| Author |
Message |
Brian Payne, AIA
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne
Post Number: 17
Registered: 01-2014
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 07:11 am: |    |
So I'm going to go out on a limb here, and be the lone dissenting voice. I appreciate the recently added flowchart being provided http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/4254/7045.html?1392828974 and there is some good information included, but reviewing it makes me wonder if it is not also a great example of how little specification writing has changed over the years. I feel like the flow chart could easily have been written 15-20 year ago. And while a flowchart is more about process, I can't help but feel that there must be other ,possibly more robust tools to increase communication and more accurately gather information. I do use e-Specs for Revit as well, but even that program feels like it is just touching the surface of what might be possible. I would love to hear what tools others might be using to increase collaboration.
More importantly, what tools do we want to exist that might not exist? For example, I have worked with both dRofus and Veo (less so), and the ease at which they share planning and construction information across the contractor/owner/design team is impressive. I would love to see that level of sophisticated tools be incorporated into the specification world. |
Alan Mays, AIA
Senior Member
Username: amays
Post Number: 163
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 03:53 pm: | |
Brian, dRofus is powerful as I looked at it's website. I cannot find Veo. Can you post a link to their website? Is there any other competitors to these?
I agree with your comments, but sadly specs have not moved anywhere with how to either integrate or change with the new technologies. There can be huge benefits if they were to progress with new technologies like this and become more proactive instead of reactive with design decisions today. This could open up new markets to specifiers and increase the profile of the specifier within the construction team. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 679
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 04:30 pm: | |
When I have looked into such tools in the past, I have found that the software developers often don't understand the construction industry and the concept of construction documents. They tend to view everything as if it is design build with everyone (Owner, Contractor, and Architect) participating at every step of the way. When you drill down to specs and drawings, they really don't understand. It is a lot more complicated than designing a new chip or a piece of new computer software. Wish some of them would take a basic CDT class. |
Brian Payne, AIA
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne
Post Number: 18
Registered: 01-2014
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 05:22 pm: | |
Here is the link to VEO. http://m-six.com/ I have sat through several presentations. Two things that are super intuitive that I really appreciate are...
1) They have a drag and drop feature that allows you to drag an image, pdf, or word file over an element and it creates a link between the object (like a door) and the document automatically. This would be great for spec software, just drag a document over the spec section and done.
2) They have a "scope box" tool that allows you to select the room number and it automatically crops around the extents of the room and then with a simple roll of your mouse wheel, you can enlarge or decrease the extents of the crop. |
Alan Mays, AIA
Senior Member
Username: amays
Post Number: 164
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 09:03 pm: | |
Thanks Brian. I like the programming side of things that dRofus does. VEO didn't seem to do that. I hate the subscription price structure of their software. That seems to be the way software companies are justifying high cost software. That is why I am looking for competition of their product.
It is also why I like the iPad and what that device has done with price structures. It has caused a lowering of software costs, but it too, is being hit with "free" software that requires subscription... |
Brian Payne, AIA
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne
Post Number: 19
Registered: 01-2014
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 10:12 pm: | |
I stole the following from a dRofus presentation, but fully agree..... "There are not too many tools in the market that focus on various programming tasks. Most known is probably Trelligence Affinity, Codebook, Ernest, dRofus and Onuma. These tools are different in both scope and capabilities, and all of them are not necessarily competitors."
I have researched Trelligence and as stated above use dRofus. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 237
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 10:01 pm: | |
I'm trying to make the connection between the flowchart and these tools you mentioned.
We have process, content, and tools, these 3.
The flowchart is about process. You're talking about tools, am I right? And where does content fit in? Throwing out a lot of words that people do not understand, albeit in a new form of collaboration tools perhaps, will not protect anyone the way that clear, complete, concise, and correct specifications are meant to.
But I think very highly of your understanding of BIM and specs Brian. So, surely that must not be what you mean. Yes specifications are still in the dark ages compared to other technologies BiM has advanced. With a few rays of light piercing through from InterSpec and BSD.
