June Meeting

Attendees: Dave Bleiman, Victor Chu, Naveen Govind, Bruce Madsen, Nancy McClure, Mabe Ng, Shaun Peppers, Dan Tsui, Marla Ushijima, Brett Young.

Dave hosted June's meeting at his office to preview an architectural version of Rutherford & Chekene's PopIcon plug-in for Revit, and to solicit feedback on its value.

R&C have identified the interface between Revit and Autocad as problematic and made the decision to produce all their details in Revit, but they've also recognized some challenges with that workflow. It can be difficult and/or time-consuming to locate detailing components within a project file or across a firm's servers; and redundant families can accumulate - causing project file bloat, graphic inconsistencies, and confusion.

AutoDesk has not been very successful at improving the situation, but when they released the API in 2010 it became possible for third parties to develop solutions. R&C took up the challenge in order to improve their in-house process, and developed a system of pull-down menus to ease the family loading process. They subsequently put that solution on the market as a plug-in called PopIcon for Revit Structure 2011. When Dave presented it at Autodesk University, he got requests for versions in metric and versions for other design disciplines.

The difficulty for architects is the need for a MUCH greater variety of objects (even MEP requires a surprising amount of content). Dave showed us what they came up with for Revit 2013 (which has also been back-engineered for Revit 2012). The group recognized a great deal of potential, and came up with a lot of suggestions for improvement.

PopIcon adds tabs and tools for modeling, detailing, and annotation. Content is drawn from the standard Autodesk library, a Pop-Icon library (included), and user-defined custom libraries. Multiple outside folders can be linked, and family catalogs are automatically created.

Nancy really liked the preview icon in the selection window, which is generated from the actual object - making it a lot easier to identify the desired family. She requested that the type selection include a preview of parameters. Nancy also asked for the inclusion of generic models.

Shaun asked about using .rvt files as sources of PopIcon content. At Forell Elsesser, they have library projects with walls, detailing components, hatch patterns, etc., which they insert as groups into a project file. He theorizes that PopIcon could be much easier. Dave responded that currently PopIcon uses only .rfa files but he'll look into adding that capability.

Dave demonstrated the fireproofing feature that HOK developed and made available for inclusion in PopIcon (thanks, Bruce!). It approximates the required fireproofing layer; the exact thickness is not guaranteed but it can be used for clash detection purposes.

The consensus of the group was that the real solution to the workflow is to provide one-stop shopping for content from all sources. For example, in any one category pull-down list (such as for windows), there should be access to families and groups within all of these:

1. Content already loaded in the project
2. Project libraries
3. Office library
4. Content within other project files (provide links to other projects which then populate a category-specific list)
5. Autodesk library
6. PopIcon library

PopIcon does not require hard-coding of folder hierarchy, so additional file locations are easily incorporated; but R&C will have to do some engineering for content within .rvt files.

If new content duplicates content already loaded into the project, it should be indicated somehow (grayed-out?) as a safeguard against overwriting customized content (in addition to the standard Revit warning).

We also discussed an option to open a family to check on naming conventions. Discipline is necessary; there's a difference between good practice and what people actually do. Management tools to handle this - locking families? confirmation messages? electric shock?

Some other particulars that Dave mentioned: PopIcon installs at individual machines, not the server (there are no network licenses). The standard price is $400/copy for individual licenses, with enterprise pricing negotiable. R&C provides tech support as long as it's not abused. More info and beta-testing options are available at http://www.popiconsoftware.com/.

May SFDD Meeting

Attendees: David Bleiman, Victor Chu, Naveen Govind, Mario Guttman, John LeBlanc, Eric Peabody, Karen Thomas, Mark Tiscornia, Lillian Trac, Marla Ushijima

Eric Peabody presented a fantastic case study of three nearly identical projects delivered by three different processes, as the nearest thing possible to a real-world controlled experiment in BIM use. The Design Partnership (TDP) designed remodels of three operating rooms at Stanford's Cath Labs used for procedures delivered through catheterization methods. All three labs are in the same building, on the same floor.

