Technology in Architectural Practice

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Custom Residential Architects Network and Technology in Architectural Practice .
-------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------
Raymond Strang AIA
Raymond Strang & Associates, AIA
Stevensville MD
-------------------------------------------

I know this might sound tongue-in-cheek, but I ask it in all seriousness- where are the continuing ed seminars by firms that have lost their tails on small projects with BIM? Since when is it the AIA's place to sell BIM for the software companies? After all, BIM was developed by those companies as a product to be sold at a profit, not by a grassroots architectural movement trying to fill a pressing need with expensive software.

A bit of context: we are a profitable firm specializing in big, expensive houses and small commercial projects where the Client wants to make an impression. We work on Apple computers, and are generally on the technological "bleeding edge"; usually we are early adopters. We stay current with Archicad, against the day we decide to take a commercial project where BIM is a requirement. But we do not use it. Instead, we use various individual software tools as appropriate, and a lot of sketch pads. Everything comes out in 3D, and all working drawings are produced in CAD. We try a project either in Vectorworks or Archicad about once a year. Those projects are always less profitable. In other words, it is more profitable to keep an array of tools handy and use them as needed than it is to try to get one tool to fit all needs- shoehorning a project into a piece of software is not a good method; a lot of extra data is not profitable.

Of course I realize that there are situations where BIM is called for, and the right tool for the job. And I realize that there are very good architects who have built their entire work flow around BIM software with good results. But it is not true that BIM is inherently a better approach to small or medium sized projects. And the AIA has no business acting as the sales force for the companies that sell it. So I ask again, in all seriousness- where are the seminars by firms that tell why BIM is NOT the right tool? And what can we learn from their experiences?

Thanks,
Ray Strang

Raymond-
I agree that BIM is not the universal answer to the needs of all firms. TAP does not promote this notion. We support the idea that every firm should choose the tools that best suit its particular goals- the goals should come first and any technologies a firm uses should support those goals. We do see many examples of opportunities to make better use of BIM and other technologies and we provide case studies of firms that use various BIM platforms successfully as well as information about the larger context of BIM use in the construction industry. We do this in our monthly webinars such as the upcoming "BIM for Small Projects II" on March 9. We are also presenting a day-long workshop at the national AIA convention this spring called "Connect with Technology" to help individual architects make technology choises that support their goals. The technology is not the point- architecture is. If BIM helps- fine. If not, there's no reason to use it.
-------------------------------------------
David Ross Scheer AIA
2012 Chair
AIA Technology in Architectural Practice
-------------------------------------------

I think this is an important topic, although I would phrase it more in terms of "misconceptions" about BIM, rather than "downsides".  You might be interested in a paper I wrote about the informatin content in BIM and its implications to where BIM will be most successful.
 http://www.perkinswill.com/research/the-information-content-of-bim.html
-------------------------------------------
Mario Guttman AIA
Perkins + Will
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-28-2012 13:04
From: David Scheer
Subject: BIM- What is the downside?

Raymond-
I agree that BIM is not the universal answer to the needs of all firms. TAP does not promote this notion. We support the idea that every firm should choose the tools that best suit its particular goals- the goals should come first and any technologies a firm uses should support those goals. We do see many examples of opportunities to make better use of BIM and other technologies and we provide case studies of firms that use various BIM platforms successfully as well as information about the larger context of BIM use in the construction industry. We do this in our monthly webinars such as the upcoming "BIM for Small Projects II" on March 9. We are also presenting a day-long workshop at the national AIA convention this spring called "Connect with Technology" to help individual architects make technology choises that support their goals. The technology is not the point- architecture is. If BIM helps- fine. If not, there's no reason to use it.
-------------------------------------------
David Ross Scheer AIA
2012 Chair
AIA Technology in Architectural Practice
-------------------------------------------

In our case it is Autodesk that tells us BIM is not for us.  We have the discussion each year when we renew the service agreement and subscriptions.  By far the bulk of our work in remodeling projects in old buildings.  Nothing in the building is standard so we would spent hours and hours creating the data to have the existing base ready to work on.  The clients are not interested in paying for someone to create a BIM model for the buildings.
What you need is a rep that sees you not as a sale today but a long term partner.  They get plenty of money with the subscriptions already.
-------------------------------------------
Robert Carlson AIA
Principal
Carlson Design Team PC
Iowa City IA
-------------------------------------------

"In our case it is Autodesk that tells us BIM is not for us."  from Robert Carlson's post.

