sometimes it is necessary.

Architecturally you have to communicate those shared items that are required and when they are required. Structurally you have to make modeling accommodations for the architectural documents.

I can hear the structural engineers now "easy for him to say". Well it is easy for me to say and it is easy for them to do. May I be the first person to say(although probably not really the first): structural engineers have had the least amount to change and adjust to in a Revit workflow. A little cooperation will go a long way on this one. 

I want to point out that LOD really solves both of these issues outlined above, but it doesn't have to be the AIA e202 document. Think about a collaborative requirement, think about a usable "desktop" standard, think about a logical and timesaving document that might just save your profit and really set you apart. Ok, horse officially beaten.

Being a Bad Host

I remember when I first starting using Revit Architecture, we were modeling key structural elements ourselves and using linked CAD files from MEP to complete our RCPs. I would bug my reseller at every turn to help me understand how the disciplines would work together without answer. Then an "Autodesk guy", as he was referred to in later conversation, told our Revit users group that Revit MEP wasn't ready yet and that no one should use it. They of course continued to sell it.
 

Many years later I am 3.5 years into my use of Revit MEP and have had the pleasure to see how many different firms are exploiting or suffering through a multi-discipline Revit workflow. Revit MEP and Revit Architecture's problems seems to be with the high level of dependency MEP objects have on host Architectural faces.

It is very easy for an architect to delete and recreate geometry that is, unapparent to them, the host of an MEP object. This destroy's the "warm and fuzzy" feeling Revit gives us about elements staying spatially coordinated.  In fact it can be a nightmare even if the element remains hosted. For example, sometimes a ceiling might move for some design purpose. If elements are hosted to those that have hard connections (e.g. ducts and air terminals) the architect runs the risk of destroying duct networks that don't have the space to adjust.

2 strategies need to be undertaken to make sure this works better:

First, Communicate design changes out side of Revit. This one is an age old problem between architects and MEPF consultants. You either need to setup a brute force way of communicating (email report of model changes by room upon receipt of a new model) or a software centric comparison automation (in Navisworks or the Compare Models Revit extension).

The most important change that needs to happen is both parties understanding the limitations, implications, and realities of a coordinated workflow in Revit.

Second, MEPF engineers need to respect and anticipate how the architect's model will change. MEPF engineers can host elements on reference planes where hosted and orphaned elements are sensitive to change. The model adjustment will be manual but many hosted elements can be changed at once. Or maybe no elements should be hosted at all. I ran an unconference session at this past AU called "Leveraging and Architect's Model in Revit MEP" and this was the sentiment of the group that attended. Those that had once hosted on planes no longer do so. A vast majority actually have a standard for non hosted components for everything.

Bottom line, this is a two way street. Architects need better ways to communicate changes per model update, and MEPF engineers need to host (or not host)objects in a way that protects them against damage caused by changes out of their control.

Is Navisworks It?

Right now the interest that we are seeing in Navisworks has expanded exponentially. I attribute this to a handful of reasons. The Autodesk's Suites have increased the overall reach of Navisworks by putting licenses in the hands of Revit users at a fraction of the cost compared with purchasing completely separate packages of software.  Navisworks represents an extremely important platform for a BIM. We can now rely on the strengths of Navisworks as a near universal model aggregation tool, including integration of DWF or DWG sheet files. Navisworks can truly hold all 2D and 3D intelligent information and even "connect the dots" digitally between the different file formats of the same project. There is also several tiers of Navisworks that allow for the users that need to run and track clashes to have access to a deeper version of the software, and those that need to view and markup a free tool to do only that.

Get it? The Clash

Most new users want to use the Clash Detection tools inside of Navisworks Manage to collaborate digitally prior to construction. This, above all other functions, is the most valued of Navisworks and only available in the Manage version.  The Timeliner tool is a distant second in unique functions although, considering the improvements in 2013, it has the ability to pick up many construction simulation modelers looking to more seamlessly integrate data and geometry inside one comprehensive tool.  Plus, there are more applications that can tap the data into other formats (e.g. e-SPECS for Navisworks) for many different uses of the model. 

The backbone of the solution is the bevvy  of formats that read well into Navisworks. Keep in mind: geometry fidelity and the quality, organization and consistency of data inside of the geometry can make the difference between a easy integration or a process that is much more manual. Simply put, it all depends on what you put in and what you are asking it to do. Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean it is worthwhile to do. Pick your battles. There are also security features to Navisworks files that protect intellectual property and can serve as reliable record copies.

The simple tools for complex projects  that Navisworks packs, as well as the increased saturation in the AEC market, creates a real need in the industry to know the simple strategies to get the most out of the tool. This usually comes in the form of simple tips and ideas around setting up an iterative approach and generally getting your ducks in a row for digital coordination.