Lab #7 was a Design Bid Build project executed in 2006 with a traditional CAD-only workflow. It started with existing 2D CAD drawings, which were verified in the field. TDP then created new 2D CAD documents for the remodeling work.

Lab #9 was a Design Assist project executed in 2009 using an "industry standard" BIM workflow which included modeling down to 2", with select smaller elements modeled as necessary. It started with a 3D scan used to create a model of the existing conditions, and then a design BIM for the remodeling work. Eric showed a very impressive image from the point cloud which many of us initially mistook for a photograph. It was black and white, but captured light reflectance of the materials. He mentioned that color scanning is also now available.

Lab #10 was also Design Assist, executed in 2010, also using 3D scanning to capture existing conditions and create an existing BIM but modeling everything for the design BIM, including studs and junction boxes.

Eric developed an extensive analysis of the three projects on the basis of schedule, change orders, and costs - design, construction, and margin (based on lost revenue from the operating rooms due to the construction). He adjusted all costs to 2010 dollars based on inflation of the economy at large (not strictly inflation of the construction economy). He deducted all medical equipment costs to level the playing field.

The design fee proposal to use BIM for Lab #9 was significantly higher than for #7 CAD - knocking the client out of their seat - but TDP lobbied successfully for it. Eric admitted that they benefited from the BIM as well, as it's in the architect's best interest to create the most coordinated set possible; but the subsequent cost savings to the client caused them to demand BIM for Lab #10. The design fees for #10 were back to the CAD level despite the increased BIM effort, because the contractor took on the modeling. That turned out to be costlier to the client due to union wages paid by the contractor. (Hmmm, perhaps architects should form a union?)

The client was also concerned about the $30,000 cost per room for the 3D scanning, but Mario points out that it is probably more than balanced by the revenue gained in getting the operating rooms back into action quicker. Some contractors such as DPR use extreme scanning procedures, repeatedly scanning as the building rises to confirm accuracy. Dave notes that vertical coordination of floor penetrations is critical for Total Station Control methodologies. He also notes that DPR's emphasis on precision offers marketing opportunities.

Post-construction, Lab #7 drawings had to be revised to match as-built conditions. Lab #9 BIM was close enough that the client didn't require revisions. Lab #10 BIM was virtually identical to the as-built conditions.

TDP's conclusion after these three projects is that BIM definitely beats CAD, the 2" standard of Lab #9 is a little coarse, but the "model everything" approach of Lab #10 yields diminishing returns. TDP determined the sweet spot as modeling to 1-1/2", which is sufficient to capture all the necessary medical gas lines and struts.

Mark feels that contractors are getting to the point that they want no change orders to the virtual model. He proposes that if designers model the same way as contractors, there's more likelihood that the design model doesn't need to be thrown away. If the contractor can start with the design model then he should be able to reduce his fees.

Dave notes that everything is Design Assist now, there's very little Design-Bid-Build. In Europe structural designers do the shop drawings and provide a book of quantities. This process is facilitated by the Parts tool introduced in Revit 2012.

On the issue of code review and BIM submittal for permits, Singapore was mentioned but Mario and Dave repeated their belief that it remains largely apocryphal. As long as paper drawings remain necessary for permitting, especially for OSHPD, they must remain the basis of contract documents. This is, of course, at odds with contractors who derive much greater value out of the BIM. As models increasingly become the professional standard of care, it becomes more difficult legally to rely on disclaimers regarding their accuracy. A more appropriate approach to accuracy issues might be to establish clearly-defined Levels of Development. Designers are also wise to hyper-link the specs to elements in the model to keep critical information on the contractor's radar. This also adds potential value to the model post-construction for use by facility managers and building management systems.

Dave suggests that to stay in the game designers must create greater value for ourselves. We need to be prepared to rely on the BIM as contract documents. An in-house QA process for models becomes critical.

Eric notes that in Europe a new category of professional is emerging who's responsible for BIM modeling and analysis (energy, lifecycle costs, etc.).

In the U.S., we noted the trend toward acquisitions. As firms such as AECOM are merging diverse professionals of varying core competencies, authoring and ownership of a BIM - plus the associated liability issues - become moot as it's increasingly all done in-house. Pankow and Herrero have also purchased some of their own sub-contractors. We questioned whether mid-size firms are dying out as partnering becomes necessary for success or even survival.

