Second Annual Collection of Select Reader Feedback

Happy New Year! AECbytes is starting the year 2006 by publishing its second annual compilation of select reader responses and feedback received in 2005. In the absence of a formal "Letters to the Editor" section, these comments serve to showcase what readers think about the publication and the issues that it covers. The first annual collection, capturing the feedback from 2004, was covered in AECbytes Viewpoint #11.

Due to an unfortunate hard disk crash over the summer, I lost emails sent to me in the first half of the year, so regretfully, they are not represented in this selection. My sincere apologies to readers who wrote in during that time. A new dedicated Maxtor back-up drive now ensures that such a situation will not recur.

The following compilation of comments is presented in chronological order based on the publication date of the corresponding articles. I hope you find it an interesting read.

buildingSMART (get over it)
AECbytes Viewpoint by Mario Gutman, VP and Firmwide CAD Director, HOK
(August 9, 2005)

"Wonderful article in AECbytes! I've been trying to explain the difference between just BIM data and purpose-appropriate information for years, and never managed it. Now I can just point them to your article …" Steve Segarra, CTO, ARCHIBUS, Inc.

"Thank you for your very interesting article in AECbytes. Any contribution to a discussion among architects about BIM and the direction our profession should take is welcome. However, I find myself in disagreement with some of the ideas in you put forward. Architects have not been 'doing BIM' heretofore—there is a world of difference between producing drawings and specs versus producing a virtual model of a building from which drawings and specs are derived (until they become obsolete). Whether you like the term 'paradigm shift' or not (I personally think it is overused), BIM has the potential of bringing about a fundamental shift in the way we work and think. The difference is that between representation and simulation. Traditional construction documents represent a building. By 'represent' I mean that they describe certain aspects of a building but have none of the properties of the building itself. A simulation on the other hand acts in some respects like the building. It could be used, for example, to anticipate the construction process, predict the building's structural behavior and energy consumption and ascertain its compliance with codes. Of course the current technology does not have all of these capabilities. But the idea of basing design on an information model (a database) rather than isolated representations offers these and other possibilities.

On the other hand, I share your concern that we are giving too much control to the software industry. We already made this mistake once by allowing Autodesk to dominate the CAD market and impose standards that were often motivated more by their business model than by our needs. We should try to avoid repeating this mistake by insisting on interoperability and open standards like IFCs. I don't have any trouble remembering these terms and my colleagues are at least as smart as I am. If you are worried about giving too much power to the software industry, we need open standards and the competition they make possible to make sure that our tools suit our needs, not a software company's. Thanks again for your article." David R. Scheer, AIA, Scheer & Scheer Inc.

"I wholeheartedly agree with your observations that 'that we have been doing BIM all along and it is better to recapture that fact than to get distracted by the new toys.' This is precisely why the term sometimes gets under my skin, especially when it is portrayed as new and great. I am an architect by schooling. Twelve years ago I was a CAD Manager and was asked to put together building and wall sections for a project. This was in the days of the 486 66 mhz machines. I actually had a screamer 'over-clocked' 88 mhz machine by MC² computers and decided to take a novel approach and build a virtual structural and architectural model which I could then extract sections from. I was using Bentley MicroStation 5.0 at the time, long before TriForma. I am proud to say my vision did come to some fruition, but limitations in hardware and software did hamper me from fully realizing my goal. My point though is that to me, that was very much BIM though no one knew that term then.

To my way of thinking, BIM with its emphasis on the 'I' is misplaced and is more engineering centric. I personally favor the more generic and encompassing concept of BDS/BDMS, Building Design [Management] System/Solution with its emphasis on design and capturing design intent. In this definition BIM is simply the latest evolutionary step of the more generic concept rather than an end in itself. Thus BDS = CAD + CADD + CAM + Document Management + Legacy Data + BIM + ...

