fineline-mgmt.com

Many companies made the move to static project management software several years ago. With companies such as Timberline, Meridian, Primavera and a host of smaller companies, there was much to chose from.

As the industry has evolved into a more collaborative approach, many companies are having to re-evaluate their needs in the short term and long term. Of course the term “long term” isn’t too well known in the software industry. The reason is that there are two distinct influences in software development. The first is the software itself. This includes the functions or modules, and the platform and GUI (User interface). The second influence is twofold. (1) the software behind it (code) and as important, the hardware requirements such as RAM and speed. (2) The operating environment whether it is web based or friendly and or is the compatibility strictly to one operating system, Windows or MAC. For the most part Windows still is the choice or for better terms the operating system for most project management and collaborative software systems. It’s not that many of us haven’t yearned for a more stable and robust environment.

Projects today are faster paced, leaner and are under more scrutiny by owners and the regulators (bane of our existence). Developers, contractors, subcontractors and designers are now collaborating on many aspects of the project that once was the private realm of each individual. Some are brought kicking and screaming, others recognize the importance and frankly, the possibilities of true joint ownership of ideas. Drawing files and specifications were once just issued by the architect or engineer of record. In some cases there’s been an attitude shift. If all of the party’s to the project have the same goal, the responsibility of selecting materials and finishes can be shared to those most familiar with the applications.

Because you have now spread a component that once was completely done in one office to multiple entities tools, such as software and communication become critical. Where postage was once important, band width has now taken it’s place. Even though there lots of new buzzwords. BIM, IPED etc. design and project management still has much of the same components and requirements. There has to be a balance.

Drawing management, and design is now shared across networks and the Internet. As technology has improved, files have become more robust but also larger. 2D files have increased in size but working in a 3D atmosphere can lead to file sizes from the low tens of MB to hundreds. Few email systems are capable of handling the data. This has spurred the growth in online or cloud management of projects. Products such as Buzzsaw, newforma, Bentley, Prolog, and Primavera are leaders in the project management industry. The company with the largest share of the construction market, Sage has chosen so far to stay out of cloud computing. At least within their construction and project management side. What they all have in common is differences in industry focus. Whereas Prolog and Primavera have always been focused on project management, Sage has a vast group of software’s. They bought out Timberline, which included accounting (which was and still is their mainstay), and estimating. In my opinion, project management for them was just to keep up in the construction market. I don’t think they ever took it serious. How can I say that or these things? I was a Timberline and Prolog consultant for many years. Though I was a user and did train people on Primavera’s products, including scheduling-I did not choose to go down the certification path. Buzzsaw, newforma and a few others are more design collaboration focused. Like the others, they allow you to manage PM tasks such as RFI and submittals, they have a special place for design. Especially Buzzsaw and Bentley. Since both are design software companies, their integration of drawing files, whether BIM or 2D is much more seamless. In fact both of their design systems integrate bidirectional.

A project of old had seven stages, starting with entitlements. Space planing or needs fulfillment is usually second. Conceptual and schematic design follow. CD’S are next, typically with project bid out and construction following. With some, claims was the last stage. Guess what, nothing has changed. One big difference is in the last two-three stages. With a collaborative approach the budget is updated throughout the process and much of the bid out can be to minor trades. At least this is the case in design build. In design assist the bid scope can be much clearer and the bids closer.

A company looking to develop collaborative relationships has to have big shoulders. When the market first formed, it was primarily owner driven and paid for. Now days owners see the benefit of teams that are already set up to collaborate and have the systems in place. That means that the costs are also shifting from the owner to the consultants and contractors. Some would say that the owner pays for it anyway. I say as it’s more accepted and learned, it will just become a business model.

So what does it take to fulfill these lofty goals of speed, accuracy, and budget? Software has nothing to do with it. It’s about ego.

A structural engineer once told me at a CSI meeting that he wished architects would just give them the space, let the engineer design the building then let the architect tack on all their flu-flu crap. Though the statement got a lot of agreement from most of the contractors, subs and even MEP’S, the architect’s in the room were silent.

Why? It speaks to the general resistence in the design community to others in the design path to design build, or even design assist. The structural engineer is in a position in the design chain that their work really stands higher on the food chain of a project than the other consultants. Their requirements take precedence over the rest of the elements. Everybody else works around them. This is where collaboration with knowledgeable builder is valuable.

Most designs start by space planning. Unfortunately most space planning is done in 2D. The client thinks in terms of floor square footage, not vertical square footage and the architect goes along. This method works fine in some environments, such as office, retail, even medical but in others it can be a disaster.

Religious facilities, hospitality, meeting/convention and theatrical facilities require upward planning. All to often a church with a requirement of higher ceilings in the nave gets stuck with a narthex of the same ceiling space in a room of 1/8th the floor space. You end up with a room that feels like you’re standing in an elevator shaft.

To think vertical you have to start with the minimum requirements of elevation. In a theater stage you have inherent height requirements. A stage with a fly-space can require great heights depending on the sophistication of the performance. On the other hand a church’s highest furnishing or fixture is usually the corpus and cross (For western religions). Of course in many of the older churches, especially Eastern churches the Iconostasis is the highest interior structure. This is particularly found in Byzantine design. The key to designing to these elements is to grow the structure from them, not build it to them.

In any case volume spatiality is taught in design school. At least it was when I was there. Unfortunately this gets forgotten during the space planning phase. When the horizontal plane, the vertical spaces added-then the space leading up to them is complete the building is ready for the structural elements and MEP.

Lighting and mechanical can be a challenge in difficult spaces. When you need to depend on chases and soffits most often filled with other components such as fire suppression, early planning can make all of the difference. The standard thought on soffits is to make them as small as possible since they are only there because of necessity. They’re viewed much the same as mechanical chases. Unrentable space (Non-income producing) needs to be minimized as best possible. Before BIM or 3D was developed, chases just meant the subcontractors raced to get there first. With good planning, there can be room for everyone. Elements like this is where team collaboration is important. It is also where the contractor’s and subcontractor input is invaluable.

In many cases soffits and chases are really forgotten elements of the project. Though they are necessary, they’re really just a bane on design. The architect draws the space, the structural engineer may included it in his plan IF there are structural elements in it. For the most part, details are forgotten and all to often the architects plans refer to structural details that are non existent. In a Revit model this is also where you’ll see the use of “standard 4″ wall” or similar. In other words, nobody has taken it seriously enough to think of things such as how far the 2″ ceiling joists can span without support. If you fill the space with a large supply or return duct, can lighting or fire sprinklers be installed under it? If so, how will they be supported? These are the nuts and bolt items that the contractors input is necessary. We’re also finding more and more contractors are turning to modeling solutions such as Revit, Bentley Systems or ArchiCAD. For the contractor you need to look at what the designers in your area and that you work with are using.