Our office of 25-30 people is finally making the move to Revit. We have 2 people in a UCLA class and did a one day introductory class in the office yesterday.
The big question is now how best to make the transition? Ownership is pushing to immediately move any project that's not in CD's over to Revit - full immersion. I'm not behind this approach but would love to hear educated articulations for and against it.
I'm also interested in hearing how your firm handled the transition and what the experience was. What would you do differently?
Lastly, we're a design office and each project is new for us. that is, we really don't have much in the way of repetition across projects. we have a way of doing things but that way is applied differently to each project. we tend to be thinking CD's in schematics and work details out parallel with the development of the project. i can see how Revit is a boon to more vanilla architecture but my sense is the benefit to us is limited: still huge, but limited in that we can use it for basic plans and building sections and schedules and it will make changes easier, but detailing will have to happen separate from Revit. Maybe the intro class just didn't get to how that works...
i've been reading through old Revit posts - just to clarify, i'm not interested in the transition on a personal scale. I want t know how workflow in the office was impacted, what plans/steps for switching over were implemented, and what were the results. how did the OFFICE interface with the SOFTWARE?
short-cut tips and testimony like 'you'll never switch back' are great but not needed.
as for the detail aspect: to give you a reference point from a comment i read that echoes about 50 others along the same line: 'punching holes in walls for windows and doors gets a whole lot easier.' this concept of windows and doors being openings punched in walls is a little nauseating just to think of. If your office feels the same way, i'm looking for your input.
Im not a Revit expert all but we sort of keep failing at implementing it - it seems exactly the opposite like its more a design development tool - make nice poched sections with shadows etc - but the day to day move a column line and adjust all the floor plans has been a friggn nightmare - stuff is constrained, things are linked and pinned and some stuff moves while others dont - we have become very sloppy. We just cant turn around things quickly anymore. Like contractor needs revised plans tomorrow morning? Ya right - more like next week after we figure out to even make the changes.
In revits defense we were just thrown in, and given no training. I'd say we got 80% proficient. Juust enough to make a mess.
those in our office who are using it are using it well - not like posiplat's description above. but we've been implementing it verrrrrrry slowly. so far we've got only four of the 9 of us who are drawing using it on a regular basis - and we started in 2004. but their use is pretty holistic and they've gotten pretty fast.
biggest warning is that it's a different experience CHECKING a revit set of drawings. things can look more done than they are. don't be fooled. check MORE thoroughly than before. and, yes, print it out to check it.
Revit implementation is a giant exercise in process change. Everything is done 100% differently than 2D CAD until you understand the tool, then and only then, you'll realize that the process isn't all that different.
Document/diagram the important parts of your design and cd processes. Then ask how Revit will contribute to that process. Once your well along into the implementation of Revit, you'll be able to push any new/useful workflows backwards to influence and contribute to your original design and cd processes.
In my previous office, we implemented it, but using autocad was such a crutch that we eventually just kind of gave up on it. Anytime someone reaches a point where they don’t know how to do something, but know how to do it in their previous program, they’ll want to turn back the clock. I think employees need to see the benefit of it immediately or there will of course be resistance to the change. A high level of training should be followed by immediate reinforcement on real projects, or the knowledge will be unfortunately lost in the interim.
I would recommend you consider adopting some of the revit standards as your own instead of obsessing over trying to make the projects look precisely like your old projects.
One thing you need is a Revit "champion". Somebody who enjoys figuring things out using Revit, who will experiment with the software to find more productive methods and most importantly cares about improving other persons' production.
Its not that my office doesnt like revit or is reluctant to use it - its just for the extreme speed of quickly turning drawings into say zoning diagrams in 2 hours for an attorney, the kind of thing we do alot of, its slow. We also cant seem to be efficient at it with more than 2 people. Its like 3 people can work share but it doesnt really work becaue everyone needs the same worksets. Anyone else experiance this?
But for a big midrise with ample time for due dates and modualised changes to unit A or C for example its worked awesome.