Maybe what hasn't happened yet, is that no new tool really helps greatly enhance the understanding all those words (and the products, materials, systems behind them), even though the content is potentially managed better now. Just not in the way that BiM has helped in collectively understanding all those lines in 3D space. In fact, the newer spec systems get in the way for the layperson, though they may help the advanced specifier quite a bit after arduous setup and some learning curve. So it has not arrived because instead of helping understand more, the words are hidden from view until after a first pass edit in a checklist, or selection of objects whose connection to spec wording is completely invisible to the Reviteer.
It is just perplexing because surely BIM could do so much more. But everyone is looking to their own things, instead of to the things of others. What I mean is, the handoff is still not there, the interoperability not quite there, at least not on most projects except some that are really pushing the envelope. A few advanced contractors are getting behind it. Some high-level facility owners have decided what they want in a handoff. Some spec software can start to trigger things through assembly codes or keywords of BiM, if they are correct. We have a LONG way to go! And of course the underlying wording in the masters also has to be correct, and reviewed for the project.
How can specifiers and architects/engineers step up more? Exploring the connections we do have available, and pushing the software developers for the next pieces of the puzzle, I think. Partner through IPD with contractors who are admittedly taking the lead. This can result in more efficient pricing in early phases. Designers need to take action, so they are adding more value than just sealing documents that interns and mid-level staff developed. The trend toward giving more and more responsibility away to the Contractors and offering less and less to Owners, jeopardizes the profession. I don't see how this group is going to communicate to the software community what is really needed to get specs all the way to BIM. Then there is the whole issue of culture in firms that you correctly identified before, that is even more of a problem than using the technology that's already out there for BIM and specs to jive. Because of that, right now I see so very few leaders who can convey to the software developers where to go next and how to help users attain and apply this knowledge that is required in a new context.
Moreover, this knowledge is no trivial matter. These are things like multiple disciplines, trades, sustainability concepts, and materials that must be in harmony to keep finish flooring from delaminating costing facility owners billions a year. Other things that keep a building from collecting condensation and growing mold through all sorts of ways a newcomer to construction will not understand. Only much study and experience protects from all kinds of issues like that. Somebody thinks a new pushbutton spec software system can make it easier - I think initially, the opposite is more likely. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying the implementation has to be done right. I'm sure 3D CAD and BiM had to deal with some of these issues but overall it is people with experience that make it work. Getting BIM and specs to connect and be done right, has to also consider making this work easier, not harder.
So we are left not fully out of the dark ages still because no software fully addresses all 3 - managing the whole process, the content and understanding it, in addition to the semantics of more efficient specifying. I believe that is what you are ultimately asking about. Software companies are waiting to go the last mile until there's a strong demand, architects are waiting until it is there and is a proven money-maker. Seems to be a catch 22.
Ideas, anyone? |
Alan Mays, AIA
Senior Member
Username: amays
Post Number: 166
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 02:07 pm: | |
Chris, I agree with what you are saying. Brian has mainly touched on the tools. He also brings up the point in how BIM technology is changing the process in architecture and maybe with technology it can change the process in specifying.
I agree that the tools for specs today are behind the curve and the companies that make the tools do not play well with each other. The thing that I see is more of an entrenchment of doing things the same way. I have heard so many times specifiers talking about Word Perfect. A tool that has past its time. I am not saying there is a better tool, but instead there is very little vision in trying to look beyond the word processor. Yes, eSpecs and BSD both head there, but even they are behind the curve in comparison to the BIM world.
