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]

rwallis wrote:
look at the aerospace sector - they are adopting "a CAD platform" across the whole team/ industry (CATIA). Admittedly even there they have had problems (Airbus & the A380: different versions of the same software created errors in the central model!!).

so it's coming; I just think if the translation is not robust (which I don't believe it is) consolidation to one software is inevitable

Aerospace industries, while complex, have the advantages of automakers and other manufacturing, in that they control the entire process from concept design to delivery. There are far too many stakeholders and competing interests in the design, construction and maintenance of the built environment for this to ever happen with BIM (at least successfully - central planning has proven a consistent failure).

So I don't think it's coming. We will be translating between a wide variety of programs for years to come, and frankly I think this is a good thing. Yes it can be tedious (I spend way too many hours doing it myself) but it is necessary and inevitable. BIM is happening. Translation is part of it. We just need to keep finding ways to improve the process.

[Dennis Lee]

Also another big difference between any of the manufacturing industries and architecture is that those manufacturer's design and perfect one "drawing / model / document" and then can make many of them in a very controlled environment, often starting out knowing who all the individual subcontractors are going to be. Thus it is beneficial for them to invest in a tightly organized and coordinated "drawing / model / document" beforehand.

Buildings on the other hand, are done only once, in one iteration from design through permitting through construction. There are countless number of real world problems along the process and they get solved by the most efficient method at the given time by the given party who is involved at that moment. This could be the architect, engineer, city planner, general contractor, sub, etc.

I really don't think the way we do buildings will change any time soon. It doesn't matter how well we do the document, it only gets built once, so there really is no justification to invest so much into it, and therefore no one will. It is only valuable as much as it is beneficial to the individual architect / engineer / contractor at the time, and for now, my MEP engineers and structural engineers have hard enough time surviving, using the lowest paid drafters to draft in the most efficient way they know, which is AutoCAD. Contractors? No, they are perfectly happy to have rolls of drawings at the job site. Anything unclear, then just ask the architect. They are not going to hire someone to model the project in 3D or spin around a 3D model in front of a computer screen to figure out what to do.

In conclusion, I think the focus of the BIM developers should be to really streamline the process for the individual architect / engineering firm FIRST. Not just for the high end, super big project kind of firms, but every day architect / engineer who does additions here, strip center there, etc. When it is easier / faster for an electrical engineer to document something like a office T.I. in BIM, and easier for an architect / designer to document a house addition, then I think we can start to think about bigger things for BIM at that time.

[Anonymous]

Read an interesting article about BIM today - talking about the whole under-utilised FM side of things. They were talking about IFC classes needing to be set up for maintenance cycles etc.
Yet another reason for robust translators.

And again the point I'll come back too - if DWG translation can prove such an ongoing conundrum, moving to one software for the project becomes more compelling.

Taking the train of thought re. client owning the data and storing it- at what point does the client say that "x" software shall be used? Don't laugh - it might be closer than you think...particularly at the point the client percieves that info is "lost in translation"

[Da3dalus]

Don't even get into FM uses. The FM industry (of which my firm is a part) as a whole seems to have disintegrated. CAFM (Computer Aided Facilities Management) software is truly a mess. You have a choice between dinosaurs like Archibus (basically an AutoCAD add-on with an SQL link) and monsters like MicroMain. We used Aperture for a long time, until the company decided to completely drop it for a $300,000 FM system. So now it is dead code. Autodesk has a relatively new entry, but no one trusts it yet. Even Graphisoft had one, and let it go. There is no clear standard at all, and definitely no interoperability. And we thought BIM was a disaster!

[Anonymous]

I don't think the outlook for BIM & FM is quite as bleak. I know its not all champagne and caviar, but there is hope. What I write below is part from experience, part from research.

We as an industry need to step away and look at our processes and fix those first (maybe at the same time) as we work out software issues. There is a growing movement for Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) that when implemented will encourage the use of BIM & PIM software. IPD is not a new idea, in a way its a reinvention of the "Master Builder".

Software and interoperability......yes, IFC needs to happen, and it will eventually, but for now there are some promising alternatives. "BIM servers" are out there, tested and ready to use.

www.BIMserver.org
http://onuma.com/products/OnumaPlanningSystem.php

There are also some FM titles out there that are supposed to interact...I'm not in that industry so I cannot speak intelligently on that subject, only offer a couple of links:

www.archibus.com (already mentioned)
www.cadpipe.com/artra.html
http://www.vintocon.com/english/vinto-main.php (ArchiFM)
www.rsifm.com

[ares997]

Da3dalus wrote:
I'm afraid that the wish for simple, complete, and cohesive file sharing without need for tweaking is going to be a real tough issue in BIM. They haven't gotten it right in DWG! I mostly work in AutoCAD at the moment, and there are still compatibility issues... with other AutoCAD consultants! There are 2 problems:
1. We use the least-paid staff to do the majority of our drafting, and
2. AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, and most other programs allow for a great deal of customization to fit each office individually.

The answer? Make CAD/BIM software a dictatorship with only one workflow (layer sets, notation types, etc.), and only allow your experienced staff operate it. Unfortunately, no one would buy it because that is impossible.

The REAL answer: do the best you can to coordinate with consultants up front, and figure in time to polish the information you receive for your own uses. It will never be a completely automated solution.

The DELTA SERVER isn't going to be as complicated or as intrusive as your nightmares might lead you to believe. As well as the fact that you guys are talking about two different types of systems. A remote sever and your desktop machine. The delta server is your machine.

[Anonymous]

Braza wrote:
Sounds like Alan Greenspan opinion about the financial market... "Let the market regulate itself!..." :shock:

Yes, reminiscent of that. Remember now, with all these months of subsequent hindsight, his Congressional testimony that they simply got it wrong. They both assumed and firmly believed that the poker players would not upset the table. I don't recall that Mr. Greenspan backtracked on his Ayn Rand philosophy, but it surely must have given him pause.
-
It is important to know how this situation has been developing, Laura. If the Partners take active, harmonious, knowledgeable roles one would think they will focus on the outcome for the firm rather than the outputs. If the Partners are less involved in operations, they will be relying upon the advice of transients as to what questions to ask, and upon other transients to evaluate the answers received.
-
The BIM manager needs to be financially vested in the firm and technically adept enough to ask the right questions, understand the answers, makes estimates about their implications, and be committed to making things inter-communicate, (sounds like, should be your role?), as well as clear about what sorts of problem(s) exactly, are being traded/swapped, and for how long.

[Anonymous]

Hi,

Dennis Lee wrote:

There are countless number of real world problems along the process and they get solved by the most efficient method at the given time by the given party who is involved at that moment.

In a nutshell!

Full BIM implementation requires the full team, as so aptly commented elsewhere; for buildings, the team frequently doesn't exist until well after bidding, and often new players appear long after that. BIM is a good thing, has many uses, but like everything else it will be implemented to different degrees for each project as is appropriate.

I have enjoyed reading all the thoughts on this subject from the many perspectives and disciplines represented on this forum. Thanks.

Mark