If you don't train everyone, then you are wasting your time. The primary problem I have seen in implementation is that firms think that a draftsman with little field or design experience can create the model accurately. You need people who know how to build a building deeply involved in the modeling, if they don't do the modeling, they need to be checking the model to make sure it is constructed in a realistic way.
In the end, it is just a tool and what you get out of it will depend on what you put into it. I have enough experience under my belt that I am much faster and more accurate with Revit than I ever was in AutoCAD.
I do consultation with firms on this topic, but if you are in LA it is a little out of town for me. If you have any specific "what can it do" and "how do I..." questions feel free to email me.
Oh, and yes the introductory courses BARELY scratch the surface of what the software can do. In fact, if you do custom details on every project, Revit will serve you better than if you had a huge library of standard details that you use on every project. At least you won't need to recreate them in Revit, and it is possible that you might be able to realize all of the efficiencies that come from using details tied to the model and all of the project pieces in a single file.
j
After working with two individuals that started the revit revolution at our mid-sized firm, Revit by definition, is easy program to learn, but extremely difficult to master and implement in the cd phase of a project [especially if the file system is divided into several "linked" files].
Coordination is smoother than Autocad, yet requires a great amount of training and intelligence to prevent "unseen" screw-ups, i.e., delete all instances, or your fellow employees undoing your column grids. Just from personal experience, a small, "test" revit project for a firm is more appropriate, while a larger project requires a coordination effort lead by experienced revit users and bim leaders. Simply jumping headfirst into revit is just inviting more problems than you can correct. Unlike, revit does not take lightly on mistakes.
In addition, those seasoned in AutoCAD who have first used revit will, by all means, think like its AutoCAD. In other words, i.e., instead of creating a family of objects, they will try to input in-place families to no end. Great, now you've increased the file and loading speed of the file exponentially. -________-
Brer mentioned Augi forums, great source really for seasoned revit users. Revit city is also a decent source, though, its not as in-depth as Augi.
we are an office between 75-95 over the last four years. we made a full-on conversion in 2005 (3 years ago) and we haven't looked back. we only have 2 current projects in CA or closeout in CAD and we only have 4 CAD licenses.
the office spent money training everyone from the project architect down for basic training. all job captains and interns went to advanced training after about a year. . . some sooner if they started a new project (all new projects started in Revit). project managers and principals went to a basic class to understand what the capabilities are and what they can and cannot expect. every project gets a revit master or advanced user.
we use it for all kinds of things. of course we use it as a documentation tool from SD through CD but we also use it for presentation. since everything is modeled, interior and exterior renderings are easy. we've found that they're just as nice and accurate as any MAX rendering but they're also days faster (since you don't have to fuss with the MAX model of the Revit model).
all of our detailing is done in Revit. we have noticed an increased efficiency in the CD phase. we regularly have teams with 5-12 people who can coordinate work sets. it does take a person who is familiar with documents sets and advanced understanding of worksets to set the project up initially. after that, it's just hte same communication a team would normally have.
all in all, i say that the conversion to Revit was a smart move. it has benefited all phases of a project and allowed us more tools to produce unique designs.
I work in the same 75 person firm with Devil D. The "all in" process we did to execute the switch was really the best approach in my opinion. We took some huge risks up front on very large projects (mixed use 1 million sq ft).
Your concerns about it being a tool for ho hum crap are extremely valid. Its very basis is predicated on the notion of efficient and coordinated production, which by itself can lead to design disaster (sort of like garbage in = garbage out). I guess that my point here is that in Revit, to me, bad design still looks like bad design - its not really any inherent problem with the tool.
You should know:
1. Bad modeling will create chaos and crap for drawings. But the idea of good vs. bad modeling in Revit is extremely subjective and you only learn by doing it.
*hint - only model things that you need to see at 1/4" scale and dont get crazy. Use the really good drafting tools and smart components to embellish your 1/4" details to 3" details. Use the power of Revit to get yourself to 1/4" quickly, develop the sheets from the model, and get really creative with your extra "time."