If I am reading your post correctly it isn't Autodesk that is telling you that you don't need BIM - it is your sales rep.  I don't think that Autodesk looks at the end user that closely.  If they did they would have Revit families that are more readily useable right out of the box.  Instead, it is essentially the end users that need to develop the program's features prior to use.  We not only get the car without the wheels, we have to redesign the drivetrain before we can even think about the wheels.

I have no doubt that Revit can be powerful.  I have been Revit trained and I use it myself.  The issue is that there is a vast variety of practicians.  Not everyone can devote that kinds of resources necessary to even get functionally literate with its useage.  That is a problem for too many of us that Autodesk hasn't acknowledged.  I believe that Autodesk's business model won't succeed if they tried to address it.

-------------------------------------------
Ken Brogno AIA
Architect AIA LEED AP
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-29-2012 09:26
From: Robert Carlson
Subject: BIM- What is the downside?


In our case it is Autodesk that tells us BIM is not for us.  We have the discussion each year when we renew the service agreement and subscriptions.  By far the bulk of our work in remodeling projects in old buildings.  Nothing in the building is standard so we would spent hours and hours creating the data to have the existing base ready to work on.  The clients are not interested in paying for someone to create a BIM model for the buildings.
What you need is a rep that sees you not as a sale today but a long term partner.  They get plenty of money with the subscriptions already.
-------------------------------------------
Robert Carlson AIA
Principal
Carlson Design Team PC
Iowa City IA
-------------------------------------------

So, what software do you use to spend hours and hours of time re-creating? Or do you use manual drafting? Or, do you not show existing conditions at all?
-------------------------------------------
Charles Graham AIA
Architect
O'Neal, Inc.
Greenville SC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-29-2012 09:26
From: Robert Carlson
Subject: BIM- What is the downside?


In our case it is Autodesk that tells us BIM is not for us.  We have the discussion each year when we renew the service agreement and subscriptions.  By far the bulk of our work in remodeling projects in old buildings.  Nothing in the building is standard so we would spent hours and hours creating the data to have the existing base ready to work on.  The clients are not interested in paying for someone to create a BIM model for the buildings.
What you need is a rep that sees you not as a sale today but a long term partner.  They get plenty of money with the subscriptions already.
-------------------------------------------
Robert Carlson AIA
Principal
Carlson Design Team PC
Iowa City IA
-------------------------------------------

We use current version of AutoCAD for Architecture.  There are rough cad files created by the Owner using a digitizer.  We update those drawings based on actual dimensions creating walls the correct thickness.  So we only draw the base once.  This method is quick and creates accurate drawings for bidding and construction.
Also we keep our own set of building bases so once we have an area corrected we can use it over on the next project.  We often work our way through buildings a few rooms at a time.


-------------------------------------------
Robert Carlson AIA
Principal
Carlson Design Team PC
Iowa City IA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-01-2012 20:12
From: Charles Graham
Subject: BIM- What is the downside?


So, what software do you use to spend hours and hours of time re-creating? Or do you use manual drafting? Or, do you not show existing conditions at all?
-------------------------------------------
Charles Graham AIA
Architect
O'Neal, Inc.
Greenville SC
-------------------------------------------

Ray,
Not sure what your complaint is, or how you could be failing with BIM.

I appreciate the AIA bringing forward folks who are using the BIM processes in various size projects, for us all to learn from their experiences, and hopefully advance our own from there.

If I were to pick at part 1 of their pres it would only be that they allowed numerous Archicad references, just as you have made.  Making the change from flat cad to BIM tools should easily be saving you time in numerous areas: design, coordination, production, and administration.  so much so, that you should be looking at what additional value added services you could be providing to your owners with that savings.  do you develop BIM plans with your owners for each project?  What other BIM tools do you use other than Archicad?

-------------------------------------------
Michael Gilbert, AIA-NCARB, LEED AP BD+C
Nashville, TN
-------------------------------------------

I think one of the most common "misconceptions" (to borrow Mario's choice of words) is the fact that BIM is easy and that technology right out of the box will enable you to do everything you see during presentations, and unfortunately this is not true. It takes a lot of work, failing and learning from your failure, which is ultimately a good thing.

As Randy Deutsch mentions in the very early part of his book BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice, people are the number one problem with BIM Implementations in the workplace: not technology or business value propositions, or even ROI. I agree with this and have found in my past experiences that culture, planning and leadership are critical to the success of an implementation. You need to set a path for BIM, define goals, and set expectations that are realistic and in alignment with your firm's business goals (which will be dramatically different from one organization to another). BIM is a multifaceted process evolution and the available technologies will allow you to take advantage of as much or as little as you want to.

A BIM Implementation takes time, it is not something that can be judged a success or failure after one project. One should look to take both the good and the bad from that experience and learn from it. Then continue to learn as you develop and become more fluent with the tools and the evolving processes. This is how firms become successful, and they don't stop evolving...

I would also comment that the AIA TAP has done a good job of not selling technology rather they have focused on sharing experiences and promoting the value these applications bring to our profession and design processes. We should applaud our colleagues for being so open to share their experiences for our mutual benefit as we all strive to deliver higher quality architecture.

One another note - Mario...can re-post the link to your research journal. I'm very interested in reading it, but unfortunately the link to download the paper on the Perkins+Will webpage only returns a " Internal Server Error".

Thanks for the great conversation.

-------------------------------------------
Brian Skripac Assoc. AIA
Director of BIM
DesignGroup
Columbus OH
-------------------------------------------

I echo Brian's post, with the exception of the iPad, (that amazing device is so intuitive!) all new technology will take a major investment in time, training and effort to become proficient. We switched cold turkey to Revit about 7 years ago now and have never looked back.  80% of our work is renovation projects. 

We model only what we need using CAD backgrounds were possible for context outside of our project areas and have been successful (i.e. we make a profit) all while taking advantage of the many efficiencies of BIM.  The key in my opinion is to understand what you need to model and what you don't.  We ask ourselves will modeling this item (pick any item) save us time later?  If the answer is YES , we model it.  If the answer is NO, we use Revit's drafting tools to represent it in a particular view as we all have done in CAD or on the boards for years.  If the item in question is going to visible in more than one view, then the answer is most always YES and we model it.  If you are in doubt, Model it, you'll be surprised at the efficiencies later, if you model items intelligently.

Every day we find new ways to become more efficient with Revit, and leverage the power of BIM, but we are committed to making it work and do not offer staff the opportunity to produce in CAD.  We host weekly training sessions with ALL staff teaching others, not one teaching all.  We document and share our best practices and our failures so all in our firm can learn from our challenges.  We are even pushing all of our PME & Structural Consulting Engineers to be 100% Revit by end of this year to realize even more efficiencies.

Are there times when I bang my head against my desk because of Revit?  Yes!  But this isn't new, it happened when I drew on my Mayline, with AutoCAD, Arch. Desktop and yes now even Revit.  Somethings never change.

-------------------------------------------
David Daniel AIA LEED AP BD+C
Principal
RND Architects, PA
Durham NC

-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 02-29-2012 21:09
From: Brian Skripac
Subject: BIM- What is the downside?

I think one of the most common "misconceptions" (to borrow Mario's choice of words) is the fact that BIM is easy and that technology right out of the box will enable you to do everything you see during presentations, and unfortunately this is not true. It takes a lot of work, failing and learning from your failure, which is ultimately a good thing.

As Randy Deutsch mentions in the very early part of his book BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice, people are the number one problem with BIM Implementations in the workplace: not technology or business value propositions, or even ROI. I agree with this and have found in my past experiences that culture, planning and leadership are critical to the success of an implementation. You need to set a path for BIM, define goals, and set expectations that are realistic and in alignment with your firm's business goals (which will be dramatically different from one organization to another). BIM is a multifaceted process evolution and the available technologies will allow you to take advantage of as much or as little as you want to.

