Just throwing this out there...

[Laura Yanoviak]

Our firm decided to move to ArchiCAD 4 years ago now, and implementation started 3 1/2 years ago. Everyone has been trained (50 or so employees -- due to layoffs over the summer, we are now down to 20 users), and 100% of our current projects are on ArchiCAD.

So, the PAs (Project Architects) of my firm were called into the conference room this morning and asked how to improve the inefficiency we've been experiencing over the past 6 months. One solution was to become a 'hybrid office' and leave it up to the PAs whether to use ArchiCAD or AutoCAD for production.

I said this would be a disaster... what do y'all think?

[Anonymous]

so any good example for a big archicad team can work perfectly?

i think good example would be encouraging.

[Dennis Lee]

Why not fall back to doing 2D ArchiCAD first? The inefficiencies may be coming from not only the new BIM methodologies of the program itself, but also as someone mentioned, in people not knowing how to adjust to the new roles in a BIM environment. Probably a lot of those non-billable hours are coming from the PA's themselves, who suddenly find their control over every single line and ability to redmark somehow not the same as it has always been for them. They probably want to fight this feeling of losing control, and go back to the way they feel comfortable in.

So, let them have their 2D drawings to redmark all day long. Just do everything in ArchiCAD.

[Erika Epstein]

Laura,
Your post has been on my mind the last few days. Again I am sorry to hear this news. The level you know and use archicad has been in inspiration to myself and I am sure many others.

I think management would be better off re-affirming their original directive to switch to archicad. With many out of work including the 30 you trained, perhaps the PA's' jobs should be tied to their knowing the office program?

On a more constructive note, have you listed what would be lost in productivity by going back to the other program for even some of the projects?

Their solution not only doesn't solve their problems but I think is going to add to them. People will compete, staff will now have to know two programs well...

Two competing cad programs in one office is not healthy.
Take care of yourself.

[Anonymous]

One solution was to become a 'hybrid office' and leave it up to the PAs whether to use ArchiCAD or AutoCAD for production.

This is not a solution... I think that this 20 makes more sense... (Just to be constructive)
And I'm sure there is lots of other good ideas for improving an architectural practice...
Good vibes for you and your practice Laura.

[NandoMogollon]

Hi Laura and the rest of you ...

I think we are all very familiar with the problem. And i want to focus your attention in this 3 points:
1. The "classical" autocad resistance groups.
2. The skeptical senior architect(s)
3. The new BIM revolution.

1. The "classical" autocad resistance groups.
We all know that this is not a problem based on software, it's a problem based on the willing of change the methodology, based on the fear of something different. The fear is based on the predictability of your effort.( with a drafting board it's going to take me 3 months, with autocad 1 month, with BIM... have no idea..= panic)

2. The skeptical senior architect(s)
By the same Fear factor, lot of the senior architects barely know how to do some things in Autocad. But Autocad, and all the drafting based softwares, are just imitating the drafting board, so there is not a big challenge. Modeling construction elements is a completely different thing.

3. The new BIM revolution.
If it is not enough , in the last 5-3 years, we have experienced the BIM revolution, a term coined by Autodesk which have been more successful than the original Virtual Building from Graphisoft. Now we have to keep the pace of the I.P.D. and figure out how to share your information trough IFC or DWG, etc... and maybe this is the light at the end of the tunnel.

After all this words, i still think that Modeling a Virtual Building is the way to go( archicad, revit, bentley, and any other). Not just a dumb model (call it sketch up, Autocad, Zprofiler, etc)

But is going to be harder than the move from the paper to the CAD.... this is from the CAD to the Model...

We all suffer the same pain....
But we will success..

Muahaha.... Muahaha haha haha haha.... haha.

Regards

Nando

[Richard Morrison]

Laura wrote:
The first thing I asked was "define inefficiencies" -- apparently, it's people spending too much time on tasks (exceeding fee) mixed with recording too much general office (non-billable) time. The answer is obvious: we need more billable work; however, in lieu of getting more work, what can be done?

It strikes me that an overabundance of non-billable time means that people are getting their project tasks done and then having nothing project-related to do, so they put their time into the "general" category. In effect, what this may be saying is that Archicad is TOO efficient. If you are billing by the hour, then efficiency is NOT a good thing -- you want the slowest possible production system that will still allow you stay within your maximum fee, if you have one.

It also occurs to me that people may be (subconsciously or not) dawdling so they don't run out of work, and suffer the fate of the other layoffs.

Maybe one strategy would be to go to a fixed price basis, so you can reward people (and the firm) for being more efficient.

[Anonymous]

Laura,

Maybe you should talk to Aaron Jobson at QKA in Santa Rosa. I helped them make the transition from all AutoCAD to all ArchiCAD and they have done a fantastic job of it. In their case this was strongly supported from the top and the PAs have no choice but to go along with it.

This really isn't such a problem though, since the PAs aren't doing any of the production anyway. Do yours actually do drafting? The one way I can see a hybrid approach working is if the PAs feel the need to draw details, sketches, etc themselves, they can do it in whatever software they like (or even scan hand drawings) and then add them to layouts as needed. Otherwise they should just butt out and let the production staff zoom along in ArchiCAD.

We also put together an extensive company standards manual including special instructions for the PAs so they know how to manage ArchiCAD projects, review and mark-up drawings, what is reasonable to expect, etc.

I can probably put you in touch if that would be helpful.

[Anonymous]

i saw some cases here worked well when they had a coach/ BIM manager/tutor, someone who can guide them transfer from other CAD to BIM.

[Laura Yanoviak]

angus wrote:
i saw some cases here worked well when they had a coach/ BIM manager/tutor, someone who can guide them transfer from other CAD to BIM.

I am that person, and have had the advantage of being a full-time BIM Manager for the first 3 years of implementation. As far as I'm concerned, the implementation has been a success -- it's those who have not made the effort to embrace the change [who happen to be those not using the software] that are the obstacle.

Dennis wrote:
Why not fall back to doing 2D ArchiCAD first? The inefficiencies may be coming from not only the new BIM methodologies of the program itself, but also as someone mentioned, in people not knowing how to adjust to the new roles in a BIM environment. Probably a lot of those non-billable hours are coming from the PA's themselves, who suddenly find their control over every single line and ability to redmark somehow not the same as it has always been for them. They probably want to fight this feeling of losing control, and go back to the way they feel comfortable in.

So, let them have their 2D drawings to redmark all day long. Just do everything in ArchiCAD.

We tried this on a recent project; however, we quickly came to the conclusion that we would be much more efficient working in 3D. I have suggested sticking to 2D if it suits the project, but the PA can't make that call if they're not familiar with the BIM process.

NandoMogollon wrote:
1. The "classical" autocad resistance groups.
We all know that this is not a problem based on software, it's a problem based on the willing of change the methodology, based on the fear of something different. The fear is based on the predictability of your effort.( with a drafting board it's going to take me 3 months, with autocad 1 month, with BIM... have no idea..= panic)

2. The skeptical senior architect(s)
By the same Fear factor, lot of the senior architects barely know how to do some things in Autocad. But Autocad, and all the drafting based softwares, are just imitating the drafting board, so there is not a big challenge. Modeling construction elements is a completely different thing.

3. The new BIM revolution.
If it is not enough , in the last 5-3 years, we have experienced the BIM revolution, a term coined by Autodesk which have been more successful than the original Virtual Building from Graphisoft. Now we have to keep the pace of the I.P.D. and figure out how to share your information trough IFC or DWG, etc... and maybe this is the light at the end of the tunnel.

This is a very good breakdown of the challenges we face.

Matthew wrote:
This really isn't such a problem though, since the PAs aren't doing any of the production anyway. Do yours actually do drafting?

Most PAs "dabble" in ACAD -- I think it gives them a sense of control; however, they're really not considered part of the production team. I think they should understand the BIM process (at least how it differs from CAD), be able to manipulate through the model, and print -- beyond that, if they want to participate in the "drafting", they need to learn the program.

Thanks to everyone for their kind words and advise -- the jury is still out, but I will keep you posted...

[Anonymous]

BIM and other matters - the 18th November 2008 issue (#581) of Ralph Grabowski's eZine includes an article by Architect Mark Chaney titled
A Few Comments to BIM Developers http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm#b

It is a quite cogent and insightful article on the realities of BIM rather than the hype. Well worth a read.