March SFDD Meeting

 Attendees: Bruce Madsen, Dave Bleiman, Jackson Ng, Mario Guttman, Marla Ushijima, Nora Klebow, Thomas Whisker, Victor Chu

Our discussion started with the ipad, which continues to be a big hit with our group, though Mario suggests that the Apple Air is a better platform for some kinds of mobile work, as a laptop beats out a fingertip on a tablet for precision.

Screen size is a big factor for mobile success. The general consensus is that a laptop should have a 15"-17" screen for productive work. Marla posed the idea of an auxiliary screen for an ipad (analogous to an auxiliary keypad). No one was aware of one on the market, but Jackson uses a projector run off an ipad. (Dave has also mentioned Keynote Remote in previous meetings.) Jackson also mentioned that Samsung has just come out with a phone with a built-in projector (Samsung Galaxy Beam).

We discussed some less-utilized possibilities of BIM. The permit process remains analog; the oft-cited example of Singapore's automated code checking is believed to be more myth than fact. OSHPD is unable to pursue the possibilities due to lack of the necessary hardware and software. We theorized that for a large project, providing them with the technology might well be a more cost-effective method than printing out the multiple (thick!) sets of drawings currently required.

Nora reports that Kaiser is restructuring and outsourcing their facilities department. Facilities management remains a challenge for BIM. Enhanced information in a BIM accessible in the field via tablet is a powerful tool. The format for the data can be the BIM itself, but would more likely be a Navisworks model, XML, or a smart pdf. The minimal cost of RFID tags paired with GPS offers a world of possibilities for managing furnishings and equipment. Building systems can boost the accuracy of standard GPS, and RFID tags on a door frame can link an item to its location. The challenge lies in the reliable maintenance of information - which is critical for success but difficult to achieve.

Bruce is interested in the topic of best practices for Revit families. He recommends keeping parameters out of families, and instead keeping them at the project level. Marla notes that Autodesk doesn't follow their own guidelines for family creation, and Dave has discovered significant errors in Autodesk's structural models. Thomas offers suggested best practices for families and Revit in general at mybimhero.blogspot.com.

BIM plans remain a topic of great interest. Mario called attention to NATSPEC, which provides an Australian national standard BIM Management Plan template.

Owners' interest in getting useful information out of a BIM remains more aspirational than practical. The information requested during contract negotiations might or might not be realistic or useful, but designers are unlikely to turn down such requests - especially when those contract negotiations are undertaken by principals or project managers unfamiliar with details of the BIM process.

Specifications remain the unwanted stepchild of the design process, serving to address issues of legal liability (or to save our bacon, as Mario says). They often contain unrealistic demands which are unachievable and/or unenforceable in the field. Assembly codes can tie a BIM to specs, but the correct entering of that information in the BIM is currently haphazard at best. Assembly codes offer classification per Uniformat at the type level, and Omniclass at the object level, but aren't currently part of a realistic workflow. Specwriters generally don't like espec, and none of the attendees currently use it. Bruce theorized that a list of the assembly codes in a project could provide a cross-check for the spec writer to make sure all the necessary sections are covered.

There is ongoing concern over the consumption of data in the BIM, and how it's used downstream. Contractors are increasingly preferring to rely on the model instead of consulting the drawings; designers are concerned that critical information is getting overlooked as a result. Mario also referenced language difficulties, both in our domestic workforce and as a result of global outsourcing of fabrication. Possible remedies could include easing access to information from within the model, through use of tools such as assembly codes, keynotes, and links to related details or spec sections.

February SFDD Meeting

Attendees: Dave Bleiman, Mario Guttman, Marla Ushijima, Craig Goings, Eric Peabody

Dave hosted the meeting at Rutherford & Chekene with some lovely breakfast treats and lots of stimulating ideas. We started by watching Did You Know 3.0/Shift Happens by Karl Fisch, Scott McLeod, and XPLANE, which identifies trends that many Americans might find surprising.

