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]

The writing is on the wall.
Is very, very hard to fight autodesk on USA.
Sadly, Better start learnig Revit. I sadly think I should too.

[Da3dalus]

Don't give up yet! Many IPD/Interoperability studies are showing that the the process has to remain platform-flexible for success. Duct fabricators and electricians are never going to use Revit OR ArchiCAD. The key is using IFCs and go-betweens like Navisworks.

"If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately."
-Ben Franklin (who would have likely used ArchiCAD)

Sorry to hear about the counterattack, Laura. It would be unethical for me to recommend that you provide Revit to your managers, and sabotage the effort to create a disaster, so I won't. Probably wouldn't be a good career move, but it may be fun.

[Richard Morrison]

I attended the "Meet the Graphisoft CEO" presentation at the AIA convention, and was treated to a preview of some of the upcoming features. While I can't talk about them due to signing a NDA, I don't think it would be out of line to say that they may well change the playing field.

Maybe it's possible to get permission from Graphisoft to see if your reseller, or someone who is knowledgeable about the upcoming release, might be able to discuss it in detail with your partners under a similar NDA, in the hopes of forestalling a defection that the firm would later regret. Just a thought...

[Rob]

... the process has to remain platform-flexible for success. Duct fabricators and electricians are never going to use Revit OR ArchiCAD. The key is using IFCs and go-betweens like Navisworks.

yep, that's what I have learnt and in fact it's much easier to handle importing a model from completely different platform (eg. via IFC) than sharing the very same platform. I know it sounds ridiculous and it defies virtually whole BIM idea. However it is much easier to control this in usually chaotic workflows because importing itself forces us to filter and manage (to various degree though) unnecessary information.

My point is that the BIM model should be stored in a strictly non-proprietary data format accessible by separate trades and professions from various platforms.

The single platform principle pushed by ADesk is very theoretical - I would not necessarily choose subcontractors because of the software they work with... or it would be absolutely impossible to find all subcontractors based on one platform! May be it works for super big companies doing all services in house... but hey! do we all want to be a part of some corporate structure?

[Laura Yanoviak]

Rob wrote:

... the process has to remain platform-flexible for success. Duct fabricators and electricians are never going to use Revit OR ArchiCAD. The key is using IFCs and go-betweens like Navisworks.

yep, that's what I have learnt and in fact it's much easier to handle importing a model from completely different platform (eg. via IFC) than sharing the very same platform. I know it sounds ridiculous and it defies virtually whole BIM idea. However it is much easier to control this in usually chaotic workflows because importing itself forces us to filter and manage (to various degree though) unnecessary information.

My point is that the BIM model should be stored in a strictly non-proprietary data format accessible by separate trades and professions from various platforms.

The single platform principle pushed by ADesk is very theoretical - I would not necessarily choose subcontractors because of the software they work with... or it would be absolutely impossible to find all subcontractors based on one platform! May be it works for super big companies doing all services in house... but hey! do we all want to be a part of some corporate structure?

I completely agree with all of the above. There are so many parties involved in designing, building, and maintaining a building, that it would be impossible for them to share the same platform (not to mention one platform being able to accommodate all disciplines!).

PS. I've also been privy to the new features -- I'm optimistic.

[NandoMogollon]

Rob wrote:

... the process has to remain platform-flexible for success. Duct fabricators and electricians are never going to use Revit OR ArchiCAD. The key is using IFCs and go-betweens like Navisworks.

yep, that's what I have learnt and in fact it's much easier to handle importing a model from completely different platform (eg. via IFC) than sharing the very same platform. I know it sounds ridiculous and it defies virtually whole BIM idea. However it is much easier to control this in usually chaotic workflows because importing itself forces us to filter and manage (to various degree though) unnecessary information.

My point is that the BIM model should be stored in a strictly non-proprietary data format accessible by separate trades and professions from various platforms.

The single platform principle pushed by ADesk is very theoretical - I would not necessarily choose subcontractors because of the software they work with... or it would be absolutely impossible to find all subcontractors based on one platform! May be it works for super big companies doing all services in house... but hey! do we all want to be a part of some corporate structure?

