Autodesk FM
Andy,
First, thanks for following through with setting up the forum. Hopefully,
folks from the AU Industry Session will dive in and get wet as well as
others to follow close behind.
Second, thanks for a well-led session at AU. I remember the same session
from two years ago where Autodesk asked us exactly the same question - "What
do you want?". I found it interesting that, even though it was apparent
from your presentation that somebody's been doing their homework, there is
still difficulty expressed in figuring out what a product should look like.
(I know it's not fancy, but it'd be nice if you'd post your presentation to
the handout download area of the AU web site. I, for one, would appreciate
being able to review the statistics you presented.) After seeing Anne
Greene's reply to your initial message on this forum, showing us the way to
Autodesk FM, it all becomes a little more clear why there is such haze
surrounding FM. The question isn't "What are you using [to do FM]?" but,
instead "What is FM?", though maybe the first is an easier question to
answer and that's why you started there.
I come from the Space Planning side of things. That is, space planning
inside the buildings. That stemmed from our interiors folks wanting to not
have to type in people's names on floor plans. Our first CAFM solution at
the time (AutoCAD for ULTRIX running on DECstations in the early '90's with
a customized Oracle interface) was overkill and, because of the poor
decision on our part to not want to deal with the detail of where each
person sat, basically failed. When our company finally moved to the PC
world, we sought a PC solution aimed at tracking folks better (back to the
original intent), not so much as to know where they were but to help project
and plan for growth and change. We evaluated several off-the-shelf
solutions including Archibus, FM
pace, DataCAD, and others I don't
remember. We considered Archibus both too expensive and too complex. We
considered DataCAD too "out there". We already knew that AutoCAD was the
major CAD program out there and our drawings were already in that format, so
that was a given base. We opted for FMpace in addition to AutoCAD and
have gotten great value over the years. The folks at FMystems were
excellent at helping us get it all set up and configured for our intent.
They helped us think through how we should do things not just how to use it
out of the box. They provide good support as well as continue to build on
their initial product with enhancements and new products. Granted, it is a
very specific solution but it has also been simple and very easy to
understand.
Over the years, however, it has become apparent that this one product can't
do it all. I doubt it would be a good choice for most anything outside of
the building. For that, we use AutoCAD, straight, and simply keep
relatively basic layouts of buildings, utilities, streets, etc. on site
plans. Very crude, I'm sure, if someone from a civil engineering background
were to look at it and actually want to know something. As well, we know
how many acres we own but only because we go to the site plan, draw a pline
around the area based on the legal description as best we can and query its
properties to know its area and, then (whew!), type that figure into a table
in FMpace along with other things such as tax parcel numbers, etc. Not
real high-tech. Yes, we could switch to Autodesk Map, I suppose, integrate
with MapGuide, whatever. Would that give us a total solution? My guess is,
only if we hired someone to develop a customized solution in each area of
FM - space planning, real estate, utilities, facilities maintenance,
building security, etc., etc.. In addition to that, we'd still have to
integrate AutoCAD drawings from our vendors (who use various other AutoCAD
related software packages such as SPAN, ADT, etc.) into Map, I suppose,
and/or develop processes which allow some of our folks to use AutoCAD,
others to use Map, others to use...you get the picture.
The beauty of AutoCAD and the solution we chose, to us, has been that:
1) we can let others develop the software solution - Autodesk builds/repairs
AutoCAD, FMystems builds/repairs FMpace.
2) we get to influence those others with our desire for change in their
product without us having to learn how to program in the newest language
and/or keep up with the technology quite to close to the front of the change
curve.
The price to us, in addition to annual support agreements and software
upgrade costs, is that:
1) we don't always have the latest and greatest;
2) it sometimes takes way too long for our "wants" to get to the top of the
list.
AutoCAD has been successful because it's possible to attack problems from
several different directions as evidenced by the many different solutions
out there. I remember seeing many, many different solutions for
architectural design and drafting over the years at AU and other conferences
including those that Autodesk eventually purchased and replaced (ASG, for
example). Architecture is a pretty singular usage - draw it, print it, so
the builder can build it sort of thing (though I know it's more complex than
that, and even that's changing as we speak). Unless Autodesk wants to build
singular solutions to each of the needs of FM, the very best thing it can do
is build and continue to develop the base technology and let others use that
technology to create specific products for each of our unique needs.
Merle
Merle Hall
Facilities Information Manager
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
"Andy Ramm" wrote in message
news:7F41E61507F1467DC671F7AD6B35611C@in.WebX.maYI
> Folks, I'll kick this off with the first question, which is....
>
> What system/products do you use for Facilities Management? Why did you
> choose that particular solution?
