Design Process Question

[prigowasu]

Our office is evaluating our design and documentation process. We are a residential architecture firm specializing in high end homes and providing full interior design services (including FF&E). We appreciate using Archicad to document projects. However, our design staff is having difficultly using the software to efficiently design and iterate within the SD and DD phases of work. We often fall back on Sketchup for quickly designing our initial massing models on the architecture side and interior casework on the interiors side. Are we making a mistake continuing to use Sketchup for early design work? It ultimately comes down to the ease, fluidity and looseness that designing in Sketchup has over Archicad. Has anyone else ran into this conundrum? I’d appreciate hearing what some other Archicad offices are doing in terms of design process.

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

The team needs to be comfortable, as a team; not every user needs to be trained to understand everything, which will never happen. The team needs someone, ideally in-house, otherwise outsourced, who understands the process, sets up procedures, troubleshoots/provides guidance as necessary, and knows when to call other even more specialized guys when the circumstances require their input (some specific template feature, GDL, AC-Grasshopper, whatever).

Sketchup and Autocad workflows resemble the hand-drafting office setup, in which anybody can jump in at any point and immediately get productive, with a simpler, lower productivity tool. Archicad, properly used, is a higher productivity tool (there are things you just can't do on a competitive budget on time in Sketchup and Autocad, no matter how many mouse-pushers and mouse-pusher-managers you bring in), but it does require a higher level management. 

[mthd]

Those in the office might be able to quickly get up and running using the morph tools in AC instead of SU for massing. It’s better to use the native tools in AC when possible. There is free training on YT as well for using the morphs to model.

[DGSketcher]

---

@Ignacio Azpiazu wrote:

The team needs to be comfortable, as a team; not every user needs to be trained to understand everything, which will never happen. The team needs someone, ideally in-house, otherwise outsourced, who understands the process, sets up procedures, troubleshoots/provides guidance as necessary, and knows when to call other even more specialized guys when the circumstances require their input (some specific template feature, GDL, AC-Grasshopper, whatever).

I understand your perspective, but there is another one that includes micro businesses, where typically they don't have enough staff or large enough projects to go down the "Team" road and might also struggle to justify outsourced knowledge or specialists if they can be found. When you've done your time studying to become knowledgeable in architecture and local regulations etc, the last thing you want to know is that you are now going to have to learn to become a CAD specialist to communicate your design. And if that learning curve is too steep you find the simplest solution or maybe just use a small percentage of the market leading software, if the cost is justified.

Maybe I am naive in my business view, but what you describe is very much an us & them e.g. if you aren't big enough then stop using AC. I know you didn't say that, but that is the implication.

I would love to know how many micro businesses GS have on their licence list, because if they make up the majority, their current financial strategy, complex workflows and multi-disciplinary clutter is unlikely to retain them much longer and that could be devastating for the future of AC. 

[mthd]

lol !

[Marc H]

For my part, I agree.   There are several ways to approach a project design, depending on the scope, need, and resources, etc.  I can see a few different approaches depending on several factors.  Most of my work is/was non-residential, but  I'll just share a few thoughts if helpful:

- For program driven and/or complex projects, I've set up specific AC planning and massing elements, layer combos, views, layouts, etc. to quickly model site feasibility.  Then, if it goes to a greater LOD, I can I wand in or trace in shell and core elements, etc.  I prefer to push AC as much as possible for site planning and massing, etc. Over time, it economizes the effort fairly well. If you have previous successful project elements or standard layouts, it does leverage your time.  Also, complex sites with slopes, varied setbacks, existing structures to remain, etc., these can be modeled fairly quickly so you can reliably work your concepts within the site constraints. 

- For broad, forward looking design concepts and/or finely detailed design or technical detail work, I still like freehand drawing things out first.  Most years I used an actual pen and paper.  But, with all so many benefits for working digitally, I switched over to Goodnotes on an iPad Pro a few years back.  The reason for this is I can quickly import and export PDFs from any media (including BIMx), so it's something I can sit back and draw, but still share with the team seamlessly.  Recently, I started snipping views from BIMx and bringing them into Goodnotes for all manner of overlay note-taking and such.

- I've worked with a few mid-size and large firms over the years who use SketchUp for conceptualizing.  One designer used AC as well.  In both cases, they found it easier than conceptualizing in Revit (standard in my main building type).  One thing I did like with SU building models is that I could import them and set them out on a campus site quite easily, colors and all.  Not useful for deep technical work, though.  

- Of course, some projects may be better off starting with a shell pattern generative software, then program-fit within.  With that, the AC exchanges with Rhino and Grasshopper would be useful, so seems there are opportunities there, too.

[Marc H]

".... These days there isn't a lot in it particularly when it comes to projects with multiple split levels where we juggle elements with different story display methods....."

I would think sloped sites and split-levels are a primary market for GS, but this is one area where GS really needs to 'close the gap'.  I am continually baffled why with some elements I can stipulate which stories to display them on, some elements I am only given two choices, and others where it says I can customize, but when I try, it will not let me!  I assume it's some mathematical issue with assigned stories, but it escapes me why this should be the case.  

I have worked out some layer and view setting standards which help, but it could be so much easier!

[mthd]

Everyone has their own unique methods of how they express their design talents. Some build paper models some draw freehand some use SU. SU does play very nice with 3D model sharing and many CAD apps. It’s whatever you are comfortable in using. I like to use AC for all my work and I like to find shortcuts so I have time to be educated and also amused by the comments on the forum. I like the sound of your methods to push AC to its Limits. I don’t like to waste time building models with other apps when I could be building the concept in AC.

[DGSketcher]

---

@mthd wrote:

I don’t like to waste time building models with other apps when I could be building the concept in AC.

---

I agree with you, but there is a logical assumption here that everyone commenting has access to AC and once you are in there's no way out. The background point I am making is that faced with a limited budget and a steep learning curve, potential new users may never be caught by the AC fly trap in the first place. Under the subscription model there is no invested loyalty payment up front and if you see the software doesn't suit then you get out quickly. I would certainly take the forum membership with a pinch of salt. How many of them were/are short term signups? You can be sure marketing won't be purging the numbers anytime soon.

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

---

@DGSketcher wrote:

---

@Ignacio Azpiazu wrote:

The team needs to be comfortable, as a team; not every user needs to be trained to understand everything, which will never happen. The team needs someone, ideally in-house, otherwise outsourced, who understands the process, sets up procedures, troubleshoots/provides guidance as necessary, and knows when to call other even more specialized guys when the circumstances require their input (some specific template feature, GDL, AC-Grasshopper, whatever).

I understand your perspective, but there is another one that includes micro businesses, […] what you describe is very much an us & them e.g. if you aren't big enough then stop using AC. I know you didn't say that, but that is the implication.

---

Reread original post and my reply. 

Archicad needs a higher-level management. In a solo practitioner office, that is either provided by the solo user himself (wearing still another hat say 30 minutes a day; perhaps 2 h a day at the start; which a 20-year-old has, but a real-life practitioner may not), or by some teacher or trainer or template provider. Now if there are several users, you absolutely don't need or want everybody to understand everything –you need maybe 4 hours of bim consultant time a week, maybe a bit more at the start. Over time, perhaps quickly, that research/support/management function will be mostly taken up by some enthusiastic in-house team member, who will still be wearing a different hat when doing that work. Those 4 hours make all the other team hours productive, instead of a frustrating struggle against the unknown.

Based on the original post, I am sure that is the problem in this situation. The biggest hurdle in transitioning from traditional CAD/modeling to BIM is organizational, not technical –both management and users understanding that change (the need for that specific knowledge “overhead”, and its business sense) (which they won't understand without guidance) and supporting it. 

[DGSketcher]

@Ignacio Azpiazu Sorry if I have taken your post out of context & it was aimed at the OP where your comments make more sense.

I stand by my observation though. AC has become too complicated for start up solo / smaller users and the incentive of the "By Architects for Architects' tag line has been lost. The bigger the management & training overhead the less attractive the software if productivity isn't easily realised. Most people will take the path a least resistance to achieve their goals, even if it's just using pen & paper to convey a proposal.