Maintaining flexibility with design options

[kowen1208]

My firm is working on a project for a client home builder in which we are redrawing their catalog of plans using Revit (the plans were formerly in AutoCAD). Initially, the plans had a few simple design options with enough separation between them that they were easy to set up. As the project has progressed, the client has added more and more design options that are now adjacent or overlapping. For example, there is typically a dining room, living room, master bedroom, and master bathroom along the back of the house. The client wants an option to pop out any combination of these rooms. That would give us 15 options if combined into one option set, and that doesn't take into account the changes in the roof, which usually has a gable, hip, and clipped gable option. In addition to that, their business model has largely focused on the buyer being able to customize the plan in whatever way they want.

With all the additional options and their reputation for customization, I'm struggling to decide how to proceed to maximize efficiency. These plans will be reused time and time again, likely seeing customizations besides the standard options, so they must be easy to work with for the drafters in my office as well as in our engineer's office. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Edit: I forgot to mention they also want to use the Revit models for estimating purposes.

Edit: I should also mention that I was the only one in the office who knew how to use Revit when we started this process back in November, just to give you an idea of the skill level I'm trying to cater to.

[CADiva]

Disclaimer: I haven't messed with this myself.

I have heard some mention of groups used in a similar scenarios - check into that. To me, this goes beyond the usual "Design Options" application.

[dzatto]

IMO, these are different plans. I wouldn't do design options for those. Not to mention, design options are meant to be used during the design process. Once you pick which option you want, you make it the main one and delete the others. I have limited time with DO's, but I think if you try to use them for 15+ options in one project, you're in for a world of hurt.

[rkitect]

I have been looking at a solution for a very similar situation. I've concluded that saving groups out for individual room "modules" is going to work better. The project would essentially start as a shell and we would bring in the appropriate model groups for the plan layout.

The design options are great for being able to quickly, within the same model, show differences in plan options; however this is not what it sounds like the client wants. You could even go as far as putting the groups into design options and quickly switching from all of your various layouts, but I wouldn't really recommend that.

Let me know if you decide to go that route as I have not actually tested this myself. I'd be curious to know how it works out for you..

[DJKell]

I have heard some mention of groups used in a similar scenarios

I hate using groups because they really decrease performance in Revit and I tend to avoid them as much as possible. They could be the best option here as long as you can ungroup them once the design is settled and avoid exterior walls.

On second thought, I've decided that Design Options IS probably the best bet. If you make one option set for the room layouts and another for the roof configurations, anyone who needs to make a set of drawings from the file can simply open the file and pick the design options they require then off they go. I tried to talk myself into recommending groups but they seem more trouble than they are worth for residential planning where exterior walls are in play as much as interior elements. To lighten the workload a little, you could use groups of interior elements in the design options as a hybrid approach. That would maintain simplicity and ease of use for the downstream users but keep you from having to create each option from scratch. You could control interiors as groups of elements and integrate those with loose elements in the design option (exterior walls, etc.). Ungrouping when customization is done is still recommended though. Also purging the unused groups and options. That many options are not ideal, but you're choices for this are limited and I've seen home builders do this before as far back as 2006 so it CAN be done. You're basically just making a very advanced template.

Then you'd just need a flow chart and coding/naming system to tell you what combinations can go together. Does that make sense?

[Twiceroadsfool]

Groups dont really decrease performance. Poorly implemented and used groups really decrease performance. Groups- if you use them correctly and sensibly- greatly increase the efficiency of a project team and cause little to no performance impact.

[kowen1208]

Thanks for your insights so far. I suppose the biggest issue I'm running into is the estimating element. I've been OKed to model these various pop-outs and other options off to the side (because the home builder wants to print them for clients). Assuming all that needed to be estimated is what shows in plan view, then the estimators should be able to work with it. However, the entire roof can change depending on which options are selected, and that throws of estimating.

I should also mention that I was the only one in the office who knew how to use Revit when we started this process back in November, just to give you an idea of the skill level I'm trying to cater to.

[DJKell]

Groups dont really decrease performance. Poorly implemented and used groups really decrease performance.

That's true, Aaron. Groups are often used incorrectly and less-than-sensibly and acknowledging the potential for decreased performance gets users to think more carefully about what they are about to do with a group before they decide it's the best approach. In this particular case, I'd be hesitant to classify any of it as sensible or ideal and they are very likely to decrease performance here if left un-managed. But alternatives are few with this challenge.

[Twiceroadsfool]

I dont think the propensity for them to be left unmanaged here is that dangerous. We use Model Groups with embedded Detail Groups for a number of things in our office library, and the model groups even get pretty large with a lot of detail groups in them. But thats all value added to the project teams efficiency.

In the cicumstance were discussing here, having it set up with design options is going to be a TON of extra work, since groups will let you switch annotations out using embedded detail groups. To have all of the design options pre-detailed, youll need a view for each Design option, and to do it correctly (as the program was intended) youll need a LOT of views. (Number of options raised to the power of the number of option sets?) Yowzers.

I know of a few people handling "prototypical options" with model Groups, and its working like a champ.

[kowen1208]

My experience working with model groups is limited. How have you included these in your office library? What's the process of using groups from your library in a project?