Efficiency in BIM

[Anonymous]

Hi,
This may be a bit of an open ended topic but I wanted to get experienced user's feedback on this topic.

There's a strong argument for BIM that whilst the initial setting up of the model may take a bit of time, it saves you heaps of time in the long run during construction documentation.

This further expounded by this well known blogger http://www.shoegnome.com/2015/12/09/bim-still-bankrupting-firm/

I totally agree - the method of construction documentation through ARCHICAD is way more efficient than the traditional 2D CAD method.

However my office is still finding that the early design stages in ARCHICAD is still inefficient.

What is happening is that my colleagues (including me to some extent) like to rely on old methods of designing in the early stages of design (using SketchUp as the 3D program, and either Vectorworks as the 2D, or just drafting via Worksheets in ARCHICAD), as it enables them to be more "free". Essentially splitting up the 2D and 3D so it allows one to be less constrained between the 3D model and the 2D drawings that are being produced. And because of this split, it does not make sense to them to model the 3D design in ARCHICAD, when it can be done with less constraints in SketchUp. What I mean by that is that with SketchUp, there is less "thought" involved. For example, in SketchUp, if I want to create a sloping plane, I just use the rectangle tool, make a geometry, and rotate it. In ARCHICAD, I have to remember that I must not use a slab for this as slabs can't incline, but must use the roof tool. Etc. etc.

I would very much appreciate your thoughts to the above as experienced ARCHICAD users. Our firm has switched to ARCHICAD from traditional 2D CAD and 3D sketchup modelling for about 2 years now but we are still struggling with this early design "free form design" stage and relying on old methods - and I do not believe that is due to lack of training as we are quite good with ARCHICAD.

Ben

[Eduardo Rolon]

The problem with trying to convey an opinion here is that your office need to evolve their production methods and that involves deciding that there are some items that seem slow which actually aren't in the long haul. Lets see if this analogy works:

Assume that:

• 2D is walking
• SketchUp is a bicycle
• ARCHICAD is a car

-----
and the problems are

• Get the paper from the sidewalk
• Go to the corner to pick up the mail
• Go to the next town 60 miles away

-----
With this you could argue that you shouldn't use the car to pick up the paper, the mail maybe.

----
Now the advanced argument is that your office mates need to realize that in architecture all the problems are driving to the next town so using the bike is wasting time (since you can pick up the mail on the way) and it will be easier to have the paper delivered to the office.

HTH

[Richard Morrison]

I think there is something to be said for using the right tool for the job. (For example, I use Chief Architect for initial designs, and then move it into ArchiCAD. I believe for working in front of my residential clients, it is much faster.) However, what you describe sounds like you haven't really mastered Morphs yet, which isn't THAT much different than using Sketchup. ( I don't know why you are hesitating about using 2D drawings in Worksheets in ArchiCAD and then using them as a base. Or using scanned hand-drawn sketches as a base. Or using zones. I don't know that there is really an optimal workflow to get to the construction document phase. But using 2D Vectorworks instead of 2D ArchiCAD sounds like a lack of training and just falling back on what someone already knows.

[Anonymous]

What is happening is that my colleagues (including me to some extent) like to rely on old methods of designing in the early stages of design (using SketchUp as the 3D program, and either Vectorworks as the 2D, or just drafting via Worksheets in ARCHICAD), as it enables them to be more "free".

There are many ways to conceptualize. And, there are many ways to break down the overall ptoject similarly into stages. Gradually building the 'information' in the model/ idea. Also, different techniques will suit different staff. The important thing is to not restrict the flow of work whilst maintaining clarity of the design intent. The tool is really secondary, and that's why GS tries to be everything to everyone. And kudos to them, they do OK in assisting early stages, for the way our company operates.
Perhaps we should be asking though - How do you manage project phase/ stage transitions? Should it be continuous or defined by team handovers? How should our CAD models be managed to best support our teams creativity?