brudgers

"Partnering" was the name of the AIA's previous attempt to shift the sort of liability only big firms can absorb to the architect. My E&O carrier doesn't cover me for contractual obligations beyond a traditional standard of care. I represent my level of documentation as "better" at my sole risk. There are probably more court jurisdictions within 100 miles of me than there are in all of Finland.

Repeating information leads to errors. Calling out a door as left hand reverse opening on the schedule doesn't have any benefit. Mira los planos!

Integrated project deleivery is just today's "partnering." It's a set of processes and contractual structures (social technology) not computer technology. Data sharing is part of it, but it's not design build by any means. Basically, it's the AIA's attempt to move the architect more toward the center of the process - a return to the mythical time of all good.

The legal environment affects them too. Design Build is problematic for public entities in many US jurisdictions. Few U.S. Vectorworks Only firms are doing projects on a scale where Skanska would be hiring them for a Design Build project, and much of Skanska's US work has traditionally been negotiated bid, CM, or hard bid anyway. There just aren't that many US Vectorworks firms of sufficient scale and portfolio to chase that level of Contractor as a client...particularly if the firms have unproductive tribal allegiances.

Your math might work if humans were organized like bees.

I carry personal liability for 10-13 years (depending on the state and it's statute of repose). In some states there is non statute of repose...basically liablity for architectural errors and ommissions until you die. Though contractual liability can be limited in many jurisdictions by incorporation or similar operating entities, the architect who seals the plans remains unshielded for architectural errors. Except of course insofar as such errors are insurable and actually insured. And action beyond the normal standard of care is neither.

Same for quantities. For example, It is not unusual to schedule doors by type. For example, type 8 may be an office door. The hardware requirements are all the same as are the slab size and the frame. And that common information is in the schedule. All the doors are shown in the plans, but the schedule doesn't provide a quantity (nor does it distinguish between left/right and reverse opening). It's the contractor's responsibilty to provide what's on the plans. I'm not responsible if too many or too few doors or the wrong doors show up on the site, nor should I be (so long as the information to determine the quantity is in the documents).

Like many things in Vectorworks, it's what happens when programmers are responsible for interface design. They hates dialogs.

It's not just pretty pictures. But, means and methods of construction are the responsibility of the Builder not the architect. That's not to say that the architect doesn't need to clearly understand the way in which construction will proceed, but that the architect cannot require that it proceed one way or another. It all comes back to litigation, the architectural profession's lack of political power, and anti-trust legislation. The result is that the architect is only really responsible for determining if the construction conforms with the contract documents when it is completed. Assuming of course that the Owner is even interested in the architect making such a determination and actually contracts the architect to do so. Sometimes, the drawings turn out to be only suggestions.

Here, the architect traditionally has not been responsible for the quantities of materials, and the contractor is responsible for anything which can be reasonably inferred from the drawings. Our architectural drawings communicate design intent. Having one's database do so is another matter. Particularly given our legal climate. Suppose I have a record attached to a door symbol, and the default value for the cost field is $0.00. I won't put cost in my printed documents, but it could easily appear in a BIM model (or CAD file). How do I tell the contractor that they cannot rely on that information? Particularly if I don't realize it's there? There are many aspects of US practice which don't translate. Liability is one of them. Digital data approaches the boundary between services and products. I am insured against defects in services, but not products - and I could not afford such insurance. My drawings - printed and PDF - remain my instruments of service. I provide CAD files and similar data to anyone other than my consultants "for convenience only and without any warranty whatsoever with the sole exception that I am the copyright holder." When previously I worked in an environment where documents were shared between parties, it was a proprietary solution (Buzzsaw).

I agree that your assumptions are valid, at least for some models of practice. The issue here is, "how is BIM management monetized?" Architects compete for private sector jobs based in part on fees, and public sector fee curves have not generally been adjusted in order to compensate the architect for BIM management. And our traditional model is an arm's length relationship between the Architect and Builder. Requiring the architect to be responsible for the accuracy of quantity surveying, is problematic from a liability standpoint under traditional practice. By and large BIM has to pay for itself on the design side or be an Owner requirement. And when it's an Owner requirement, there are likely to be legal issues beyond those adressed in standard contracts.

My advice: Progressive refinement. Make 3d solids of simple forms for now. Place it a class like "casework-generic" Turn it into a symbol. Model actual cabinets at the point you need more complexity. Place actual cabinets in a class like "caswork-actual." Add them to your symbol. Then you can model both ways as needed and control presentation with classes.

Here there are many clients who do not care about the BIM model. In such circumstances if one exists it is for the benefit of the design or the construction. Litigation colors our world. Digitial data often comes with disclaimers. Paper documents remain the primary instruments of service for most projects.

Yes, and many don't, and some require it in other formats. Regardless, if as you say Civil Software is not a direct concern of VW architects and architects in general, why would the issue of how the site model winds up within the BIM specification be an architect's concern either?

I'm not defending Revit or Autodesk. I'm only describing the current state of affairs. Are you suggesting that Kool-Aid actually uses Sweets?

A separate file which was referenced with a design layer viewport (on it's own layer) would allow you to use a standard legend across multiple projects, multiple machines and multiple users. It could even be drawn 1:1 (as is proper for annotation).

Just trying to understand. Are the symbols in the legend supposed to be different printed sizes on different sheets?

Autodesk has products for sophisticated sitework and civil engineering and support for an open standard. Regardless, I would be surprised if you were using Sweets.

Something which appears on 11 sheets might be better as a symbol or a reference.

I didn't think that "IFC" was a synonym for BIM. Matter of fact, I still don't. http://www.landxml.org/

Just plain old vanilla AutoCAD Civil 3D. http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?siteID=123112&id=8777380#channels_Highlights

The thing is, architects don't buy construction materials. And refusing to specify products due to lack of Vectorworks support...well that's just not professional. Then again, I'm not so wild about crusades in the first place.

Quicktime is an ongoing security risk. Banning it is a sensible step for an IT department to take.

Vectorworks color pallets are xml files with CMYK parameters. If you have a CMYK representation, then you could create your own XML color description. That's about as close as you'll get to a real world color.

You may have to close and reopen the drawing to get the changes to take.