A few weeks ago, I was tagged in a thread on Twitter.
A designer, seeking to improve processes and workflow, was asking how to improve their client's method, because they felt it could be done more effectively.
That's the type of seeking I LOVE to see.
Except... the client was already doing what they had to do for their lifecycle and could not change it.
The question came down to cubicles, and storing data related to it. He felt that the addition of rooms/room bounding lines was labor and effort that was not necessary. But, I was able to confirm for him...
Cubicles need to be rooms.
Why?
Glad you asked.
When a Facility Owner / Operator connects their Revit Model to their IWMS [disambiguation], the room records in Revit will connect to the room records in the target database.
Everything in asset management systems start with a room record.
The reason Facility Managers specify design output / handover / deliverables in .RVT or .DWG is that their CAFM has a plug-in that installs with either of those programs (and those programs only), which connects known entity types in Revit with specific tables in the IWMS.
Any data that are a part of those specific types of entities in Revit, will populate as metadata into the appropriate records (and all of their interconnected tables) in the database.
It was only through a mutual connection that I was randomly brought into this conversation to speak for the owner's side. So, please... ask your FMs WHY before you go assuming they are wrong in their approach and move forward with your ideas for improvement after that point, if they are still needed.
Your data has SO MUCH LIFE beyond the construction or renovation you are currently working on. And sometimes, a little more effort is necessary to fit with our myriad other systems, but it makes less effort in the long run throughout the lifecycle.
Also, do not ask the PMs on the client side about BIM standards, they have high turnover and don't know why the FMs do 99% of what they do. If you want an actual answer, find the SME in the receiving facility, working with the CAFM, they'll be able to tell you.
Curious about the roles and responsibilities on the post-construction side?
I explain PMs, FMs, SMEs and other related groups in this article.
There was an Autodesk Discussion Group thread ages ago (intended to be working with FMDesktop but it still applies) to how we need cubicles to be Rooms in Revit today with ARCHIBUS or Maximo or Tririga or FM:Systems FMInteract et al. if you would like to verify what I have stated here.
Want to learn more?
You can listen to this podcast where I discuss document handover for facilities clients.
For further information on who the owners are, and how they access and utilize your data throughout the lifecycle of the building, please see this video presentation.
Here are two back to back presentations on BIM in FM, the first speaker is from Penn State. We did not collaborate beforehand, but both of our presentations aligned. THESE are the issues important to FM.
Lastly, I'll point you to this podcast episode of BIMThoughts on how Facilities is more than just HVAC. Having multiple people involved in the discussion, it is a far more organic discourse and touches on a variety of facilities concerns.
Story time!
This specific (massive) renovation project was back before I mandated BIM in my facility, so we were only discussing AutoCAD deliverables, but serves as a perfect example of communication saving time, and lack of communication wasting time:
Contractor #1: Asked me why we needed layer standards and why we needed one plotted output sheet per dwg file.
A1: we need layer standards so we can quickly identify and merge content, or quickly locate specific items during an emergency (I worked in a hospital).
He countered with, do you merge the sections and details into those plans? Do you search for layers in sections and details?
No. No we do not. Sections and details are searched for by their identifier and not merged. BAM, he saved his team a load of effort, because he could skip schedules and details and sections that did not matter to us (which I noted in later revisions of the standards).
A2: We needed one plotted output sheet per file (example Sheet M1 is one file, Sheet M2 is another file), because we used a document management database. Any of the 200 people on the maintenance staff could filter through a dozen pieces of information and drill down to just the 'blueprint' that they needed. They click the link and that specific file comes up and they can access it through a DWG viewer quickly and easily, in case of emergency.
No worries, he ran some type of script that duplicated his files and then removed all but one of the layout tabs, bam, one layout tab per file.
Contractor #2: Never spoke to us at all. Just told their PM who told our PM that the CAD standards were stupid and unattainable and would take over a year to complete, etc.
That PM (I'm looking at you, Leslie Hoffman! <3 ) called a meeting with their designers, both PMs, and me to talk it out face to face.
A1: Layers are impossible to translate with any speed or accuracy.
... they were renaming them by hand.
Never used a layer translator or script or anything. I told them point blank that Contractor #1 had completed all of their revisions in less than 2 weeks, though their scope was larger. I delicately suggested they should hit Google or ask me for suggestions on how our other contractors are handling their compliance. (As an aside, EVERY design team, should have at least one person on staff who is capable of scripting changes on a large scale. That's why we have computers instead of drafting tables these days, for efficiency. I shouldn't be the one responsible for teaching my contractors this stuff, FMs have other things to do.)
A2: Cropping model space to meet the single layout requirement was impossible with any speed.
~blink blink~
They took (and I could see where they'd think this) our requirement for document management regarding a single layout to mean that not just layouts were being manipulated but what they showed in model space. Model space was not ever mentioned in my documents (I later added clarifying language that only Layouts applied, modelspace could remain the same without impacting us).
BONUS ANSWER: They did not ask, but it was worth stating, our RFP included our specs for deliverable, it was part of a bid, and was available to them from before the project even started. Why were those standards not read until handover?
They could have started out using AIA layering and ensuring their pipe labels were done correctly, instead of going back to fix it later. Set up one template file up front that complies, and use that for everything dealing with our projects. Easy-peasy at the end.