Finally, you mention content. BIM is changing the content that the Architect produces. In fact that actually started changing in the CAD days. I remember that the contractor was not allowed to produce shop drawings from the architect's drawings. CAD slowly changed that to where shop drawings at times were nothing more than a reproduction of the architect's work. BIM is trying to push that even further. I also feel that specs should take a hard look into itself and talk with users in seeing how best improve their content. Getting a set of specs to review is a daunting task these days as schedules are pushed to the edge and reviews typically thrown out the door due to that reason. Being handed a set of specifications that is double the size of War and Peace and 3 times as boring (sorry, but lets face it, they are not something I would buy to read at night). We all talk about all the substitutions we are receiving today. There are many threads concerning that here on 4Specs. What I ask is how can the specifier change the situation? That is not a software issue. That is a direct content issue. I was at a conference where Sheldon Wolfe gave a presentation lamenting about this topic and afterwards he was asked if he was abdicating the removal of Part 3 of the specs as it was mainly dealing with Means and Methods. After a pause, he said yes. I agree with his opening up the actual discussion of what the specs includes and omits. That actually gets to addressing the issue. Can technology help change that? Yes, I do believe that it can as what I have seen what technology is doing within the changing architectural profession. It can make the job easier to create the specifications. Do I believe that eSpecs or BSD will come up with that solution? No, I think they also are too entrenched in their positions so I have my doubts. Am I saying that specifiers should take a radical approach to what they are producing? Maybe. Technology is changing today as we speak. iPads and iPhones are changing the mobile world. Adopting those things into practice would be a great way show that specifiers are getting ahead of the game. Has eSpecs or BSD done that yet? No, and that is why I think that they are entrenched into their current markets. Notice that I have left out Arcom. They too have done very little to push things forward. Think if they just marketed their evaluations in an iPad app. I know many an architect that would love that. I would... |
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 648
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 03:42 pm: | |
When paragraphs are too long individuals tend to not read all the content. I believe that paragraphs should be limited to 3 to 4 sentences.
When I find a paragraph with 27 sentences I find it very difficult to read. |
Brian Payne, AIA
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne
Post Number: 24
Registered: 01-2014
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2014 - 11:37 am: | |
I love the dialogue from Chris and Alan and agree with most of it. To clear up a couple of things.
Chris - I was talking about tools, but specifically in the way that they impact process. For example: Drofus is a space planning tool, but it has changed our process because now our consultants and clients can log into a website and dynamically sort, edit, modify, view all room data information. They can even add cut sheets directly into the program for all to review. The program even verifies if the items added to a room in Revit are coordinated with programming requirements and much more.
My point as you suggested above and Alan agreed with was that the tools we have at our disposal to make specifications a more integral part of the overall process is limited.
One tool that I like in e-Specs is that our teams are able to either open all specs or the specs directly related to an object through a Revit toolbar. It is always beneficial for people to be access information within their standard workflow in my opinion. Select a door and you have access to all pertinent specification information including frame, door, hardware, paint, hardware etc.
We are always going to need good content, my interest lies in seeing how we might push the industry or create workflows that allow us to manage the content better, share the content better, coordinate the content better. Thus my original question. What do we want to be possible?
If all we are doing in 5 years is page turns, emailing pdf's, filling out paper/pdf questionnaires, collecting binders, etc. we will only be reinforcing the false idea that we are not as necessary as some people think we are.
Alan - I have to admit that I agree with your assessment that BSD or eSpecs may not be able to deliver what we really need. Revit grew out of a dissatisfaction with ACad, Veo because of Newforma. Speclink and eSpecs are a step foward, but there is so much more that can be done. |
Gilles Letourneau (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 09:54 am: | |
OK, I'll Bite!
As technical founder and chief technical officer and software architect at InterSpec we have always tried to push e-SPECS as far as possible while keeping it within the grasp of understanding. Many times we've been told its still too hard to learn. Point taken.
I see two ends of the spectrum here....
One is the need to integrate with BIM modeling software. The second is the need to address the complexity of authoring, coordinating and producing project manuals and their distribution which includes multiple submission requirements.
I wish we could focus our software on just the graphics or just the text editing, but alas we can not. That makes it difficult since we are not IBM. We have to direct our limited resources to what makes the biggest impact for our customer base.
On the modeling side, we been told many times that we are miles ahead of the competition. Ok, so maybe we need to focus on the other end; the project manual management and distribution.
I would be thrilled to get some feedback!
As to the content, well that's a different matter all together. It seems the content needs to change relative to the task at hand. One who is modeling a wall construction may be interested is seeing what the spec is calling for on the brick type. But the modeler is less interested if at all about part 1 or part 3. However, as a contractor I may be very interested in part 1 and 3.
I have given talks many times about how the form of our specs must change with the times. Word Perfect, really??
Specs to me in this BIM world is about providing the necessary information in an easily read form containing only the information needed for the task and nothing more.
I'm going out on a limb here and saying that this does not describe our current form of specifications. A three part spec, really???
So who's going to lead?
I like the commercial where it says the best inventions come out from American garages!
Do you folks see this forum as an American garage?