A BIM Implementation takes time, it is not something that can be judged a success or failure after one project. One should look to take both the good and the bad from that experience and learn from it. Then continue to learn as you develop and become more fluent with the tools and the evolving processes. This is how firms become successful, and they don't stop evolving...

I would also comment that the AIA TAP has done a good job of not selling technology rather they have focused on sharing experiences and promoting the value these applications bring to our profession and design processes. We should applaud our colleagues for being so open to share their experiences for our mutual benefit as we all strive to deliver higher quality architecture.

One another note - Mario...can re-post the link to your research journal. I'm very interested in reading it, but unfortunately the link to download the paper on the Perkins+Will webpage only returns a " Internal Server Error".

Thanks for the great conversation.

-------------------------------------------
Brian Skripac Assoc. AIA
Director of BIM
DesignGroup
Columbus OH
-------------------------------------------

Ray, I couldn't agree with you more. In my experience, BIM has some very concrete benefits, but at a substantial cost. I can definitely agree with others here that it is not of benefit to the industry as a whole, but rather to a select clientele that have both a need and level of sophostication for the data capacity that BIM offers. Unless your clients specifically ask for BIM and can integrate it into your contract, its benefit to your workflow is marginal if not negative. The one item I would like to see covered more often in TAP are the lessons learned and pitfalls of BIM implementation. It is easy enough to say that if you pave the way for BIM with culture and leadership that you will successfully evolve. I completely disagree with this mindset as it is foolhardy at best and disasterous at worse. As with all projects one must begin with the end in mind. If the end includes minute detailed information at all levels, then a sophisticated platform like BIM might be appropriate. However this is unlikely in our industry as architecture is rarely produced in an assembly line or through a manufacturing process where such detailed data is required. When such detailed information is required, we develope a Specification. But please let me differentiate BIM from 3D modeling as the two tend to be mashed together in conversation, but are truly unique in their own right. Both will substantially cut down costs in drawing coordination, visualization and errors, however BIM goes way beyond the 3D modeling needed for architectural drawings. Few will remember that AutoCad is actually a 3D modeler and has been since its inception. However implementation of its 3D capabilities has been limited in most part by our industry, which understands that the end product to our clients and jurisdictional authorities are hardcopies of 2D drawings. The notion of "why bother to model something in 3D when you can draw a 2D representation in a fraction of the time with the same end result?" is one that adheres to the engineering principle of K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). Yet it is only when an immediate additional tangible benefit to this more sophisticated workflow presents itself that we are inclined to adopt the more complicated process. This is were software like SketchUp, LightUp and ShaderLight become so much more appealing as their learning curve and costs are minimal in comparison to their substantial benefit. Again we are still keeping the end in mind, 2D representation of a 3D construct. But then there are those sophisticated clients, you know the ones with Facility Managers and databases of all their equipment and buildings and standards for each (Boeing, LockheedMartin, just about all GSA contract work) . This is were BIM is demanded, contracted for and appropriate. Still there are numberous pitfalls to BIM implementation even in this environment. Skilled BIM management and coordinators is a MUST, this along with strict adherence to the BIM and CAD standards for the project on top of the typical design process for your design is what one must pave the way for. You are essentially picking up the IT equivelent of the draftsmen of long ago. These folks make sure that all of the parts and pieces are working together as they should be. The end product is the BIM model and all associated data in the physical building built from the model. The 2D drawings were by a byproduct of the BIM process. But one of the biggest downsides of BIM implementation is the lack of the physical properties of materials found in the real world. You see unlike manufacturers, architects cannot rely on standardized manufacturing processes to put their buildings together. They must rely on human labor working on a specific construction site with all sorts of unknown field conditions and weather patterns. The contractors biggest complaint about BIM buildings is the extremely tight tolerances called for in the drawings. They won a major lawsuit recently because of this issue. The architects and engineers had executed a nearly flawless design in BIM, however when it went into construction, it was deemed unbuildable because of the lack of tolerances for builders to put the assemblies together let alone fit themselves into the construct to