I will say that some new 'toys' I see showing great potential for the capturing and sharing of design intent are Bentley's Generative Components and 3D PDF development. I just attended a two day workshop on Generative Components, and I must say that although the technology itself was great, what inspired me more was the sense of synergy experienced in such an environment with 'young' masters and grad students and college professors. Being surrounded by such youthful enthusiasm and potential is such a high. The open acceptance to learning is contagious and so wonderful." John Finkell, Design Technology/Information Systems, NBBJ

SketchUp 5
AECbytes Product Review (August 18, 2005)

"I have always enjoyed your reviews, but would like to point out some comments I take issue with in your review of SketchUp 5.0. Not all architects and designers would like a grid to snap to as a tool. However, if one is required, there is a ruby script available for free that allows users to easily provide a background grid for snapping or inferring. There is also a ruby script for constructing different wall types in a parametric type fashion, a fault the program lacks in your opinion. In my experience the moving of volumes is a simple matter as long as you follow the rules of grouping which is extremely convenient and even more organized in version 5.0 with the new outline menu. It makes the editing of those volumes so much easier than any other program. There are some menu issues I believe SketchUp is still working on that were changed from version 4.0. I think the program is a godsend and it is a major element in our design practice. I enjoy your reviews and columns and look forward to your future writings." Mark W. Paschke, A.I.A., Uihlein Wilson Architects, Inc.

Autodesk Revit Building 8/8.1
AECbytes Product Review (September 7, 2005)

"Excellent review! I learned some things I hadn't yet seen in 8.1. Thanks for the including the images and the credit. I think it is very important for the industry to have tools which are really useable by mainstream architects. They shouldn't have to hire consultants for renderings, daylighting, etc." Jim Gleeson, AIA, Design Integration, PLLC.

"I just read your review of Revit 8.1 that was forwarded to me by a colleague. The article is very well written, and tells facts, nothing more, and nothing less. Your article certainly has piqued my interest in Revit as a possible BIM solution. You may find that surprising given the success that my firm (name withheld) has had with Bentley solutions in the past, but myself and the other members of the R&D team are always keeping our eyes on other products and solutions." Name withheld by request

"I just read your review of Autodesk Revit Building 8/8.1 and am very impressed. That is a tough, fair, and thorough review of a really complex application. I have never used this or any BIM application, and am just shopping for software to design my own custom home. Your review did more to educate me on the capabilities and context of the practical details of applied uses of BIM and the way the product is still maturing. I don't need to explain any of this to you, but I was so impressed, that I needed to say a polite thank you to be sure you are aware of your contribution to the silent readers' education in understanding these complex tools." A.B., Home Builder, California

Autodesk Revit Structure
AECbytes Product Review (September 15, 2005)

"Thank you for writing such excellent articles. I base many of my personal decisions regarding design software implementation in companies I work for, on your articles. I know I can count on non biased reviews of these products. I am currently watching Revit Structural." Andrew A. Blair, C.D., Senior Structural Designer, Alliance Engineering, Inc.

"I just finished reading your review of Revit Structure and I wanted to let you know I enjoyed it! I appreciate that you've captured one of the main pluses for Revit Structure in that it links directly to analysis software, rather than presenting analysis as a black box (as with Tekla, etc.). There are modeling nuances the engineer needs to accomplish in the analysis program that Revit Structure has no interest in, nor should it, and the ability to allow the structural engineer to use his application of choice, in my opinion, will play very well for Revit Structure.

We've just completed linking our next application (RISAFloor) to Revit Structure and I just spoke with an engineer yesterday who is planning to use Revit Structure (with RISA) to design cold formed steel buildings. Thanks for the great article!" Bruce R. Bates, President, RISA Technologies

"It is exciting to read your review of this software and realize that we are finally able to coordinate the architectural and structural design functions in a natural and powerful way. I have not used Revit Structure, but hope that I will have the chance in the future. It would be very interesting to experiment with a two way link to structural design programs. One area that was not covered in your review was the support for CIS/2. This is a very well defined structural steel exchange format that is widely used in the industry and allows links between designers, detailer and manufactures of structural steel components. Do you know more about this?" Paul Teicholz, former director of CIFE, Stanford

Editor's Note: At the time of publication of the review, Revit Structure did not support CIS/2, but a third-party vendor has now developed a plug-in using the Revit Structure API to support CIS/2, which is currently in beta testing.