So tell me what you need and want and I'll do the best I can to build it ;)
I've included my e-mail and wait for your inspiration! |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 744
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 11:57 am: | |
Hi Giles.
3-Part spec is still necessary as there are many issues that need to be addressed. I'd be terrified to see what kind of monster would be unleashed if we re-engineered that aspect of the specs at this point. Granted, Parts 1 and 3 are often severely overdone and end up generating unnecessary cost and effort, but that's another thread.
Biggest issue I have with spec-to-model coordination, looking only at Part 2 content since it's hard to link to methods of installation at this point, is the fact that BIM modelers don't tend to model content early on in a software that is compatible with spec databases. If the designers are using Sketch-Up until they're halfway through DD, I don't know of any software that will read that and allow me to link my content to it. The other issue is that too many Revit modelers don't know how to properly use families so, if I'm using e-SPECS, as an example, the information I receive from the model is useless. It's a simple case of garbage in garbage out.
That is the level of education that we, as CSI, needs to start introducing on the university level as integral to holistic CD production. If anyone is looking for a crusade, this is the one I'd advocate for. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 712
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 01:32 pm: | |
One of the things I have been preaching more and more about is "Product selection is not product specification" (I am sure there is a text from Leviticus that is applicable). I have been focusing on "work results" when I talk to people, emphasizing that specification addresses issues outside of product selection that can be critical to the project.
"Specs to me in this BIM world is about providing the necessary information in an easily read form continaing only the information needed for the task and nothing more." This has always been the goal of a good specification. Unfortunately, what is really important at one point in the continuium from insception to realization of a project may be trivial or irrelevant at another point.
By its very nature, BIM will focus more on the physical and performance attributes of an object or a collection of objects. Quality control issues (including submittals, coordination, warrantees, tolerances, field conditions) are not "objects or attributes of objects in a model" (although I suppose they could be), but they may be critical to successful completion of the project.
My time with CAD goes back to the mid-80s. I backed off and returned to spec writing when I say people who used (and developed) such tools were much better computer jockeys than they were architects. Moreover, many mistook computer expertise for real architectural expertise (which is another whole discussion). It has been frustrating to discuss products and work results with such people when they really aren't interested in much other than the graphic representation.
I would hope that many BIM developers have realized that generating a bill of materials is not the same as generating a specification. Such a list helps (helps more if the nomenclature is correct). The bill of materials is a starting place; does this particular work result require a Product Data submittal? or a Shop Drawings? Are there source quality control issues that have to be addressed? What about preparation before installation? Are there tolearances that must be met?
The bill of materials will probably list a significant quantity of galvanized steel pipe which may be used in a variety of work results including columns, handrails, guardrails, and piping. Plastic laminate may be a common finish material, but the work result may be cabinets or countertops or toilet partitions. Stone may be used for exterior cladding (both in anchored or adhered applications), exterior paving, interior columns, countertops, or toilet partitions. Each of the various types of work results above may require a slightly application of the specific product.
When one looks at all the players on a particular construction project (typically almost 100 even on small projects many more on large projects), each of these uses the construction documents different ways, some very specific and narrow, others very broadly. The plastic laminate manufacturer is interested in how much, what type, and what color products are to be suppled to a cabinetmaker (or other fabricator). The cabinetmaker is interested panel products, adhesives, hardware, and fabrication standards in addtion to the plastic laminate products. Someone needs to be concerned about the schedule and how it gets installed.
Should BIM even address all of this? Depends on which fight your dog is in. The Owner is going to want different things out of the BIM than the roofer wants which is different from what the engineer doing the energy model wants while the guy hanging the doors wants to know if he needs to have wood screws or metal screws.
Traditional construction drawings are in a sense very abstract and they are more economical about how information is conveyed. Not every piece of rebar is shown, but there is enough information for a fabricator to furnish all of the rebar and stirrups that are required. Do we really want to require that BIM fill in between showing a few "instances" and shipping the complete order? I doubt that there is a computer in the country that is really capable of showing every single item required for say an elementary school for 600 students (every nail, every screw, every stirrup, every sheet of insulation board or sheathing, every masonry tie, every masonry unit), but this is what many people are expecting.