install them. This was a major cost to that owner and one which has gotten E&O insurance carriers rewriting their coverages. Is this evolution of architecture by BIM better than the 2D CAD or the paper and pencil variety? In some perspectives it is, but in reality it is far more complicated than is deemed appropriate for most construction. Just a final note, Virtual Reality is never a close substitute to our physical reality, it is just a mere visualization of a world without limitations, weather or gravity. We must remember that when we abandon our paper and pencils for our computers. ------------------------------------------- Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI Alpha Analysis, Inc. Arcadia CA -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 02-29-2012 21:09 From: Brian Skripac Subject: BIM- What is the downside? I think one of the most common "misconceptions" (to borrow Mario's choice of words) is the fact that BIM is easy and that technology right out of the box will enable you to do everything you see during presentations, and unfortunately this is not true. It takes a lot of work, failing and learning from your failure, which is ultimately a good thing. As Randy Deutsch mentions in the very early part of his book BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice, people are the number one problem with BIM Implementations in the workplace: not technology or business value propositions, or even ROI. I agree with this and have found in my past experiences that culture, planning and leadership are critical to the success of an implementation. You need to set a path for BIM, define goals, and set expectations that are realistic and in alignment with your firm's business goals (which will be dramatically different from one organization to another). BIM is a multifaceted process evolution and the available technologies will allow you to take advantage of as much or as little as you want to. A BIM Implementation takes time, it is not something that can be judged a success or failure after one project. One should look to take both the good and the bad from that experience and learn from it. Then continue to learn as you develop and become more fluent with the tools and the evolving processes. This is how firms become successful, and they don't stop evolving... I would also comment that the AIA TAP has done a good job of not selling technology rather they have focused on sharing experiences and promoting the value these applications bring to our profession and design processes. We should applaud our colleagues for being so open to share their experiences for our mutual benefit as we all strive to deliver higher quality architecture. One another note - Mario...can re-post the link to your research journal. I'm very interested in reading it, but unfortunately the link to download the paper on the Perkins+Will webpage only returns a " Internal Server Error". Thanks for the great conversation. ------------------------------------------- Brian Skripac Assoc. AIA Director of BIM DesignGroup Columbus OH -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 02-28-2012 08:21 From: Raymond Strang Subject: BIM- What is the downside? This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Custom Residential Architects Network and Technology in Architectural Practice . ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Raymond Strang AIA Raymond Strang & Associates, AIA Stevensville MD ------------------------------------------- I know this might sound tongue-in-cheek, but I ask it in all seriousness- where are the continuing ed seminars by firms that have lost their tails on small projects with BIM? Since when is it the AIA's place to sell BIM for the software companies? After all, BIM was developed by those companies as a product to be sold at a profit, not by a grassroots architectural movement trying to fill a pressing need with expensive software. A bit of context: we are a profitable firm specializing in big, expensive houses and small commercial projects where the Client wants to make an impression. We work on Apple computers, and are generally on the technological "bleeding edge"; usually we are early adopters. We stay current with Archicad, against the day we decide to take a commercial project where BIM is a requirement. But we do not use it. Instead, we use various individual software tools as appropriate, and a lot of sketch pads. Everything comes out in 3D, and all working drawings are produced in CAD. We try a project either in Vectorworks or Archicad about once a year. Those projects are always less profitable. In other words, it is more profitable to keep an array of tools handy and use them as needed than it is to try to get one tool to fit all needs- shoehorning a project into a piece of software is not a good method; a lot of extra data is not profitable. Of course I realize that there are situations where BIM is called for, and the right tool for the job. And I realize that there are very good architects who have built their entire work flow around BIM software with good results. But it is not true that BIM is inherently a better approach to small or medium sized projects. And the AIA has no business acting as the sales force for the companies that sell it. So I ask again, in all seriousness- where are the seminars by firms that tell why BIM is NOT the right tool? And what can we learn from their experiences? Thanks, Ray Strang