The point is Navisworks has the potential to be the platform for model aggregation for BIMs of all shapes and sizes, from all different locations. It has both a free solution, it has a comprehensive solution. 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D. Seriously. I remember the first time I told people that I work in software that goes to the 5th dimension they looked at me like I was an idiot. And while it is an overly clever way to say "time and data" on top of the 3D, it is true.  I would prepare for Navisworks to become a fixture in the digital design, construction, and facilities management practices for the foreseeable future.

BIM-washing

Conversations about BIM are funny. Even firms we are there to help can come across a guarded about heir BIM process and experience. I used to think it was a distrust I was sensing, after some contemplation and a lot more experience I believe it has much more to do with trying to manage a perception of BIM experience in an industry that is supposed to be inundated with it. I can tell you that mostly the industry is not inundated. There are very progressive groups and very  intelligent/experienced people, but a vast number of firms are posing as BIM savvy or even worse "fully BIM Implemented". Actually now that I think of it I'm not sure which is worse.

I cannot tell you what damage that does to the industry as a whole. In fact it makes it almost impossible to manage expectation and turns a provable credential into a magic show of smoke and mirrors. Even those that really seek to maximize their BIM benefit are forced to exaggerate the ease of BIM and downstream benefit.
 

Unfortunately I don't have the easy button about this one, its just a problem. Around the Dallas IMAGINiT office, we use the term "BIM-washing". The "yeah, yeah, we do BIM" that so many firms respond with when pressed. These are usually the statements of leaders/executives in a firm who have in the past purposely distanced themselves from the trenches of software technology integration. This is a GC and Architect problem mainly, it is much harder for Structural, and MEPF to hide this skill gap when they enter into a contract.

This is an oldie, but it fits so well. Hilarious part is that this character's name is Tommy Flanagan (I'll be quick to point out it is a different spelling and pronunciation, hilarious though).

Those firms over promise, under deliver, and in many cases under bid when the modeling scope expands but they don't know any better. Generally they bring us all down. Now I know I'm preaching to the choir a little here, or a lot. But maybe it is time to force the hand of every firm to put their experience out there. Maybe its time to stop selling BIM to owners and start educating owners about practicality and honest benefit without expanding the scope 5-fold. I'm just riffing here but this is a major frustration of mine. When "it" hits the fan we are the guys they call. It usually goes like this: "Hey, I won some BIM work, so I need BIM. The project starts in a week, when can I get in a class? The class comes with the software right?" In a sales environment this seems like a perfect situation but it is not. They put us in the same  somewhat impossible situation that they have stumbled their way into.  It isn't a switch you flip, there are many caveats many things to understand, many things to discover for yourself. It takes time. Even if you hired us to come to your office every single day, or hired 1 or 2 experienced people full time, it just isn't that easy. Ok well now I'm just venting.

Let's stop BIM-washing together. Help me figure out how. Help yourself. Help the industry.

Long Lists: The Death of Revit Productivity

Revit project files are massive repositories for information. Views, data rich model geometry, annotation elements, schedules all existing in one location putting a stunning amount of information at your fingertips. This amount of stuff to understand introduces some productivity challenges. These challenges are not overcome without some well practiced methods and a deep understanding of where your model bottlenecks for the users. One of the most tangible metrics to measure a progressive Revit process and standards adherence is to look at the length of the different lists in the project file. This is about ease of use and standardizing your views and content.

Type Selector  - Lists seem to bloat for a couple of reasons: There are a ton of objects loaded into the model  including duplicate types and Type properties have been used to define important, schedulable object properties. Purging periodically works as long as you don't have the duplicate types placed somewhere in the file. The other thing to consider is if type properties have been used too heavily when an instance property might provide a useful flexibility. There are pros and cons to shifting your parameters around so do so where benefit is most easily gained (e.g. door schedule)

Line Styles - Even in a default template this list starts longer than I would like with few options to delete or rename the out of the box line styles. One can only hope to intelligently order the line style types so that they easily and logically sort themselves. If you begin the custom line styles with a number (e.g. 1-Solid, 2- Hidden) they are easy to sift through and order themselves at the top of the line styles list. Tip: The number doesn't have to directly correspond to the specified line weight, reserve the thinnest line weights for patterns and items in the distance.

Project Browser - There are a few areas here to pay close attention. First duplicating view types (in 2013 available for Floor Plan, Ceiling Plan, and 3D views) was always something that worked well for architectural sets. Many firms have a custom view and sheet browser organization often utilizing custom parameters sorted. My only tip here is not to overload your views with multiple view purpose parameters. Keep it simple with Discipline, and Sub-discipline, and duplicated view types to shorten up those view lists. The Project Browser can also be useful when placing families because they are all organized by their object category. For instance, when placing a component from the type selector you have a list that includes plumbing fixtures, generic models, planting, etc. all in one place. The project browser allows you to see the list expand by category you can click and drag the types into the view to place an instance.

Detail Components - These components are all the same object category so you have to be very mindful of naming conventions as you populate you model with these 2D components. These lists can be very long and without a naming convention to sort the list of components users will really struggle to work quickly and consistently with these.