If the Drawings show where, how much, what size, and interface between products and systems (think of a door detail showing an interface between a wall and a frame and an operating door leaf), the Specifications carry a different bucket of water (materials for each assembly, performance requirements, and tolerances as well as quality assurance, field conditions, warrantees, and finishes).
Is BIM really able to carry the burden of all of this information, or are BIM developers going to discard as irrelevant items that pose different levels of difficulty? This is very much like the CAD monkeys I have dealt with, secure in their own skills, who simply will not face up to the fact that it really does matter whether or not the gyp board thickness is 1/2 or 5/8 inches, and furthermore, that they should understand why this matters.
We can build expert systems, we cannot build expert systems that we know will be used expertly. |
spiper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 01:55 pm: | |
I would take Mr. Jordan's gyp bd. example one step further. The Model may show the proper thickness for the board but has the operator actually imbedded the correct information for each 5/8" thick layer. Is some of the board impact resistant, fire resistant, no-sag ceiling board, moisture resistant, etc.
The drawings my accurately depict a 5/8" thick material but still not tell the whole story. If the BIM model is intended to tell the whole story (and link this information to the specs) should the most capable CAD operator be doing these drawings or the most experienced architect/specifier? How we resolve this issue going forward is going to be difficult. I suspect that instead of completely resolving it we will use only a portion of the computing power that BIM might be capable of. |
Alan Mays, AIA
Senior Member
Username: amays
Post Number: 176
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 02:15 pm: | |
Okay Giles, I will take a bite at some of your comments. Ken makes very good points. As for e-Specs, well it is a partial software solution. What I mean by that is it doesn't have the continuous work process within the software. While I was with another company, we looked into it and Speclink until the company decided to move in a different direction. One issue that Ken is a huge proponent of is the use of PPDs and being able to fold them into a full specification later has been executed better with other software systems. Also updates were better executed with other systems. Software is always being developed and moved further. For me personally, I am a Mac user so using any current spec software is not a viable solution. I do not want to add additional cost and IT maintenance by using emulation software.
Looking beyond that, I feel that tools for specifiers are what is lacking. BIM tools are everywhere and other software is being developed for contractors, engineers and architects, but specifiers is so lacking. I agree with your statement about Word Perfect. The reliance on word processing is entrenched that development of spec software is hindered by the specifiers as much as software developers. I also feel that lack of development with what I will call future development. The iPad, etc. As mobile technology changes and develops further, software for the specifier and architect must change. That arena is wide open and I can see development there.
Specifiers must start thinking about future trends more and more. How to adapt to the changing marketplace. There are opportunities there.
Finally, specs themselves need to change with the new technologies. Masterformat may already be out of date. Is the spec turning into something that end users don't want to use? Are we turning it into something like Microsoft Word that most users never use but 10% of what the software actually does? Take a survey within the office or your clients and ask them hard questions. Let them be critical.
With all this said, it also means better collaboration with the different software companies and we all know how that doesn't really happen much... |
Alan Mays, AIA
Senior Member
Username: amays
Post Number: 177
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 02:26 pm: | |
spiper: That is a good example. The issue is that in BIM, you could show where each of those types of Gyp. Bd. goes. The question is do you really need to do that? Does the architect actually have the fee to be able to build a virtual model that shows all the details like that? Does he have the schedule to do so?
The answer is no. That is why drawings and specs are done with showing typical details and common things not repeated. That is why our specs cover general items. To do so would increase the costs dramatically. Even the hourly rate of the person building the model would increase as he would need to be a highly experienced technical architect knowing what is needed where. That is why we use CAD and BIM jocks, it is the cost... |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 745
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 02:27 pm: | |
Excellent points that go back to the issue I raised with the Revit families as an example.
Most Revit users I have dealt with don't know where to use a laminated board vs. a mechanically attached board or where I have specified tile, mortar, and waterproofing over cement board instead of some concoction they pulled off the AutoCAD menu of tricks.
Unless the spec writer becomes the keeper of content for families and keynotes, a task none of us have time to do, we're pushing a string uphill.
