Revit MEP for Life Support Systems?

[Organic]

Our M&E guy is prepared to go down the Revit route but is worried that it will cause him more work as currently pipe runs are solid lines and he'll have to spend more man hours producing the drawings but thinks no client will want to spend more for the design. He also had a moan that nodoby seems to build what they put on their drawings in the first place!

 

His concerns are valid. No client wants to pay more than what they are presently paying.

[Organic]

I'm experiencing this exactly.

 

It is common everywhere. if it takes longer to do the job in software package B than it does to do it in software package A then most companies will use software package A. Even if software package A is not capable of full BIM.

 

I get the impression that the owners of my new(just transferd from teaching) company view me just as an expense. I'm a contractual obligation they are fulfilling, nothing more. We're using Revit to produce 2D drawings(backgrounds) for the engineers which they import into Autocad, add MEP fixtures & equipment, and then return to me to place the model elements. For them this is just an extra step in the process with no financial benefit other than the ability to bid on jobs they might not otherwise be able to - I think everyone in my office hates me(atleast Revit).

 

That seems incredibly inefficient.

[tzframpton]

No client wants to pay more than what they are presently paying.

The client shouldn't have to. Why is this a concern? The company using any new platform (Revit or otherwise) should take the initial hit in investment, not the client.

[Organic]

The client shouldn't have to. Why is this a concern? The company using any new platform (Revit or otherwise) should take the initial hit in investment, not the client.

 

It doesn't work that way in reality.

[tzframpton]

It doesn't work that way in reality.

So let me get this straight.... a company chooses to invest in a new platform, so they raise their fee so the end client pays for their vendor's choice to invest in an alternative software package until they get going on their feet to lower their fee back down to a normal rate? How does that make any sense at all?

[Organic]

So let me get this straight.... a company chooses to invest in a new platform, so they raise their fee so the end client pays for their vendor's choice to invest in an alternative software package until they get going on their feet to lower their fee back down to a normal rate? How does that make any sense at all?

 

I'm not saying fees are raised. Fees stay the same.

 

The time it will take to complete jobs will take longer however with man hours exceeding those budgeted for.

 

Effectively this means the company is now losing money (or working or a much lower fee per hour). Most companies are not in business to lose money.

 

E.g. project budget was 50K for 300 hours of budgeted time. If it now takes 500 hours to perform the same work in the new software then the company has effectively lost 200 hours of billable time and suffered a net loss of 30K. That is unacceptable in most businesses. While some of the extra hours required may be able to be billed as an extra to certain clients (*government* etc depending on the contract) a lot of it has to be written off as a loss.

 

Yes, operators become more efficient with time and software proficiency although for most companies they do not want (nor are they willing to afford that cost) to wait for that to occur. Especially in todays employment markets where employees don't say at any one company long. Who wants to spend/lose 100K training someone only to have them leave after a year?

[tzframpton]

Effectively this means the company is now losing money (or working or a much lower fee per hour). Most companies are not in business to lose money.

 

E.g. project budget was 50K for 300 hours of budgeted time. If it now takes 500 hours to perform the same work in the new software then the company has effectively lost 200 hours of billable time and suffered a net loss of 30K. That is unacceptable in most businesses. While some of the extra hours required may be able to be billed as an extra to certain clients (*government* etc depending on the contract) a lot of it has to be written off as a loss.

 

Yes, operators become more efficient with time and software proficiency although for most companies they do not want (nor are they willing to afford that cost) to wait for that to occur. Especially in todays employment markets where employees don't say at any one company long. Who wants to spend/lose 100K training someone only to have them leave after a year?

This seems valid on the surface, however it simply amazes me that you can miss the point in its entirety. A company will plan for the "loss". Plan in accounting terms means "budget". It will not be considered a loss, but an investment. Investment is where time and money go into something, to come out ahead down the road. I mean, really....? What is so hard about this that you still cannot grasp after months and months of tearing down any other CAD software other than plain jane AutoCAD? I am now 100% convinced that you simply will not let go of this preexisting fault of any other CAD applications out of pure spite. You fault the programs and you skew the perception for AutoCAD and against Revit simply out of pure animosity. It's all clear to me now.

