Sharing Vectorworks files

[Christiaan]

We work a lot with a building contractor (under DnB contracts) and they've developed their own in-house M&E team.

 

Interestingly they're using Vectorworks, and they've asked if they can have our VW files so they can complete their M&E design.

 

Question is:

1. Do you ever share Vectorworks files and, if so, do you prepare them in any way before sending? It's occurred to me that now we're using Dropbox, one technically possible way to share the model would be via Dropbox + Project Sharing. This would allow us to retain management of the model and restrict the contractor to certain layers.
2. They're entitled to the design under a standard DnB contract but this matter of source files isn't specifically dealt with. I know BIM-tailored contracts deal with these matters so what things do they cover? If I agree to providing them the file, or access to the file, then I imagine I'm going to need to cover issues such as use and limitations, liability and maybe copyright.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Christiaan

[Gadzooks]

On 05/03/2018 at 11:46 AM, Christiaan said:

Interestingly they're using Vectorworks

 

Unbelievable!! Good to see!

 

What - no replies?? - surely there are some well versed BIM guys out there?

 

Thought I might bounce in with some (probably not that helpful) comments. But, if nothing else, it may confirm your own thoughts??

 

So - I think the first issue is the contractural relationship you've (already) got with the contractor in question. Things will change with the next one, but for now this is already DnB - so you're right to point out that your 'client' (the Contractor) already 'owns' your design work by the design contract (or 'arrangement') you have. This being the case - the M+E contractor can (should?) be given access on the same basis. No worries there then.

 

That being said, I don't think it unreasonable for you to provide the access on a read-only basis or at least some reduced option - as all they want to do is measure heat losses etc and set out pipes and wires (apologies to M+E guys out there!!). Read-only should still give them enough. If they want more and can justify then maybe negotiate the circumstances. A document of 'understanding' sounds pompous, but may help?

 

Obviously any clash detection is beyond VW, but it should do the job. Certainly, the opportunity results in wall, floor and roof penetrations being accurately plotted and 'signed off (or at least allowed for) by ST/E etc. and for yourselves when you realise the 'small' duct that you expected on a prime elevation turns out to be massive!!

 

The main purpose of this exercise is then for you guys to retain 'ownership' (maybe 'guardianship' is a better way of describing your protection of the design) of the VW files - You are the Lead Designer (usually) and this is usually agreed in the contracts.

 

Looking at the BIM side of things (and a lot of designers seem wary of the outcomes even though more and more contracts now require BIM), things move to a 'better place' for the modern relationships we have with the rest of the construction/design team. And this can include a few of the other consultants - Structural, Fire, Sound, Landscape, FM etc, etc. Even the costs can be scrutinised by the fellows with the purse-strings.

 

BIM level 1 - where you feel comfortable now - rarely relies upon sharing the physical files and, most likely, PDFs suffice. It leaves much to 2D where the clarity of 3D would excel.

 

BIM Level 2 - where you are about to move to - will provide a better arrangement for all parties, and is a better organisational and collaborative arrangement by far. You get to provide your design 'baby' to the benefit of the project as a whole. In turn the others in the wider team can give something back by tighter design so the whole thing meshes. The resulting model will provide everything to the Employer (end-user) in terms of how the project got built and will tie in with the general O+M's etc. that need to be produced.

 

All parties need to have the 'new relationships' idea and be more relaxed about the copyright etc aspects. If you think they'll be able to use some of your symbols then, take a pragmatic view and accept there may be times when it works the other way.

 

Sounds like this present opportunity might be an excellent intro for your collaborative experience and in turn will certainly raise some issues, but also provide some 'comfort' with the experience. And then, armed with the knowledge, on to the next one......

 

Trust, Trust and Trust are the three 'new' words we need to use when we start working with others in BIM. Over time, some mighty new (profitable ) working relationships can develop.

 

 

 

 

(blimey - I must have seen the 'light' there - I'll go and have a hose down now)

 

 

[Diego - Resuelvector]

@Gadzooks Very enlighting !! Thank you!

[David S]

@ChristiaanWe do not share our files. It sounds luddite, but under the T&C's of our Professional Indemnity insurance. releasing the files (which could be subsequently altered) would leave us open to future litigation. You might want to check this. This from our PI insurers........

I agree the best course of action is to provide the hard copies so it is clear where your liability stops.

 

If you provided CAD files then you are right they could be changed, in theory liability for any changes should vest with the party making the changes and not yourselves but it could be hard to prove, and it certainly would not prevent someone at least trying to make a claim against you leading to time being wasted in proving that the changes were made after you ceased work on the project and even potentially some legal costs being incurred to do this.

 

If you were to provide them (and clearly from your contractual terms you are not obliged to do so) then you should have something in writing from the client that states that your liability is limited to the planning application only and that you have no liability in respect of any amendments to the files or for their use in any way for the future development. This should minimise the chance of someone seeking to claim against you but simply providing the hard copies in accordance with your contractual terms is the safest option.