Dave posits that innovation is no longer the purview of a lone genius sitting in a garage working by himself. Innovation is triggered by connectivity, and as connectivity increases, the rate of innovation increases. Innovation tends to happen more quickly in large cities because there are more opportunities for making connections. Eric notes that likewise, good lab design optimizes random social interactions to foster cross-fertilization.

Dave showed us a beta presentation that he's preparing for an upcoming AEC conference.

5 Waves of Disruption: Impacts and Opportunities

1.0 - Shift from Ownership to Access and Experience:

·         Zip car, Salesforce, Google apps

2.0 - Business Unusual - Business as a pickup game

·         Cloud sourcing services match need with independent contractors world-wide:

·         Elance - all kinds of services

·         99 Designs - graphic design

·         Arcbazar - architectural/interiors design

·         Li & Fung - manufacturing. They don't own anything, but orchestrate the process through highly-specialized factories

·         KickStart - micro loans

·         Kickstarter - market for funding of creative ventures, contingent upon reaching total funding goals

Open Innovation

 3.0 - Digital Manufacturing

·         Scanning analog to digital >  Manipulating the digital content > 3D Printing 

·         3D printers now available for less than $1000 that can print 95% of its own parts when it's first set up

·         Anthony Atala: Printing a human kidney

·         Printing skin cells directly onto a person's wound

·         Caterpillar Inc. Viterbi "Print-a-House" Construction Technology

·         ConXtech pre-fab high-precision steel framing system

 4.0 - Ambient Intelligence

·         Secure RFID tags - for people?

·         Fitbit - tracks movement to evaluate exercise; insurance offers premium pricing to people willing to wear it (and showing sufficient levels of exercise)

·         Cost of RFID tags for supermarkets drops to 1¢ - will replace barcodes

·         Objects embedded with technology to be part of network intelligence

5.0 - Infinite Computing

·         Computational power becoming cheaper than water

·         exaFLOP is one quintillion computer operations per second (10 to the 30th power)

·         3D arrays of processors

·         Moore's Law (number of transistors on a chip doubles every two years) will apply for 75 more years (only)

·         Intel - "last year there were more processors manufactured than grains of rice harvested, and a lower unit cost" (there are a million processors on a chip)

·         Once you define 20 parameters than can affect design, evaluating options is basically free

How does innovation happen?

·         from connectivity

·         Where Good Ideas Come From by Steven Johnson (You Tube)

·         Stages of innovation: Impossible > Improbable > Possible > Likely > Expected (Where's my latte?)

How does Innovation Impact Organizations?

·         Impossible > Impractical > Possible > Expected > Required

·         Break-Thru Technology is replaced by Sustaining Technology

·         Value pricing gets replaced by commodity pricing

·         CADD was originally a value-added proposition justifying higher compensation, then it became the norm. Same for BIM. What's next? Fabrication, cloud-based parametric performance design?

 How do we create competitive separation?

·         Speed of innovation won't allow people to stand there waiting for the bus

·         Shift from hand drafting to pin-registered drafting to CADD to BIM

·         Someone from medieval times plopped into the current world would see it as insurmountable but we're able to deal with it

·         Rutherford & Chekene offers free membership to Techshop to employees

·         P2SL lean organization

·         MIT putting all their classes online for anyone in the world to audit

Technology waves of disruption create opportunities

·         Innovation is happening outside of the U.S. New societies trying to build themselves from the ground up aren't bogged down in current technologies and infrastructure; they're interested in ideas only.

·         ipad sweatshops in China persist because manual labor there is cheaper than machines.

·         Don't compare doing the same things and compensation in other countries. Each country should do what they do best for universal optimization.

There's a battle doing on for scope in our industry. Designers are losing ground to contractors.

·         A really big design firm in France is 20 people; they only go up to DD, then pass it off to contractors

·         Conceptualization is needed separately from delivery; society needs both

·         We need to collaborate more closely on the manufacturing side

·         Architects can't market value in the same way as contractors can.

·         Designer's interests are more aligned with a client's interests than contractors are

o    if designers improve efficiency, owners realize the benefit

o    if contractors improve efficiency, contractors realize the benefit

·         foster relationships with contractor

Apple does the design - 70-80% of profits remain in U.S.