 

 

In a budget, accounting adds a new line item or two... training and Revit, etc. You track it under it's own budget line item and keep a watchful eye on progress. As time and skills improve, you come out ahead. Same with any other financial endeavor in business.... losing money is a normal part of business (it's usually called an expense), but you want everyone to believe that if as little as one penny is lost in a side by side comparison that it should be totally thrown out as an option. This is such a disheartening frame of mind. If it takes someone new to both programs two clicks to do something in Revit and one click to do something in AutoCAD, then throw Revit out the window, right? Or, give a seasoned AutoCAD designer and a seasoned Revit designer the exact same job and an aggressive schedule and lets see who wins time and time again. Revit, every single time, no questions asked on Architectural, Structural and MEP designs for the commercial industry. I know because I'm extremely efficient both in AutoCAD and Revit.

 

 

Organic, you have got to wake up and start being honest with yourself and know that you have spite against anything AutoCAD, plain and simple. It brings the overall moral of this forum down and you simply won't stop. You're not a Revit user and yet you troll in the Revit section of CADTutor.net constantly with nothing more than malicious intent.

[Glen1980]

I'm not saying fees are raised. Fees stay the same.

 

The time it will take to complete jobs will take longer however with man hours exceeding those budgeted for.

 

Effectively this means the company is now losing money (or working or a much lower fee per hour). Most companies are not in business to lose money.

 

E.g. project budget was 50K for 300 hours of budgeted time. If it now takes 500 hours to perform the same work in the new software then the company has effectively lost 200 hours of billable time and suffered a net loss of 30K. That is unacceptable in most businesses. While some of the extra hours required may be able to be billed as an extra to certain clients (*government* etc depending on the contract) a lot of it has to be written off as a loss.

 

Yes, operators become more efficient with time and software proficiency although for most companies they do not want (nor are they willing to afford that cost) to wait for that to occur. Especially in todays employment markets where employees don't say at any one company long. Who wants to spend/lose 100K training someone only to have them leave after a year?

 

If clients start to rquire BIM like they may have to with UK government work soon they may have to see it as an investment in staying relevant and try and recoup the costs in less defects/clashes.

 

I must be quite good value for my firm, I've been here for well over ten years now!

[RobDraw]

Yeah, same here. The last time I saw turn over like that was in the fast food industry. Heck, even the pet stores I worked at held on to their full time employees longer than one year. I wonder if that is a reflection on the businesses or the employees that they hire...

[Glen1980]

Yeah, same here. The last time I saw turn over like that was in the fast food industry. Heck, even the pet stores I worked at held on to their full time employees longer than one year. I wonder if that is a reflection on the businesses or the employees that they hire...

 

Wouldn't like to comment on a works computer!!

[f700es]

The client shouldn't have to. Why is this a concern? The company using any new platform (Revit or otherwise) should take the initial hit in investment, not the client.

 

+1 This is my experience. Start with small projects and work you way up to larger once familiarity and experience are gained. The onus is on the company making the switch.

[fkleiner]

I agree that starting a new project (properly prepared with some experience and expense already in place) with new software will reduce profit margins initially. I also wholeheartedly believe if the software is implemented correctly on the front-end and back-end, profit margins will definitely increase. How does anyone pitch this to a principal/decision maker? I mean, how can you come remotely close to calculating the ROI / Break Even Point / ROI?

[tzframpton]

How does anyone pitch this to a principal/decision maker? I mean, how can you come remotely close to calculating the ROI / Break Even Point / ROI?

Easy. When Revit is used in the manner it was intended, you produce flawless outputs of drawings and information. Since the "information" comes from the actual model components, your information is always accurate. And when using 3D, you cannot "fake" reality. For instance when you're coordinating your models... if something doesn't fit, it doesn't fit, you have to further look into the design. It mitigates human errors.

 

Here are some things to consider when talked to the company principal's:

1. Schedules and BOM's are generated directly off the model. If the model is accurate, so is the information. If you change it in one place, it updates everything across the board.

 

2. You cannot fake or break dimensions and tags. No "dumb text" exists if you utilize parametric annotations. Accuracy becomes 100%.

 

3. The hardest adjustment is this: Revit will actually find flaws in your designs that you never knew were there before, which forces you to focus attention on correcting these little errors you never saw before, which falsely exhibits Revit taking too long.

[f700es]

Just in my limited use and knowledge of Revit is that the 1st major change order in Revit will make a believe in most skeptics.

 

I caught a drafter just changing dims when I worked for a residential developer years ago. Revit LT would have made this almost non issue. I think they have in fact moved to LT for their CDs (construction documents).