2. Often times I create a preliminary model for something that has to move fast and get out the door. It would be unacceptable to develop families for a week if you only have a week for broader elevations and plans. After the set goes out then the project is modeled into SD or DD starting from scratch, not some half-ass-panic-get-it-done-hurry...
3. You will suffer and there will be problems along the way, this is really true for complex projects. For example, I would tend to hurt during soul crushing VE when I had to deconstruct the model. You'll get curve balls that you wont see coming...
4. This is a follow up to 3 - after you mess with the model it can screw up your drawings, BIG TIME.
5. Don't be afraid of using in place families, but give yourself a budget because they are overhead in the file. Use them because you can do real design using them.
6. Be smart about how and who you staff. Set up projects with a Guru and give people distinguishable pieces of scope (ie skin, interior, structure, mep), this creates a much more consistent model.
7. BAD IDEA to do detailing separate from Revit, will you draw them in CAD? I have two problems with this.... 1. You waste time with all of the links, and you coordinate the files rather than the design drawings 2. Its counter productive to the notion of BIM, and you get details that look right on paper (CAD) but dont really work in 3d (REVIT). Don't listen to your Adesk rep and do a pilot project this way, they always try to entice people with this. TAKE THE PLUNGE!
8. Fix the crappy shortcuts that come with Revit to your standard. It made me happy that you can make them intuitive and "CAD like."
PosiPlaty - you should never check out whole worksets unless you need to lock them. Everyone should be borrowing and saving to central if you run into each other in the model.
BIM was the first software I learned before I even started arch. school. I would play and experiment with ArchiCAD on my own, but it wasn't until i took some classes on it I realized just what the software can do. Moral of the story is, do as Devil Dog suggests and invest heavily in training for all of your employees. The amount of time and money you will save will more than pay for the time and money spent to train your office.
Sep 4, 08 10:19 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
need input - converting office to Revit
Our office of 25-30 people is finally making the move to Revit. We have 2 people in a UCLA class and did a one day introductory class in the office yesterday.
The big question is now how best to make the transition? Ownership is pushing to immediately move any project that's not in CD's over to Revit - full immersion. I'm not behind this approach but would love to hear educated articulations for and against it.
I'm also interested in hearing how your firm handled the transition and what the experience was. What would you do differently?
Lastly, we're a design office and each project is new for us. that is, we really don't have much in the way of repetition across projects. we have a way of doing things but that way is applied differently to each project. we tend to be thinking CD's in schematics and work details out parallel with the development of the project. i can see how Revit is a boon to more vanilla architecture but my sense is the benefit to us is limited: still huge, but limited in that we can use it for basic plans and building sections and schedules and it will make changes easier, but detailing will have to happen separate from Revit. Maybe the intro class just didn't get to how that works...
thanks in advance for your input.
i've been reading through old Revit posts - just to clarify, i'm not interested in the transition on a personal scale. I want t know how workflow in the office was impacted, what plans/steps for switching over were implemented, and what were the results. how did the OFFICE interface with the SOFTWARE?
short-cut tips and testimony like 'you'll never switch back' are great but not needed.
as for the detail aspect: to give you a reference point from a comment i read that echoes about 50 others along the same line: 'punching holes in walls for windows and doors gets a whole lot easier.' this concept of windows and doors being openings punched in walls is a little nauseating just to think of. If your office feels the same way, i'm looking for your input.
thanks again.
Im not a Revit expert all but we sort of keep failing at implementing it - it seems exactly the opposite like its more a design development tool - make nice poched sections with shadows etc - but the day to day move a column line and adjust all the floor plans has been a friggn nightmare - stuff is constrained, things are linked and pinned and some stuff moves while others dont - we have become very sloppy. We just cant turn around things quickly anymore. Like contractor needs revised plans tomorrow morning? Ya right - more like next week after we figure out to even make the changes.
In revits defense we were just thrown in, and given no training. I'd say we got 80% proficient. Juust enough to make a mess.
those in our office who are using it are using it well - not like posiplat's description above. but we've been implementing it verrrrrrry slowly. so far we've got only four of the 9 of us who are drawing using it on a regular basis - and we started in 2004. but their use is pretty holistic and they've gotten pretty fast.
biggest warning is that it's a different experience CHECKING a revit set of drawings. things can look more done than they are. don't be fooled. check MORE thoroughly than before. and, yes, print it out to check it.
Revit implementation is a giant exercise in process change. Everything is done 100% differently than 2D CAD until you understand the tool, then and only then, you'll realize that the process isn't all that different.
Document/diagram the important parts of your design and cd processes. Then ask how Revit will contribute to that process. Once your well along into the implementation of Revit, you'll be able to push any new/useful workflows backwards to influence and contribute to your original design and cd processes.
rinse & repeat.
In my previous office, we implemented it, but using autocad was such a crutch that we eventually just kind of gave up on it. Anytime someone reaches a point where they don’t know how to do something, but know how to do it in their previous program, they’ll want to turn back the clock. I think employees need to see the benefit of it immediately or there will of course be resistance to the change. A high level of training should be followed by immediate reinforcement on real projects, or the knowledge will be unfortunately lost in the interim.
I would recommend you consider adopting some of the revit standards as your own instead of obsessing over trying to make the projects look precisely like your old projects.
One thing you need is a Revit "champion". Somebody who enjoys figuring things out using Revit, who will experiment with the software to find more productive methods and most importantly cares about improving other persons' production.
The AUGI forums is a good resource for this type of information: http://forums.augi.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=12&page=1&pp=20&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1
Its not that my office doesnt like revit or is reluctant to use it - its just for the extreme speed of quickly turning drawings into say zoning diagrams in 2 hours for an attorney, the kind of thing we do alot of, its slow. We also cant seem to be efficient at it with more than 2 people. Its like 3 people can work share but it doesnt really work becaue everyone needs the same worksets. Anyone else experiance this?
But for a big midrise with ample time for due dates and modualised changes to unit A or C for example its worked awesome.
If you don't train everyone, then you are wasting your time. The primary problem I have seen in implementation is that firms think that a draftsman with little field or design experience can create the model accurately. You need people who know how to build a building deeply involved in the modeling, if they don't do the modeling, they need to be checking the model to make sure it is constructed in a realistic way.
In the end, it is just a tool and what you get out of it will depend on what you put into it. I have enough experience under my belt that I am much faster and more accurate with Revit than I ever was in AutoCAD.
I do consultation with firms on this topic, but if you are in LA it is a little out of town for me. If you have any specific "what can it do" and "how do I..." questions feel free to email me.
Oh, and yes the introductory courses BARELY scratch the surface of what the software can do. In fact, if you do custom details on every project, Revit will serve you better than if you had a huge library of standard details that you use on every project. At least you won't need to recreate them in Revit, and it is possible that you might be able to realize all of the efficiencies that come from using details tied to the model and all of the project pieces in a single file.
j
After working with two individuals that started the revit revolution at our mid-sized firm, Revit by definition, is easy program to learn, but extremely difficult to master and implement in the cd phase of a project [especially if the file system is divided into several "linked" files].
Coordination is smoother than Autocad, yet requires a great amount of training and intelligence to prevent "unseen" screw-ups, i.e., delete all instances, or your fellow employees undoing your column grids. Just from personal experience, a small, "test" revit project for a firm is more appropriate, while a larger project requires a coordination effort lead by experienced revit users and bim leaders. Simply jumping headfirst into revit is just inviting more problems than you can correct. Unlike, revit does not take lightly on mistakes.
In addition, those seasoned in AutoCAD who have first used revit will, by all means, think like its AutoCAD. In other words, i.e., instead of creating a family of objects, they will try to input in-place families to no end. Great, now you've increased the file and loading speed of the file exponentially. -________-
Brer mentioned Augi forums, great source really for seasoned revit users. Revit city is also a decent source, though, its not as in-depth as Augi.
we are an office between 75-95 over the last four years. we made a full-on conversion in 2005 (3 years ago) and we haven't looked back. we only have 2 current projects in CA or closeout in CAD and we only have 4 CAD licenses.
the office spent money training everyone from the project architect down for basic training. all job captains and interns went to advanced training after about a year. . . some sooner if they started a new project (all new projects started in Revit). project managers and principals went to a basic class to understand what the capabilities are and what they can and cannot expect. every project gets a revit master or advanced user.
we use it for all kinds of things. of course we use it as a documentation tool from SD through CD but we also use it for presentation. since everything is modeled, interior and exterior renderings are easy. we've found that they're just as nice and accurate as any MAX rendering but they're also days faster (since you don't have to fuss with the MAX model of the Revit model).
all of our detailing is done in Revit. we have noticed an increased efficiency in the CD phase. we regularly have teams with 5-12 people who can coordinate work sets. it does take a person who is familiar with documents sets and advanced understanding of worksets to set the project up initially. after that, it's just hte same communication a team would normally have.
all in all, i say that the conversion to Revit was a smart move. it has benefited all phases of a project and allowed us more tools to produce unique designs.
I work in the same 75 person firm with Devil D. The "all in" process we did to execute the switch was really the best approach in my opinion. We took some huge risks up front on very large projects (mixed use 1 million sq ft).
Your concerns about it being a tool for ho hum crap are extremely valid. Its very basis is predicated on the notion of efficient and coordinated production, which by itself can lead to design disaster (sort of like garbage in = garbage out). I guess that my point here is that in Revit, to me, bad design still looks like bad design - its not really any inherent problem with the tool.
You should know:
1. Bad modeling will create chaos and crap for drawings. But the idea of good vs. bad modeling in Revit is extremely subjective and you only learn by doing it.
*hint - only model things that you need to see at 1/4" scale and dont get crazy. Use the really good drafting tools and smart components to embellish your 1/4" details to 3" details. Use the power of Revit to get yourself to 1/4" quickly, develop the sheets from the model, and get really creative with your extra "time."
2. Often times I create a preliminary model for something that has to move fast and get out the door. It would be unacceptable to develop families for a week if you only have a week for broader elevations and plans. After the set goes out then the project is modeled into SD or DD starting from scratch, not some half-ass-panic-get-it-done-hurry...
3. You will suffer and there will be problems along the way, this is really true for complex projects. For example, I would tend to hurt during soul crushing VE when I had to deconstruct the model. You'll get curve balls that you wont see coming...
4. This is a follow up to 3 - after you mess with the model it can screw up your drawings, BIG TIME.
5. Don't be afraid of using in place families, but give yourself a budget because they are overhead in the file. Use them because you can do real design using them.
6. Be smart about how and who you staff. Set up projects with a Guru and give people distinguishable pieces of scope (ie skin, interior, structure, mep), this creates a much more consistent model.
7. BAD IDEA to do detailing separate from Revit, will you draw them in CAD? I have two problems with this.... 1. You waste time with all of the links, and you coordinate the files rather than the design drawings 2. Its counter productive to the notion of BIM, and you get details that look right on paper (CAD) but dont really work in 3d (REVIT). Don't listen to your Adesk rep and do a pilot project this way, they always try to entice people with this. TAKE THE PLUNGE!
8. Fix the crappy shortcuts that come with Revit to your standard. It made me happy that you can make them intuitive and "CAD like."
PosiPlaty - you should never check out whole worksets unless you need to lock them. Everyone should be borrowing and saving to central if you run into each other in the model.
*whew*
iZNOF, good to see you here.
if i were considering Revit and were reading this thread, i'd listen to iZNOF. would you like to discuss the horse power needed to run BIM and Revit?
BIM was the first software I learned before I even started arch. school. I would play and experiment with ArchiCAD on my own, but it wasn't until i took some classes on it I realized just what the software can do. Moral of the story is, do as Devil Dog suggests and invest heavily in training for all of your employees. The amount of time and money you will save will more than pay for the time and money spent to train your office.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.