"Since you opened your fine review of Revit's Structural component with the 9/11 WTC story, I thought this website might be of some interest to you, even though most folks refuse to accept any explanation for the WTC 1, 2 & 7, other than the "official" story. Jim Hoffman, the mind behind this website, has at least reviewed all the data and is open minded as to other scenarios. You are doing a fine job and I enjoy your work." Scott Page, Designer, Berkeley

De-Vendoring AEC Software
AECbytes Viewpoint by Mark Sawyer, CEO, @Last Software (September 21, 2005)

"Nice article… brought back memories of my days in the computer group at Skidmore. I remember that my team had an imperative to go walk the design floors once a day—just to stay in touch and see what people needed or how they were using our tools. Or in the days of Premisys when we built nice custom apps… I'm glad to see you're still thinking customer first and holding the rest of us to that premise." Mark Evans, Product Manager, Building Asset Management,Building Solutions Division, Autodesk, Inc.

"Having read your article in Lachmi's AECbytes I felt I had to drop you a quick email to congratulate you on an excellent viewpoint—and a breath of fresh air among the 'everyone is an expert' BIM commentaries. It's great to hear someone driving against the changes that are detrimental to our end use of the software. With the gradual eradication of the 'value-added reseller' chain (so that software houses can maximise their own direct profits/turnover) we've seen things become so sales-driven that most CAD-related software companies have forgotten what we need to actually deliver and how—and no longer have the expertise in the right areas to understand this. I'd love to back you up and call them developers or makers, but they're not. They are vendors. Pity. Thanks for an inspiring article!" Nigel Davies, Principal, Evolve Consultancy

"Thanks for mentioning SOM as one of the pioneers of CAD for architects. I was there then. I don't necessarily agree however, with your comment about the lack of a mouse pointing device. When I started at SOM in 1984, our DRAFT system was VAX based, with Tektronix terminals. Those old terminals had thumbwheels for crosshair control (two wheels at 90 degrees to each other). To this day, I fondly recall them as far superior to today's devices. Another point you make, that today's CAD systems are more powerful than yesterday's may be true with some systems, certainly those that started out under 'ye olde' PC. But the mainframe systems like DRAFT actually had to give up features when they were dumbed down to fit into Bill Gates' box. Example: every command in DRAFT had a version that did not require user interaction or input. This meant that command procedures (scripts or macros) could be run without user interaction or even WINDOWS. Why? Because the script could be run in the background on a multiprocessor like VAX or RS6000. We never plotted on user's time. Plotting was batch processed in the background while the user continued with their work. I could go on and on.

I would trade AutoCAD away in a minute for SOM AES. We licensed it to IBM in the 90's and they dropped the ball, but not before porting it to Windows 95, a copy of which I have now and occasionally use to fix something that AutoCAD just can't do. Regarding unnecessary upgrades, I agree with you. Autodesk is in a box. Since they have 90+% of the market, expanding their market share is almost impossible. The only product they have that can sell in real volume is upgrades. SOM once approached Autodesk with an offer to switch to AutoCAD if they would add some features that we considered essential to our practice. Their answer? If we added all these features now, we would destroy our upgrade path! Their strategy is to trickle in a few features at a time, always leaving something out for the next version.

Will they ever have an uncomplicated 'flatten' command that simply works? In 1984, DRAFT had it as one short command! (move elements scale z 0 about 0 0 0)" Michael Jarosz, AIA, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP.

"Mark Sawyer presents an interesting opinion, but I am not sure that he understands the AEC market. First of all, the cliche 'customer centric' has lost its meaning, like all other cliches. It just another phrase to patronize the customer. If we consider software as a tool for the design professional, then we can compare it to the tools of the drafter of a bygone era. Tools are not something the design professional wants or needs to spend time developing. Let me tell you what I need it to do, and you make it do it. I need a drafting table to support most, if not all, of my body weight; I need the top to be flat; I need the surface to support drafting instruments that will enhance the drafting process, and I need to be able to attach paper to the table in a secure, but temporary manner. I do not need for the table maker to sit down with me and discuss wood species, wood moisture content, adhesive characteristics, and surface sanding. Just give me something that works, and, oh yeah, I want my offices in Quebec, Singapore, London, and Paris to be able to buy them locally at a local price, and I want to be able to buy the same thing five years from now. There were people who had a passion for table design and ergonomics, and they anticipated our needs and met them.

Compare that with the early days of CAD, when every office of every business spent fortunes for its staff to develop scripts and lisp routines to customize their package. When the poor CAD operator changed offices, he had to learn a whole new set of routines and scripts, rendering him useless for production for a month or more. The fact must be faced that employees are no more than commodities to their employers, expendable at will. With a fluid work force, it imperative to reduce the learning curve to hours instead of months. If each business had its own 'customer centric' CAD package, it would have to account for lost production each time it went into a hiring mode. Once the 'customer centric process' expends its budget, no further development will take place.

