Forums >> Revit Building >> Technical Support >> file structure in a design build firm

CADorangutan

active

Joined: Tue, Jul 3, 2007
5 Posts
No Rating

I am looking for some input &/or opinions on an effective means of design collaboration between Architects, Engineers, and eventually contractors.  Under a design build infrastructure, my current firm has the unique perspective of having all disciplines (architects, engineers, contractors. . . ) under the same roof.  As we push the transition to Revit, investigation is under way as to the most suitable method of file sharing or file linking for our current and future success.  Most of the posted, online literature speaks of linking the files between consulting parties.  Aside from minor workarounds, we have done this successfully (or at least in its rudimentary fashion) and are for the most part confortable with this method, although we have not tested this comprehensively. 

But our desire (theory) is to have all disciplines involved in one central file with worksets being the predominant means of controlling teamwork and ownership.  Each discipline of course would have access to the server based central file and would use their respective MEP & Structural REVIT programs.  Online literature on this subject suggests that this alternative (worksharing) to linking may have some inherent ownership and scheduling drawbacks.  Firstly, each discipline needs to have ownership & complete authority when generating their documents/drawings.  Secondly, each discipline will have their own scheduling & methodology for how they hit deadlines.  From what I understand this may be possible with worksets, but from how it sounds,  there could potentially be alot of time lost & stepping over others' feet as one creates, navigates, borrows, &/or uses worksets.  What file structure (worksharing,. . . etc.) would need to be implemented for one central to work successfully?

EI => the architect needs to move a bathroom wall or ceiling.  Attached to that wall (or ceiling) are plumbing fixtures, plumbing lines, electrical wiring/fittings, etc.  Additionally this will effect the structural package as well.  Steel levels and structural wall positions need modification.  How does the architect move the wall or ceiling without creating an additional workload for themselves.  The architect wants the fixtures, piping, etc. to be the work of the MEP, & steel levels with structural. 

My thought is that linking files provides the needed separation or breathing room for every discipline to work without interruption and under complete ownership.  However linking may have its disadvantages as well.  Additionally our intent is to move into 4D phasing and 5D cost analysis in the near future.  With that said, and with little headway into the world of Revit,  I was hoping to get some input here on the pros and cons of linking disciplines versus worksharing disciplines.

 Any advise or input is greatly appreciated. . . thanks in advance.  EH

This user is offline

rkitect

active

Joined: Thu, Dec 16, 2004
792 Posts

Sounds like you've got things going pretty good.  I've got to admit, the workset system in 2008 is vastly approved from previous versions.  I have yet to have had the major workset checked out issues that we have had in the past.  There are still, however, some issues.  Mainly, people don't pay attention which workset they are working on.  If you can get a heavy session of workset training and make a strong office standard for workset use, you shouldn't have many problems (if any).

I have not had any experience with linking files between disciplines, but it sounds like it would be worth a shot.  Let us know how that works out, I'd be interested to know.   Best of luck!

-----------------------------------

-//------------------------

Carl - rkitecsure[at]gmail.com

Need help? I'm probably in my chat room!

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in asia, but only slightly less well known is this! Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

This user is offline

View Website

CADorangutan

active

Joined: Tue, Jul 3, 2007
5 Posts
No Rating

Thank you for the input. . .

Well this issue is still ongoing, however because we have all disciplines under one roof it was initially argued that full integration (one project file w/ worsharing between disciplines) would be most profitable.  This method personally is no longer appealing based on my initial concerns mentioned above.

Just because something is new does not mean that it is (new), nor does it negate the previous methods or standards for procedures.  The infrastructure for successful teamwork and file ownership in my opinion should go back to the old days of external referencing.  So as all things evolve from their predecessor, so too does linking become the new method to track the process of building models.  With the proper methods of copy/monitor,  linking maximizes independent file ownership, task scheduling, and job tracking, giving everyone more time with more coordinated efforts. 

Just because all disciplines reside under the same roof does not mean all jobs awarded involve everyone all the time.  Sometimes my firm is only awarded the architectural portion of a project, let's say that the client for some reason prefers a specific MEP engineer or contractor aside from our in house staff.  Here is where we have to maintain a standard procedure for all projects to follow.

The definition and obligation of the architect does not change because Revit is out.  In other words, never give free reign to the engineers. . . rather, allow them the opportunity to fully "monitor" (LINK) the design process on a comprehensive & real time basis without comprising the standard rules of engagement set by the industry centuries ago. 

EH

This user is offline

Metalic Structure in Revit Architecture

4

Residential Foudation

1

Need HELP!! Geting a Navisworks file inn to Revit Structure

4

Separate building and interior design file

2

A local file enslaved to another local file? Is that possible?

6