>
> andy
>
>
First, thanks for following through with setting up the forum. Hopefully,
folks from the AU Industry Session will dive in and get wet as well as
others to follow close behind.
Second, thanks for a well-led session at AU. I remember the same session
from two years ago where Autodesk asked us exactly the same question - "What
do you want?". I found it interesting that, even though it was apparent
from your presentation that somebody's been doing their homework, there is
still difficulty expressed in figuring out what a product should look like.
(I know it's not fancy, but it'd be nice if you'd post your presentation to
the handout download area of the AU web site. I, for one, would appreciate
being able to review the statistics you presented.) After seeing Anne
Greene's reply to your initial message on this forum, showing us the way to
Autodesk FM, it all becomes a little more clear why there is such haze
surrounding FM. The question isn't "What are you using [to do FM]?" but,
instead "What is FM?", though maybe the first is an easier question to
answer and that's why you started there.
I come from the Space Planning side of things. That is, space planning
inside the buildings. That stemmed from our interiors folks wanting to not
have to type in people's names on floor plans. Our first CAFM solution at
the time (AutoCAD for ULTRIX running on DECstations in the early '90's with
a customized Oracle interface) was overkill and, because of the poor
decision on our part to not want to deal with the detail of where each
person sat, basically failed. When our company finally moved to the PC
world, we sought a PC solution aimed at tracking folks better (back to the
original intent), not so much as to know where they were but to help project
and plan for growth and change. We evaluated several off-the-shelf
solutions including Archibus, FM
pace, DataCAD, and others I don'tremember. We considered Archibus both too expensive and too complex. We
considered DataCAD too "out there". We already knew that AutoCAD was the
major CAD program out there and our drawings were already in that format, so
that was a given base. We opted for FM
pace in addition to AutoCAD andhave gotten great value over the years. The folks at FM
ystems wereexcellent at helping us get it all set up and configured for our intent.
They helped us think through how we should do things not just how to use it
out of the box. They provide good support as well as continue to build on
their initial product with enhancements and new products. Granted, it is a
very specific solution but it has also been simple and very easy to
understand.
Over the years, however, it has become apparent that this one product can't
do it all. I doubt it would be a good choice for most anything outside of
the building. For that, we use AutoCAD, straight, and simply keep
relatively basic layouts of buildings, utilities, streets, etc. on site
plans. Very crude, I'm sure, if someone from a civil engineering background
were to look at it and actually want to know something. As well, we know
how many acres we own but only because we go to the site plan, draw a pline
around the area based on the legal description as best we can and query its
properties to know its area and, then (whew!), type that figure into a table
in FM
pace along with other things such as tax parcel numbers, etc. Notreal high-tech. Yes, we could switch to Autodesk Map, I suppose, integrate
with MapGuide, whatever. Would that give us a total solution? My guess is,
only if we hired someone to develop a customized solution in each area of
FM - space planning, real estate, utilities, facilities maintenance,
building security, etc., etc.. In addition to that, we'd still have to
integrate AutoCAD drawings from our vendors (who use various other AutoCAD
related software packages such as SPAN, ADT, etc.) into Map, I suppose,
and/or develop processes which allow some of our folks to use AutoCAD,
others to use Map, others to use...you get the picture.
The beauty of AutoCAD and the solution we chose, to us, has been that:
1) we can let others develop the software solution - Autodesk builds/repairs
AutoCAD, FM
ystems builds/repairs FMpace.2) we get to influence those others with our desire for change in their
product without us having to learn how to program in the newest language
and/or keep up with the technology quite to close to the front of the change
curve.
The price to us, in addition to annual support agreements and software
upgrade costs, is that:
1) we don't always have the latest and greatest;
2) it sometimes takes way too long for our "wants" to get to the top of the
list.
AutoCAD has been successful because it's possible to attack problems from
several different directions as evidenced by the many different solutions
out there. I remember seeing many, many different solutions for
architectural design and drafting over the years at AU and other conferences
including those that Autodesk eventually purchased and replaced (ASG, for
example). Architecture is a pretty singular usage - draw it, print it, so
the builder can build it sort of thing (though I know it's more complex than
that, and even that's changing as we speak). Unless Autodesk wants to build
singular solutions to each of the needs of FM, the very best thing it can do
is build and continue to develop the base technology and let others use that
technology to create specific products for each of our unique needs.
Merle
Merle Hall
Facilities Information Manager
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
"Andy Ramm"
news:7F41E61507F1467DC671F7AD6B35611C@in.WebX.maYI
> Folks, I'll kick this off with the first question, which is....
>
> What system/products do you use for Facilities Management? Why did you
> choose that particular solution?
>
> andy
>
>