[Itchy]

Isn't that what IFC should be good for as you can't change it, only import it. That way if any clashes are found and changes made they need to go back to the original creator and get them to revise.

[David S]

 I'm sure technology can over-ride such issues. I was simply saying it depends on contractual arrangements/liability and I think the point is well made by the insurers - how much e.g. a small business would need to go to prove innocence, in the event of being dragged through a legal issue.

[Gadzooks]

Just to note - my earlier comments were related to the OP.  Since the thread now seems to be moving toward BIM (as apposed to a file sharing agreement), some of the below may appear different as I'm outlining my thoughts on the modified risk.

 

21 hours ago, David S said:

We do not share our files. It sounds luddite.......

 

It's not you, it's the 'system'. And its the fact that many aren't yet 'clued up', which leads enevitably to a cautious approach.

 

No one wants to start the move to the more thorough and somewhat intense collaboration required of BIM2 -> onwards, as it all seems a bit hazy atm. There are lots of papers and advice on the subject, but barriers are thrown up from 3rd parties, such as your insurers, which seem insurmountable. Just when you/your company was starting to put a serious face on, it all seems too risky. 

 

Insurance within the Industry is already noted as being a deterring factor when attempting BIM 2 -> onwards. The Insurers (OK I'm generalising, but I'll carry on...) aren't clued up enough to understand that the risk is mitigated by the 'Rules' that BIM projects demand of its participants. The very fact that 'the model' is accessed from a 'secure' location and that participants have to 'sign' and receive 'permissions' to make changes ought to provide the comfort level the Insurers need. OK they'll moan and increase premiums, but that will be done on a project by project basis and (ultimately) swallowed by the Client/End-user in the higher negotiated fees the Consultants determine they need to provide the appropriate levels of good practice/due diligence etc.. that overseeing a BIM project will require. 

 

I think until the insurers and others standing on the sidelines begin to realise it will happen and they should take steps to better understand the altered risk framework BIM projects operate in, they'll never drive their business to support the Construction Industry. Many large projects are already being managed within a BIM environment. Railways, bridges, highways, power plants etc don't have insurers? Sorry, that's not flippant, it's to illustrate that the projects can easily proceed in a 'mutually protected and understood' risk environment.

 

Also - its good to be cautious. When you learned to swim you knew it was possible, others were doing it (and surviving!), there was even a paper on it!,  but did you just chuck yourself in?.............you know the rest. So you learned. (Don't spoil it by coming back with 'I can't swim' ) 

 

BTW, the PI Insurers were the kids in arm bands up at the shallow end.

 

I think @Christiaan 's OP is the cautious but determined start that needs to be made. File swapping and any change control can be 'authorised' and controlled by his company quite acceptably from the scenario outlined. Has PI been an issue Christiaan?

 

VectorWorks is quick to headline BIM, but obviously can only specialise the software to provide the best 'tool' . Professionals need to accept that there's a whole lot more needs to be understood to provide an appropriate 'service' than just having the software. (All the gear - no idea?).

 

16 hours ago, Itchy said:

Isn't that what IFC should be good for as you can't change it, only import it.

 

Quite so Itchy, but BIM2-> onwards  core requirement is the ability to coordinate the design and make the inevitable changes in 'full view' of all participants (including the Client). A Master File approach provides this. Although, you're of course right to think the issue is the 'safety' of that file.

Sorry this was a longish one again guys, but hope some of it might help.

 

(Nurse is just coming round with my tablets!!)

 

 

[David S]

I can imagine all this being very useful in a large commercial environment. We only work on small to medium residential stuff and only need to share with structural engineers. On the rare occasion we have shared files (because we work in 3d) they import most of it as gobbledegook and our files have to be flattened. One of our engineers uses Powerpoint for his dwgs which is hilarious! D

 

[Jim Smith]

46 minutes ago, David S said:

.... One of our engineers uses Powerpoint for his dwgs which is hilarious! D

 

Wowsers! & I thought the Landscape Architect we used on a project using Illustrator was an odd ball!  

 

We have been the "little fish" on a project where the Project Architect was using VW (we were doing a tenant's fit-up). They had us sign a a letter that we wouldn't f with the base building file. The VW file was a stripped down version of the complete file. To make sure we didn't mess up on our side we locked everything in the file. 

[David S]

Especially for @Jim Smith Note the attention to detail and most-excellent rendering of the rooflights! The "flat roof render" is surreal! And all in powerpoint!

[Gadzooks]

3 minutes ago, David S said:

most-excellent rendering of the rooflights

 

I like your Austin Powers speak.

 

Man, those rooflights - they're messin with ma hed man.

I'm being drawn into a world of such beautiful colours - I'm off to look for my tie dyed teeshirt and loon pants.

 

Don't zoom in - they'll get ya.