The one CAD business with which I have dealt for the last ten years has made enormous strides over that same time span. It has provided for me tremendous time savers, most of which never occurred to me. I have corresponded with the organization by way of some 'wish list' items, and they have all been addressed. Some are resolved, while others are still in development. So, to expect software manufacturers to be all things to all people may be a little grandiose. No one but the really big boys, who wrote all those lisp routines in the first place, would be able to afford such extraordinary attention from a VENDOR. The rest would be left with primitive products.

As long as my vendor is responsive to my wish list, and as long as he allows me to benefit from his responses to his other clients, I feel that I am getting a product far better than he and I could devise in our own little isolated world." Charles A. Graham, Jr., AIA, NCARB

CORENET e-PlanCheck: Singapore's Automated Code Checking System
AECbytes "Building the Future" Article (October 26, 2005)

"This was such an interesting article. Using the FORNEX modeling system on top of the IFCs is a very powerful approach to giving the IFCs more meaning and allowing methods to be applied to these objects. I think you explained it very well and am glad that you had excellent assistance from Wawan Solihin and Cheng Tai Fatt." Paul Teicholz, former director of CIFE, Stanford

"I am very pleased to read your article and hear the progress that CORENET had made through the last couple of years. I wrote a paper about the integration of Building Code into BIM and I was disappointed when I reviewed the CORENET website two years ago and compared between their goal and their e-submittal requirements. There was not much information published at that time about their progress in automating the code checking system. It is good that things are moving in the right direction.

I am a PhD student at the College of Architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology and a practicing architect as well. I have been reading your articles for five years and actually they are one of main supporting and reference materials I refer to in my writing and my Ph.D. thesis. I am a big fan of BIM as a design approach and I believe that the essence of any leaped development in architectural practice is embodied in the progress of computer-aided analysis of design; and the core aspect of this progress is based on developing a reliable, comprehensive and computable building database. I like the news about the migration from CAD towards BIM, such as the General Services Administration decision to have all 2006 projects using BIM standards, and the National Institute of Building Sciences and Facility Information Council decision to issue the first BIM standards by Dec 2006.

I think that there are two things that need to happen at the moment: (1) Architects should understand the impact of BIM on the design process and visualize the fact that in the very near future, the end product of their design will be a 'Building Data Model' (BDM) and not the '2D graphics.' The approach will change their role from designers to more of knowledge management experts. (2) CAD systems developers should develop their BIM packages to deliver comprehensive and reliable BDM that correspond to the nature of the design process." Hassan Satti, PhD Candidate, Illinois Institute of Technology

Digital Design and the Age of Building Simulation
AECbytes Viewpoint by Paul Seletsky, Digital Design Director (New York office), SOM
(October 31, 2005)

"Very nicely written article. You pose strong challenges for the professions and the schools. One of the fundamental issues is—are we educating people to be part of a larger design organization, or rather a 1-3 person office, requiring little expertise in anything, and only enough to deal with a 5% commission on a small building? The same block exists in the AIA. Medicine no longer assumes that everyone is a general practitioner. I hope your article starts a dialogue." Charles M. Eastman, Professor of Architecture and Computing, Director, COA Ph.D. Program, Georgia Institute of Technology

Multi-Disciplinary BIM at Work at GHAFARI Associates
AECbytes Feature (November 21, 2005)

"Another very informative article. This company could really be our role model in the area of AEC technology usage. Granted, most companies are not this large so don't have the extensive resources, but it takes someone like them to do the initial bush whacking for everyone else. It's interesting to me that it seems they were able to see the advantages of technology usage for AEC because they are also designers/engineers for other industries (i.e. auto) where the benefits were more readily visible and attainable." Pat Douglas, Adjunct Professor of CAD, Interior Design Department, Bay Path College

This wraps up the second annual collection of select reader feedback to AECbytes' articles. Please continue to write in with your comments and inputs, which will again be showcased in a similar compilation at the end of 2006 or the start of 2007.

Note: The views expressed in Viewpoint articles are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AECbytes. Also, no advertising or sponsorship is accepted for Viewpoint articles.

Viewpoints > Issue #21 > Printer-friendly format