Two Steps Forward, No Going Back

Four years ago, the architecture and planning firm Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas + Company created a strategic technology committee to see what leading firms were doing to improve project delivery. This was born from a high degree of frustration with the technology the firm had at that time, from CAD to communications, which seemed inefficient at a time when clients were demanding more in less time. In this Viewpoint article, Design Principal Stephen C. Wright, who chaired the firm’s strategic technology committee, reflects on the changes that have restored the firm’s operational excellence.


4 thoughts on “Two Steps Forward, No Going Back

  1. Our firm is also looking into Newforma, but Primavera wants our business, using their “just as good as” products.

    I wonder about the previous use of ADT vs. the current use of Revit. I know personally of many firms who claim to use ADT, but their use is limited to walls, doors, and windows. Everything else is still done using the computer as an electronic pencil.

    Early on, I was convinced to move to Revit, but the more I found out about it the less it seemed attractive. All the work we do requires intense collaboration with all other disciplines. At the time, Revit only had architecture, so it was no good for us. Then, structural came limping in, but it’s not “BIM”, in that the structural model is a totally separate file. Finally, MEP staggled in, and as far as I know, still struggling to catch up with architecture. And, oh yeah, it is a separate model, too. The term as applied to Revit products should be BIMs (Building Information Models), if it is used at all.

    If Revit has improved that much in the last couple of years, please forgive me.

    Finally, how does Revit do details?

    Although the Autodesk executives told us at the initial roll out that “Revit is the future of Autodesk,” ADT is still here, and it now contains many of the features that make Revit so attractive, without any of the negatives.

    In summary, I would like to see a real comparison of usage between the two pieces of software. For those who complain of having to learn too much, I don’t recall hearing the same complaints with Rapidograhp pens, pin bars, and scissors drafing. We just sucked it up and excelled.

  2. It is a really good article. I found it very informative. I personally use both software, Revit and AutoCAD. I would say that for CDs and the CA phase, Revit is a good choice.

  3. From an IT perspective I have not been convinced or shown that Revit can meet our users/firm needs in a multi office multi discipline environment. Some of our users have visited other local firms that are using Revit where there isn’t a need to share/collaborate between multi offices over their WAN or with other disciplines…mostly just used by the architects. These users have returned to the office very excited about Revit but they have yet to see it in an environment that more closely compares to our situation. Anyone who is willing to share their experience with Revit in a multi office multi discipline environment which requires collaboration would be appreciated.

Comments are closed.