Revit users almost never bother to actually understand what family they have selected or what the components of the assembly are supposed to be, so the information they provide me tends to be useless. BTW, I keep harping on Revit simply because that seems to be the weapon of choice currently. Without some level of industry standardization (interoperability?), BIM operators and spec writers will continue to speak different languages. Both are steering massive bulks so wholesale changes in direction are neither fast or efficient. No one has time to do this and there is nothing available off-the-shelf, yet, that allows us to do this.
As others have said when discussing this topic, take what you can get, break it early and often, provide feedback and be a force for change. We can't expect e-SPECS or BSD to get everything right coming out of the box, especially since everyone does things differently. Still, somehow, things get built, lawyers get rich, and life goes on, allowing us to rejoice in our victories while complaining about the fact that we can't just press a button and be done with it. But then, where would the fun be in creating something great? |
Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 567
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 02:28 pm: | |
Spiper, to answer your question, YES, the BIM model shows the proper annotation for the type of sheathing. The line that represents the wall does not have this specific data, but the wall tag that denotes the wall type does have this info.
Alan Mays, your argument about not incurring additional cost to support emulation software is incredibly weak. Just do it man. It's $80 for Parallel's, Win7 licenses are $70 through an E-retailer like PriceGrabber, and with that combination, you can use Bluebeam instead of Acrobat, giving yourself an exceptionally better PDF solution, and the money saved on Bluebeam over renewing your Acrobat license pays for Parallels and Win7. It's a Win-Win for you. You never need to leave the Mac OSX experience, you can operate Windows programs (like Bluebeam or Spec software) in a simple dialog box. It's completely transparent to you which OS you are in. Just do it. You will like it. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 746
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 02:50 pm: | |
I'd like to touch on the point Peter makes about embedding information in the Design BIM that allows full estimation of materials, including uses. As Peter points out, that would be a horrible use of the Design BIM. It is the reason why it's important to require the Contractor develop a Construction BIM that physically incorporates shop drawings, at least structural and MEP, so that they can perform real clash detection and conflict resolution between trades before it happens.
As to what the Owner needs, or really the facility manager, I doubt they need too much more than computer controls of their HVAC systems with sensors in each room to determine who is too hot and too cold. Maybe they can see what light bulbs need replacing and what height the window shades should be (which frankly should probably be on sensors anyway). Sort of like the 'smart home' technologies that are being made available to residential users. I can't believe most owners will refer to the BIM to see what their warranty dates are for their roofing system, or to find out what their roof system is or the manufacturer or the installer or anything else that can be easily embedded in the BIM. Shame really. Lots of power and no ability to use it. |
Alan Mays, AIA
Senior Member
Username: amays
Post Number: 178
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 02:52 pm: | |
Nathan, it is not a weak argument at all. I did that for a while. Parallels is cheap, but then a Windows license. Also updating it does not always work. Example, I run Virtual Box and have Windows 7 on it. I cannot get a critical update for Windows to load because it does not recognize the virtual PC. I had the same problem with Parallels. I have talked with BlueBeam directly and they assure me that they are in development of a Mac version. Heard that for over a year. Sounds like a marketing ploy to me. I use their iPad software so I know they can develop for Apple products. Then of course, I need to set up printers, have other devices for the virtual PC and that is not always easy. I look at it as a consumer. When I buy a Mac, I also want to use the Mac software. Not have to dual boot, etc. Why is it the users responsibility to jury rig a fake PC? That is just more cost and headaches. Same with BIM software. ArchiCad and Vectorworks seems to be able to create their software for both platforms. Autodesk can't. No, they are just lazy. In fact Autodesk makes other software that is for the Mac and PC. Maya is an example. When they bought it was already done that way. Autodesk is lazy in development. They are slow with fixing issues (like dimensions that disappear when the model changes) but always adding features. Why, I suspect, they do not have to change the core software. Hey, it is all about the money.
I am doing it and I hate it. |
Brian Payne, AIA
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne
Post Number: 28
Registered: 01-2014
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 05:13 pm: | |
Gilles, thanks for biting. I was wondering if anyone from Interspec was on this forum. As you know I totally respect what you guys have done and would be more than willing to provide additional feedback. You have my contact info.
I have not been on this forum for a long time, but the wealth of knowledge I have experienced here has been great. I don't personally know of a better place to get honest feedback on the specification process.
