Design Options & Worksharing

[DaveP]

This KB article

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2016/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-C33AC5E7-784D-4B06-9660-C85DA80383D8-htm.html

doesn't really explain it very well, but when you have a Design Option in a Workshared model, one persons owns the entire Design Option workset, which basically freezes anyone else out of working in the same DO.

We've got a project going on right now where they may do just the first floor or, depending on fund-raising, potentially an entire second floor.
We've got it set up as a Design Option, but, as I say above, that pretty much mean that only one person can work on the second floor.
Two or more people are constantly (and I mean, like with every single element the touch) fighting for control of the DO.

Apparently, this is a long-standing Revit problem. I found posts going back to 2009 (on - shhh - Revit City)

Anyone have any good workarounds on how to put half your building into a Design Option and let several people work on it at the same time?

[snowyweston]

What are they wrestling over?

Could they not just learn to delegate/share?

Could the Design Option be sub-divided into smaller chunks?

Is it possible you could use a further phase, that subsequently gets rolled back into the proposal if greenlit?

[cellophane]

Could the Design Option be sub-divided into smaller chunks?

I'd go for this approach. Stick the shell in a DO, and interiors in a DO at a minimum. Pain in the ass but better than people fighting over workset ownership.

[DaveP]

There is no "sharing"
The way Design Options and Worksharing function in Revit is that the first person to do any editing in a Design Option owns EVERYTHING in that Design Option. Whether they touch it or not.

We've discussed how we could break it up further, but so many things are inter-related, there's just no logical method. Plus we'd need to set up dozens of duplicate Views with different combinations are area and DO.
We don't know which option they'll be able to afford, so if we choose the wrong one for Future, there's no switching order.

[cellersick]

so if we choose the wrong one for Future, there's no switching order.

Phase Juggling: create phases aligned to your "triggers" - buckets of money in this case - Base TI, Break Room Upgrades, Furniture, Reception Ceiling, etc. When one of the "phases" is funded, you follow the process outlined here: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit...g/td-p/5807981 and move objects to an active phase.

[snowyweston]

Phase kludging

Fixed that for ya!


Now let's all collectively cross our fingers in the hope that these two fundamental failings be addressed in the next release.

No? :banghead:

[DaveP]

The problem is not really WHEN, it's IF.
IF they raise enough money, the second floor gets built. If they don't, it doesn't.
However, if they don't several of the areas that might have gone on the second floor would then be on the (larger) first floor.
And the entire exterior changes between the two. It isn't demolished. It's just different.

And, Snowy - "... gets addressed in 2010." Make that 2011, no: 2012, no: . . .
You get the idea.

[snowyweston]

It isn't demolished. It's just different.

Sounds like someone needs to pay someone to design and document two distinct buildings until they make their minds up.

[Mengelmn]

The problem is not really WHEN, it's IF.
IF they raise enough money, the second floor gets built. If they don't, it doesn't.
However, if they don't several of the areas that might have gone on the second floor would then be on the (larger) first floor.
And the entire exterior changes between the two. It isn't demolished. It's just different.

And, Snowy - "... gets addressed in 2010." Make that 2011, no: 2012, no: . . .
You get the idea.

Agree with the idea that some one needs to be pai to design two buildings.

Though regardless, I would lean towards using a set of links with pathed views to accomplish the two distinct designs while maintaining some ability to consolidate work load and anticipate change. These links could be nested within design options but the work done would be done in the individual work-shared files.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk