Design Options vs Separate Project Files

[Anonymous]

So I've tried out this design options a few times and the latest was on a model that has existing, demolished and proposed phases. I found that adding design options where some of the existing elements become demolished and/or stays as option 1 / 2, as well as other geometry within walls, roofs, etc changing shape.

Personally I felt it became very unnecessarily complicated and I would have saved so much time If I just sticked to my usual method of saving the file as another option and making the changes for that option accordingly (without design options - all on main model) and having the original model as 1st option (also without any design options feature). This way, whatever the client goes with, I'd just continue on that file, which option was client.

Can someone tell me why this is a bad idea, if it is a bad idea, because I feel like I'm saving time and a lot of brain energy, instead of trying to mess around with slicing and seperating, duplicating and dividing elements in options while having different phases.

I should also mention the model is a 2 story 10 classroom block (usually around that size). Maybe the game changes with large projects and worksharing with different offices - then I can understand why its better to stick to one model.

Thanks in advance

[RDAOU · Accepted solution]

@Anonymous

It’s more of a Concept rather than Good and Bad…In the industry today there are two routes either BIM or CAD…What you are proposing falls in the latter. Design Options tools still need more development and could use a couple of more features but evan as it is now; why would I (personally) choose it over what you suggested;

1. How would you define the size/scale or set the benchmark for magnitude of the changes in 1 Option which requires you coping/saving as and starting off in a completely new file? 5 walls? 3 rooms became 1 and some finishes? wirings? Lighting fixtures?
2. Instead of 1 file (Say Architectural) you might end up with 2; 3 or 4 or even 10 with a picky indecisive client and lots of changes;
3. That being said (1); what about the other disciplines? At least the basic linked  (ME/ELEC/PLUMB/STRUCT/SITE)... you are not expecting each discipline to create a new model for their alternatives or project changes too? Image the Electrical Engineers want a new model for any alternatives/change they want to propose; then the Mechanical too and Structural and ...etc.
4. Since it is not guaranteed that alternatives come all at one point of the project's life time and in a defined phase and that more than 90% of construction projects are change driven; 
5. ...there are lots and more reasons which relates to phasing; wirksharing; coordination/collaboration; control and management of those models as one project rather than ...i'm not sure (an exponentially increasing number of projects based on No. of options/changes)

But again; when the somewhere in the question it reads “Tell me why it’s bad” implies that someone has already made his/her choice after reconsidering the above and other reasons/facts…hence; listing 1000 reasons won’t do any good in explaining why Design Option is a better route than replicating files for proposals and/or project changes

[SteveKStafford · Accepted solution]

Sometimes the complexity is because the variables in the project ARE complicated. Using Design Options (and other features like Phases) in Revit you have to work through the implications of the variables. When this touches that which is demolished but only if option 2 is chosen reads just as awkwardly as it must be tackled in the software.

I find people that use Design Options tend to understand the intricacies of the design problems more fully than those who do separate models, or drawings. They are confronted with the complexity in a different way. But then I find the same is true of people in general who use Revit versus 2D documentation.

My approach to using Design Options is to focus on finite design problems (Option Set) and then deal with their solutions (Option). They work best (easier to comprehend) when the problems and solutions are expressed easily, like explaining it to your mother or grandmother. The harder it is to express the variables the harder it will seem.

When it comes to demolition I think it is best to keep that out of the equation, from a modelling standpoint. Use notes or graphics to explain what the implications of a design option will be but don't invest too much energy and time into expressing things that might be cavalierly discarded when the client takes a cursory look at the options in a meeting. We used to use trace paper to express a range of ideas. That's a very expedient tool and still has it's place in our work today. There are many times the computer is used to excess when two quick sketches could have pointed us in the right direction faster.