I'm going to second Alan May's response when he talked about PPD's and updates
My main issue though is that the software should be primarily a project (and master) based product/material collaboration tool that talks to Revit/IFC/ETC and also happens to edit/print written specification sections. This is the same transition Revit is making. Revit is becoming an AEC collaboration platform that also let's you print construction drawings.
Let's keep the dialogue going! |
spiper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 10:07 pm: | |
Nathan; I admittedly know very little about BIM so I apologize if I am way off. I do understand that you can create different wall tags to denote the correct information for various conditions. My concern is not with the capability of the program, it is with the expertise of the individual identifying the various conditions. (as the old saying goes; I wish I had a nickel for every time I have explained to someone that "yes an access door in a fire rated wall must be a fire rated access door".) These are often the same kids creating the BIM model. The program is ready, willing and able but the operators are not experienced enough to take full advantage of the software. Meanwhile those that are experienced enough to take full advantage of the program are not ready, or willing, or able to put that experience to use in the production of the model. There are exceptions to this of course but I fear they will continue to be the exception and not the rule.
I am afraid that in many instances it may become a garbage in-garbage out situation. This is what I was referring to when I talked about only using a portion of the computing power of the program. |
Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 569
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 10:59 pm: | |
Alan, I suspect we are drifting off topic, but....
"Parallels is cheap, but then a Windows license..."
NWOODS: Yes, about $160 for both – a very minor cost for a professional user.
"I have talked with BlueBeam directly and they assure me that they are in development of a Mac version. Heard that for over a year. Sounds like a marketing ploy to me. I use their iPad software so I know they can develop for Apple products."
NWOODS: If you search Bluebeam’s site, they are actively hiring Mac developers, but before the Mac version will be released, they are focusing on a web version that is OS-independent. V12 which just released represents a major “under the hood” reprogramming to help them merge their platforms. It’s a major undertaking.
"When I buy a Mac, I also want to use the Mac software. Not have to dual boot, etc. Why is it the users responsibility to jury rig a fake PC?"
NWOODS: Sounds like a bad setup. Try running Parallels in Convergence Mode, and then you’ll never know the difference. You can click on a PDF on your Mac desktop and Bluebeam will open up directly. It just happens to have the close/minimize buttons on the top right instead of top left because it happens to be a Windows dialogue box, but other than that, Windows is just running in the background and is transparent to you. You can right click in Finder and open directly into Windows Media Explorer, or chose MacOSX iMovie or whatever you want. It’s all in the same window, same desktop, it’s totally transparent. Best of both worlds.
Note, I am running with 16GB of RAM and SSD storage drives, so it's all pretty quick. If I were running on a legacy 5400rpm spinning disk hard drive, I think it would be a far inferior user experience. |
Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 570
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 11:02 pm: | |
"Product selection is not product specification"
Mr. Jordan, that is an awesome comment. I whole heartedly agree! |
Brian Payne, AIA
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne
Post Number: 29
Registered: 01-2014
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 08:47 am: | |
Sniper,
Look I realize that not many specification writers are also going to manage the BIM content like I do, but the comments about those using BIM not understanding how products are used is respectfully getting old. That is the exactly why it is the responsibility of people that know how to do architecture/specify to take control of the process. Here are a couple of easy steps....
1) The specification writer should insist on using the Revit keynote system for notation. (It doesn't matter to me whether the text is with the keynote or in a separate column).
2) The specification writer should manage the Office Master Revit keynote file for coordination of MasterFormat number and note language for conformity with the specification.
3) The specifier should direct the BIM manager to name all detail components with the specification number (and correct spec language) as it's prefix. This does several things...a) it organizes the components in Revit. b) it slowly teaches the project team where to find things in the specification. c) When a new detail component is created, the creator will probably stop by to ask what number to assign it giving you a moment to review/comment.
3) Every standard detail component and many families can be pre-tagged with the correct keynote prior to the start of the project. Other families can be pre-tagged with specification tag descriptions such as CT-# for ceramic tile that coordinate with specs.
4) Schedule keynote reviews of the exported keynotes actually used in the project every two weeks to make sure the team is progressing properly and did not create keynotes or reference sections that "don't really exist!"