Apple controls the data (iTunes)

China manufactures the hardware - 3% of profit

Manage the value stream

Don't give away the data

Dave would be willing to make this presentation at architectural offices if invited.

January SFDD Meeting

Attendees: Dan Tsui, Jen Dameron, Victor Chu, Jackson Ng, Craig Goings, Mario Guttman, Nancy McClure, Bruce Madsen, Marla Ushijima

The topic of the day was mobile apps, mostly for the ipad. Dave Bleiman reports that Rutherford & Chekene has recently supplied all their principals and officers with ipads + accessories. He started off the discussion, listing the hardware and apps they're using.


A keyboard is essential for extended use. Dave uses a model by Zagg that doubles as a case and stand. For sketching and taking notes, he is very happy with a stylus by Nataal that plugs into the earbud port to help prevent loss. Nevertheless, he recommends stocking spares.

We discussed the following apps for business and/or pleasure:

1. Penultimate: for writing notes by hand and sketching. Supports Dropbox and Evernote.
2. Notability: best app for note-taking - handwriting, keyboard and/or audio with sync between sound and written notes. Can annotate PDFs. Boxnet or Dropbox are required.
3. Dragon Dictation: speech recognition / transcription.
4. IAnnotate: best app for accessing and mark-up of pdfs. This substitutes for Bluebeam, which R&C uses in the office but isn't available as a mobile app.
5. Docs to Go: for editing docs, excel spreadsheets, and powerpoint. Supports multiple cloud services.
6. Keynote Remote: Apple presentation app that can also run powerpoint presentations. Connects to an Apple TV box on the same wifi network, allowing mirroring of ipad screen to any monitor or display device. (Make sure you turn in off if you're outside the conference room or doing something private.)
7. AutoDesk Review (ADR): improved, but still doesn't slice a model very well.
8. Navisworks: app was scheduled to come out in December but hasn't yet. It will run the model off the server.
   
9. Newforma: allows access to project database on the go. Mobile app needs server to be on version 8. Perkins+Will uses it, but Mario isn't familiar with it; he hasn't played with it much yet.
10. iRdesktop: uses Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) natively to view and control a Windows desktop. It's free and works pretty well.
11. Splashtop Remote: Jackson's preferred remote desktop app.
12. Citrix Receiver : another remote desktop app, used by Modulus Consulting.
13. Skype: video conferencing works pretty well on iPad.
14. Flipboard: beautiful presentation of a variety of free and self-provided content: magazines, any website, RSS feeds, photos. Can handle pdfs, but doesn't run embedded content very well.
15. NYTimes: for keeping up with news. Free with print subscription.
16. Zipcar: easy access to wheels when you need them.
17. Yelp: helpful for finding things while traveling.
18. OpenTable: for making restaurant reservations.
19. Netflix: watch movies on the go with subscription
20. Outfit 7: fun talking friends app, for keeping small children (or bored engineers) entertained.

In the course of writing up these meeting notes, I also came across a couple of blog posts on AECbytes (by the always articulate Lachmi Khemlani) that would be of interest. iPad Apps for AEC: Design and Visualization and iPad Apps for AEC: Project Information and Construction.

R&C uses Anyconnect Secure Mobility Client to connect with their server remotely. Dave reports they spent about $2,000 on apps and the associated server software for 15 people. The principals are on 3G 150 MB, $15/mo plans. Data plans for officers are not offered; they use wifi. R&C considers the ipads a worthwhile investment as 80% of principals' time is spent on communications of some form; the ipad serves this function well and allows them to be productive while out of the office.

The general consensus is that the ipad is not a device for originating documents, but is fantastic for email, viewing photos, and accessing the web.


Dan has used Revit on an Android pad off of citrix. He uses an Android bluetooth mouse; a mouse is not an option for the ipad. Dan also is very happy with his Asus Zenbook, which is as light as the Mac Airbook.

Dan and Mario discussed the app development software on the Mac OS. It's possible to develop an app on Mac and translate it over it to a mobile device, but Dan is not enthusiastic about that approach.

