Hi,
I'm designing a renovation/remodel of a 2-storey house in Revit LT and wondering others' thoughts regarding use of Design Options in this particular case. I'm familiar with Design Options and have used them successfully before but may not have taken the best approach. I'd like to be clear about my situation so please bear with me:
In the current project, the locations of 6 different elements of the building are under consideration, including main entrance, bathroom and laundry room, for example. I'm preparing 5 different configurations/layouts of the house to illustrate possibilities for the client (both floors are included in each configuration). Each of these 5 configurations will contain all 6 variable elements, with each variable element in a particular location - entrance on the East, bathroom in the middle, laundry room upstairs, etc. The client will select their preferred from amongst these element locations and the design will proceed accordingly.
In the past, for a similar project, I produced 1 Design Option Set, with each Option therein representing 1 configuration/layout of the kind noted above. It occurs to me, however, that Design Options may be more effectively/efficiently used by making an Option Set for each of the variable elements, with each of the Options therein representing a different location of the element in question. Under this arrangement, it seems that every possible combination of elements could be achieved relatively easily by selecting the desired location Option from each Option Set. Then I noticed within a couple of minutes of trying this that it will require copying the variable elements into each of a total of 17 different Options (spread across 6 Options Sets). Maybe the other way will prove just as inefficient by the time the client make their selections and I have to knit together the elements drawn from different layouts.
Apologies for presenting what is perhaps a less than entirely thrilling challenge. I've done a fair amount of research but can't find anything that suggests the best approach in such a situation so would very much appreciate any thoughts from those more experienced/knowledgeable.
Thanks
You´re going in the correct direction when you think of Options sets. However...
Don´t forget that you are the designer, not the client. My advice is, that using those design options, you create 2 or 3 combinations, the ones that you think are the best, for architectural reasons. Then the client will be presented with 2 or 3 options only, not 5, and not the many possible combinations of the 17 variations that you have. Otherwise this process can run for a very long time before you can move to the next step. To handle these 2 or 3 designs, you can create view templates, where you manage those options, and then you create one sheet for each design, where you show plan, elevations, and 3d views of each design per sheet.
A design option set for each element needs multiple options is correct. I would suggest creating a dedicated view for each combination instead of changing options 'on the fly'.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I realize it may seem a ridiculous number of possible combinations to make available for the client's consideration. The intention was simply to reduce the probably of significant revisions at a later stage by allowing the client to steer the ship somewhat at this early stage. Also, I don't think they would ever want to explore literally all possibilities (or anything close) but having the power to do so with ease seemed beneficial.
I follow your thoughts with respect to the presentation of a limited number of combinations but am wondering how you would use view templates, more specifically. I already apply templates to views that I want to be standard in some way - one for each of floor plan, elevation, section, etc. Are you suggesting one template per proposed combination of elements? I'm trying to understand how that could be implemented.
Thank you as well. Ok, so both of you feel my use of the actual Design Options function in this case is not flawed. This is progress. I had intended to create the combinations with a dedicated view for each, as you suggest. However, I thought for my own benefit maybe I could "switch" elements on or off to arrive at what I believe to be good combinations before they reach the client. It's already apparent that refining the junctions between all these disparate elements may be messy because it's not a choice of three different layouts of bathroom in a predetermined location, for example; it's three bathrooms, each in a very different part of the building (and possibly with a different layout too). I dug my own Design Options rabbit hole here and may be beyond rescue.
KISS. Studies show that if you give people more than 3 options, they can't make up their mind and may choose neither. For example, if a grocery store has 3 types of ketchup, people will pick one. if there are 20, they may buy none since it is overwhelming. You also will find, it is easy to be in the wrong option or get confused. Computing resources also may become an issue. If the client is not a professional, they may not be bale to realize the consequences of each option.
As a professional it is your responsibility to pre-decide or vet the options. We had cases where a consultant we hired gave us 5 options. It turned out 2 of them were not feasible from a structural point, or were totally against what the objective was. You also can eliminate options if some are way over budget (eliminate after consulting with client). Include all design disciplines in vetting options (structural, plumbing etc. ). Send options to client AFTER all design professionals found them suitable. You don't want the client fall in love with one option, and later on tell the client that it isn't feasible or cost-prohibitive.
If you go through the typical design stages, narrow down early on. Different architectural options also requires different HVAC, plumbing, electrical etc. You want to limit options to phases with little detail (but enough detail and knowledge to make decisions).
Thanks for your input. No argument that there is such thing as too many options and that's something I should I bear in mind throughout. To be clear though, I never had the intention of, or was even considering, giving the client as many options as are possible within the project. Five different configurations/combinations/layouts is what was discussed and agreed so I'll proceed with that. My request for advice was mainly about how Design Options functionality could be harnessed to generate these five configurations in the most efficient way, allowing me maximal flexibility in doing so and in any subsequent revision processes The client wouldn't necessarily be aware that such a "system" existed but it would operate in the background to the benefit of the design process (in my mind, at least). You raise good points about the computing resources and the client's ability to appreciate the consequences of their decisions. These hadn't occurred to me but could well pose a problem.
I have no doubt of the superiority of the multi-disciplinary process you describe wherein budget is monitored throughout. Unfortunately, for reasons that I won't bore you with here, the scope of my involvement in the project isn't broad enough to allow thorough consideration of the work of all other parties. The existing building is not especially complex, however, and reasonable estimates of the various impacts to other disciplines are possible.
Despite my maybe overly ambitious plan for Design Options at the outset, the design is definitely being restricted to schematic aspects at this stage so at least I won't later be wrestling with details that were set too early. But you raise a good point there too.
Maybe make 5 options with very little detail and run by client and have them narrow it down to 2-3 before you proceed with those in more detail. Then you fulfilled your 5-options requirement.
I don't know your project and client. But I doubt in a simple building there are 5 nearly equal really great ways to arrange things. So out of the 5, there will be some obviously not great ones.
Absolutely. In fact, the intention was to move from the five very broadly defined configurations to only one before any significant refinement takes place. That one can then be revised but the major decisions will all have made by that point.
Yes, you're right that some configurations will likely (hopefully) stand above the rest. The problem is that the variable elements encompass so much that there is little to anchor the redesigned building to it's current self. That is, the range of possible changes is big.
Anyway, I consider all the above assistance valuable so will move forward with it at top of mind. I appreciate your thoughts.
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.