What Do I Mean By Model Integration?

I wanted to take a post to explain a commonly used term that carries a lot of importance as software tools improve and interoperability increases, model integration. Model integration is the ability to take a single model and use it for design, analysis, documentation, virtual construction and finally facilities management. Each of these will be explored further in future posts but let's start by taking a look at the opportunity and challenges we face in this effort.
 

It is completely irresponsible of me to tell you that this is, top to bottom, entirely possible and incredibly easy. At the very least it takes a very pointed LOD document and a fair amount of model repurposing. In addition to that it might take a good deal more scope, so be prepared when the client asks for a model they can use in FM, it might mean a whole lot more modeling and data integration. There's that word again, integration.

Now let's take a look at what I consider to be the major hurdles to model integration:

Willingness to Share Models - This was a bigger problem 2-3 years ago, but the fact that sharing a Revit model means all of your content goes with it make people understandably nervous.

Consistent Modeling - If you don't know what fidelity of model you are getting how could you reliably use it? Many in the industry have taken the dive into the LOD document, but how do we make that more than just an addendum to a contract? How do we bring that into the modeling habits of the ever day user?

Entrenched Belief - In such a quickly changing industry is it impossible to assume the quality of the model you get today is the quality of the model you get tomorrow. Don't make rules that are hard to turn back on. Several years ago a General Contractor would scoff at the idea of using a designers model. The most progressive of that group would simply reply "I'll model it myself".  Now when we show contractors the easily leverage-able elements in a Revit model most can't believe what they are seeing. It won't replace every manual effort, but certainly some if not most.

Limitations of File Formats and Software Capabilities - This one mainly has to do with solutions being over sold on their "automatic capabilities". Software is software, I am not trying to change the software, I am looking to saddle it and take it for the most beneficial ride I can. Great strides have been made recently to make models more friendly to construction modeling repurposing and more is coming on integrating structural and building performance analysis. I get stuck in the "It's 2012! Why can't t do that yet." But that doesn't matter in the end. Keep in mind this is a stagnant technology, today's issues are tomorrow's new functionality. The sky is he limit.

I hope to explore more detail model integration process and issues for each of the 5 types of models during the course of this blog. Stay tuned.

Why Would You Model Gyp Board?

Ok, time to get a little more technical and I guess quite a bit more nit-picky. Before I begin I will just say that I have completed jobs in the industry as a production guy and as a BIM manager at first including Gyp Board modeled in walls and then acquiescing and going without. What I have found for myself seems to go against the grain of how most firms I see using Revit model walls.

I am a recovering Gyp Board modeler. Its known on the streets as "sheet rock", "Gypsum", "GB", "white wall candy".  Well I am off it and I am not looking back. Ok, now lets take a look back.

In the early days of BIM it was cool to see what you could model, the possibilities were endless, base board, casework section information, roof drains, 3/4" reveals. Then, the realities of system performance and general practicality sunk in. To model the minute means to over-embellish the overall.

Gyp board seemed acceptable, I mean what if I want to do a material takeoff of all the gyp board on my model? I had core boundaries if I wanted to dimension to the stud face so that worked, everything was great. These were the salad days.

Unfortunately, these days were short lived as the workload that needed to be undertaken to realize this dream was, well… realized. It forced me to make many more wall types and take what should be a very simple and repetitive area of the floor plan to model and turn it into something far more complex. And for what?

What about when gyp board stops above the ceiling but the wall structure keeps going? Are we really unlocking the gyp board layers and modifying that everywhere, not just the documentation views? Its no wonder firms want to up their fees, its no wonder there is significant concern over modeling scope and budgeting hours. What about when the model changes? Too much work for too little benefit.

The data is what's important: Type Marks, Partition Type Legends, Fire Rating, detailed views.  How could an estimator effectively use your model without gyp board? Easy, they probably weren't using it in the first place. Linear feet of wall, Areas and Heights of rooms, these are the limitless possibilities chosen by the people that most directly benefit from your modeling workload.

 I've been gyp board free for 3 years now and I can't tell you how good I feel.  Join me.

Owner Standards

One thing that I can say is lighting the fire of change across the industry is the owner BIM guideline. If you haven't been able to pour through one of these documents I highly suggest you do especially before bidding on one of these projects. It can drastically change your scope of work and if you are not aware of that impact you run the risk of losing you shirt on these projects. In my opinion these guidelines have the potential to make AEC firms more profitable by increasing the workload/fees, and therefore the value of a delivered model. Message: Don't fear the guideline, saddle it and take it for a spin.
 

Here are a few examples of these owner guidelines for your reading pleasure. These are in no way meant to represent the full range of owner BIM Guidelines.

Indiana University BIM Guideline

Wisconsin State BIM Guideline

Veterans Affairs BIM Guideline

GSA BIM Guideline

National Institute of Building Science Standard