Dave notes that staff over the age of 40 are often reluctant and question the need to learn new technologies, which we all agree is an unfortunate attitude which limits their ability to stay relevant in the current industry (and social) environment.

December SFDD Meeting

Attendees: Bruce Madsen, Craig Goings, Victor Chu, Stan Stinnett, Marla Ushijima

We discussed issues related to detailing in Revit. Many senior staff members who generate details are AutoCAD-savvy but might not have the time or inclination to take on the steep learning curve of Revit. Linking AutoCAD details into Revit files is possible but unmanageable. The best practice is to create the detail in Revit. Creating standards and detail families, as well as recreating office standard details, is a significant time investment but critical for successful implementation. Once those pieces are in place, Revit is a powerful detailing tool.

Victor reports that BAR is newly committed to establishing Revit as their office standard, having abandoned ArchiCAD and transitioning out of AutoCAD. Currently 30% of the staff are working on five projects in Revit. Larger firms are mostly using Revit for all projects; smaller firms still range along the entire spectrum of BIM implementation.

We continued last month's discussion on cloud computing. Stan's opinion is that desktop Revit requires much more expensive hardware and crashes more often. It also can't open multiple models simultaneously - unless the machine is really souped-up - which is critical for his coordination process. Revit on Citrix can run multiple models (in separate sessions for linked models); and be used on lower-end machines, which means lower cost and/or lighter, more portable laptops with longer battery life. Stan also notes that he can work just as fast at home as at the office (given the impressive screen size he has at home). Citrix is dependent on a stable internet connection and sufficient bandwidth. If a wired or wifi connection is unavailable, 3G is an expensive option.

We also pondered the future of Revit. Autodesk is pushing cloud computing and its subscription strategy. Note that subscription pricing varies by reseller. Craig hopes to see improvements in the detailing process. We all expressed frustration that model files cannot be saved down for previous releases, meaning a whole team must work at the lowest common denominator - which is a significant issue for office family libraries. Improved portability of a model for both viewing and notation is also a big wish item. ADR is still primitive.

We mentioned a few industry-specific apps for smartphones and ipad (such as My Measures and Newforma Mobile). Given the upcoming gift season, we agreed to make mobile apps a topic for our January meeting.

November SFDD Morning Meeting

Attendees: Dave Bleiman, Craig Goings, Dan Tsui, Karen Thomas, Marla Ushijima

Dave continues to sing the praises of his iPad, especially when paired with an accessory keyboard. We discussed various BIM viewing apps for iPad and iPhone:

ADR (Autodesk Design Review) allows viewing and annotating via the Autodesk Cloud free with subscription. It has significant limitations; it allows rotation around 0,0 point only and it can't go inside the model or view it from a specified location. Dave points out that it's still in the beta phase. On the iPhone 4, ADR is really slow. The more powerful processor of the iPhone 4S should improve performance, but battery life is a major issue. Turning off location services (especially time zone) helps a lot.

Dan has a viewer app for both iPad and iPhone. It's significantly faster and more flexible than ADR, but it's not available on the market; at least for now it's just in-house at Modulus Consulting.

Karen mentioned CadFaster|Collaborate, available via website and as an iPad app. She says it's working well for meetings, for collaborative BIM viewing and pdf markup capability similar  to GoToMeeting. She believes it's optimized for BIM (despite its name), but is not sure what all differentiates it from other platforms. She suggests having a presentation/demonstration to the group by the rep.

Dave mentions that he has had nightmares trying to get Nitrous to work for him.

The group expressed mixed opinions about laser scanning and using point clouds in a BIM. The collection of data provided by scanning can be overwhelming in quantity and overly precise; minor deviations can assume exaggerated prominence. However, in certain situations - such as evaluating available plenum space for MEP clearances in existing hospitals - laser scanning can be very useful. In order to scan effectively, exploratory demolition must be more extensive than what's traditionally done, so careful consideration has to be made of project scheduling and the effect on interim use of the facility.

Karen has heard that the price of laser scanning equipment has been decreasing dramatically, as low as $9,000 for an entry-level setup. Dan believes it's still typically in the neighborhood of $70,000; the necessary software (Cyclone) is a significant chunk of the cost.