5) Learn the Revit Family Editor at a minimum. This way you can provide the family/component to the team, with the correct spec naming, spec keynote value, and parameter data required for accurate schedule values. You can else help create the different family "Types" that correspond to real products or products that meet industry standard dimensions/thicknesses, etc.
My opinion: Increase your value by learning to communicate your knowledge through the tools that are being used rather than separate documents. It wan't solve everything, but it has helped me tremendously. |
Brian Payne, AIA
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne
Post Number: 30
Registered: 01-2014
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 08:53 am: | |
Yes, this is written from an in-house spec writer perspective. I really don't know how you would handle this level of inter-operability with an outside spec writer. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 713
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 09:38 am: | |
Brian, your comments are awesome! I know of a number of "captured" spec writers (as opposed to independent) who have been doing this for several years now.
A key conceptual disconnect is that while BIM encourages and supports a greater level of detail earlier in the project design process, this is not always possible or even desirable.
That designedly line across a space could represent a partition, a change in floor elevation, an operable partition, a change in ceiling level, or a division in functional use. There are stages in a project when such ambiguity is not only desirable, but necessary. Such an "intentional" or "propositional" object needs to be supported with the goal of it turning into an element in the BIM database or disappearing altogether. |
spiper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 12:45 pm: | |
Brian; I completely agree with you and I am attempting to take these very steps in my firm's day to day practice. (I actually cut and pasted your 5 steps for reference) My statement is not about what we should and could do but rather about what all to often we will do.
The part of your response I disagree with is the part about my comment being old. it isn't old it is down-right ancient, because it is an acknowledgement of human nature. Knowing what we should be doing and actually doing it are often two different things. I should get a mild cardio workout 2-3 times a week, I should eat more leafy green vegetables and I should avoid sugary snacks. I know all of these things but do I practice them? not as much as I should.
My concern is with those of us who don't have your resolve, experience, expertise. Will this mean we don't take full advantage of the programs we utilize? Almost certainly. Will this also lead to an inferior product? That is a much more difficult answer to obtain. |
Gilles Letourneau (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2014 - 04:52 pm: | |
Ken,
Nice to chat with you again BTW!
“The other issue is that too many Revit modelers don't know how to properly use families so, if I'm using e-SPECS, as an example, the information I receive from the model is useless.”
I would agree with this to a large extent…
How about a series of Revit templates organized by building type which include all typical constructions for that building type including equipment and accessories. The assemblies are already linked to a set of Uniformat Codes or descriptions and are “spec-ready”.
I was once told by a very smart man that errors occur at the CAD/BIM side not because there is too little to choose from but because there is too much to choose from. I think this is true most of the time.
Right now the development of naming conventions modeling standards and/or best modeling practices differs from one office to the next. So much so that it’s impossible to keep track. Some of it is really good some not so good.
Peter-
All very good points – can’t argue here “actually I think we were saying the same thing ;)”
I look at computers as tools to illuminate repetitive and error prone tasks that don’t require reasoning. Reason is - computers can’t reason.
I have developed many rule based and even system designed with neural networks to simulate the brain and they have been lots of fun but results – one word NOT!
So let’s agree to leave the reasoning to peeps and the quantitative and repetitive tasks to the silicon.
Having said that I still am a believer that BIM can and is getting quite close to be able to process transactions in product selection (note I didn't include product specification) and the proper graphic representation of those transactions.
Alan-
My condolences to your MAC issue.  JK.
I have had many discussions with commercial document providers (one in particular!) about the possibility of implement the PPD. I always get the same answer - Soon Gill Soon. We're working on it!
I’m a huge proponent of that as a great starting point for any design process. I would love to get my hands on a well accepted template that could be used to begin the BIM process. This would be a big step in allowing data to be entered once and then have it move forward with the development of the project.
We have to illuminate data transfer from one system to the next. Might be impossible in the USA and patent laws (another thread entirely)
- First I need to get my hands on a well constructed template
- Second part is just work. That’s not a bother to me.
On a side note – you guys would be shocked at how many times I’m told "e-SPECS is too hard to learn because we don’t know what Uniformat is!"
Such a shame.
I'm going to keep working at it...
"It's not how many times you fall but how many times you get up."
Talk to you all soon. |
|
4specs.com Home Page