I could not agree more!
I think the way to go is the more flexible and reliable. Like the DWG in the recent past. Today, I think the discussion about the format is still on the table, (either IFC, or IFCXML, and others). But to be honest I haven't being able to produce 100% reliable IFC models all the time, Still a long way to go.
Cheers!
Nando

[Anonymous]

Laura,

Personally I feel the hybrid approach is a mistake. From my experience it is very difficult to train someone on BIM when they have AutoCAD to fall back on. My previous office was an AutoCAD firm before we moved to Archicad. The bottom line is that they still maintain AutoCAD and are unable to get everyone on BIM. The inconsistencies are very telling!

In addition keep in mind the management issue between the two platforms. The standards would be very difficult to manage due to the inherent differences between the two programs.

My 2 cents.

[Anonymous]

Laura wrote:
I was informed Monday that we are interviewing for a project -- a joint venture with another firm that uses Revit -- and was told that our principal partner thinks we should use Revit. So I've spent this week assisting another partner to build an argument for why ArchiCAD would be best for the project (not necessarily the firm). O -- and -- we are the architect of record. HMMPH...

Hi Laura -

I think you're doing the right thing by working with a firm partner to build your case; without an ArchiCAD supporter in the partner meetings, decisions will be made without complete knowledge of BIM. I'm a principal in our firm, and there have been many meetings where statements are made by others in ignorance, and without my defending of our ArchiCAD investment, I'm sure we too would be considering switching to another BIM platform.

Regarding working with other firms that use Revit, (and I hope this isn't straying too far off topic), I suggest you have several meetings (in person or on-line) to explain the EXPECTATIONS of an IFC exchange. We had one project where our PM's told the other firm that "we'll send you the IFC model when our phase is done", and in short, it was a DISASTER. The other firm kept exclaiming "All the intelligence is gone!", and when we asked "What intelligence did you want?", they abandoned the IFC file and said they'd finish the CD's in AutoCAD because of the short schedule and there was no time to stop and "talk" about IFC. Without any early discussions about IFC, we setup the disaster. Now, on a current project and with a different partner Revit firm, we have had several discussions (in person and online) and have tested each other's IFC exports. These discussions started before Schematic Design began, and the project is going infinitely smoother because we are managing each other's expectations. By using online meetings, we can show each other our models, point to objects and explain what is "off" (we try to avoid saying "wrong") and then ask if there are other ways to model it or export it.

I agree with a previous poster - we will always need cross-platform models and no one should give in to the "world domination" mindset.

great thread - good luck Laura.
tom p.

[Laura Yanoviak]

Tommy_P wrote:
Regarding working with other firms that use Revit, (and I hope this isn't straying too far off topic), I suggest you have several meetings (in person or on-line) to explain the EXPECTATIONS of an IFC exchange.

I've been doing a lot of research on IFC, in an attempt to be pro-active, and so my expectations are pretty low. The way I see it, the IFC model is a means to coordinate 3D geometry, and that's about it. The potential of Solibri has me excited, but I think the trick will be clearly defining tasks and responsibilities of each party (firm) -- in much the same way we currently work with engineering consultants. We use their data to coordinate the design, but there is no single building model.

[NandoMogollon]

Laura wrote:
...We use their data to coordinate the design, but there is no single building model.

Well, Onuma inc is currently promising an advance vision of the IFC model, just check BIMStorm @ kimon onuma's web site.

In the other side, The way I see it (for the near future) IFC is a means to interchange more than 3D geometry, that is why a single element like a wall has more "property-sets" in its original IFC format than in the Archicad model or in the Ecotect model, The costs managers and quantity surveyors can access the data base (IFC) and apply costs for materials and/or specific elements, this is something you can actually do in Filemaker.

If we are expecting to share (in round trips) only 3D geometry, then why not migrate to a more intuitive Modeler like SketchUP or Bonsai3D.

The problem in the mean time is that just a bunch of firms are getting paid for delivering the Project's IFC model to the Client, and not only Printed Drawings.



Nando