Facility project management

[advandes]

I was wondering if anyone had any experience managing projects in a single facility and how they format the project(s) with Revit. The following is a basic look at my questions. I have a client who owns a very large facility and within this facility many projects are taking place. I have a master Revit file that consists of all the existing components, but we also need to create New Construction and Demolition. Sometimes a project may not come to fruition, while others do and then become existing components after construction. Is there a project management process with Revit that will allow you to remove projects that are not accepted without redoing demolished and new work? I was think that Phasing may provide the answer by creating a phase with the name of the project e.g. phase name = Project 01 and Project 02, etc.., but as far as I can tell, I can't view Project 02 without seeing Project 01. The other method I thought would work is Design Option. Design options seems to be the way to go, but can an entire design option set be moved to existing, or deleted? And can you show demolished items in a design option and still maintain the existing phase? Any ideas on this subject would be appreciated.

[kgetev0711]

Yes you can delete an entire design option.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure i completely understand your question, but the way i understand you is:

- You have one big revit file with one in it, which is an existing facility (building)

- In this building/facility multiple projects take place, some are in project phase, some are being executed and some are being abandoned prior to being executed.

If this is the case, i would suggest a workflow with a combination of design options / phasing.

I would stick with two phases (existing / new construction)

When a new project is started, i would start the project in a new design option and within that design option work with phases as usual.

Upon completion i would move the finished project to the default design option and at the same time change phases of that particular project to existing.

If this workflow is to be done on a site scale (ie. multiple buildings with multiple projects), i would strongly suggest dividing each building into a separate file and link them to the main site file instead.

Sounds like an interesting and challenging Revit project

[chrisplyler]

I would add a Phase for each new project, and create a new Design Option within that phase. With every view set to the Show All phase filter, all previous projects, cumulatively, will become the "existing" for each new phase/project.

You may want to start a naming convention wherein each view name and each sheet name/number is prefixed with a short, sequential project identifier.

After many large projects though, the file might become pretty big. So you might instead consider...every time you have a new project...just open the last file and so a Save-As with a new sequential project identifier in the name, and move everything to the Existing phase, clean out any views/sheets that are not needed for the new project, and then start modeling the project as New. Then every time you have a new project, repeat the procedure. In this way you would not keep adding to the same file over and over, and you would have a completed/finalized file of record for each project.

[advandes]

R. Max.  I think you do have a clear understanding of my challenges. The facility is broken up into separate Revit models (Arch, Struct, Mech, Plumbing..etc.

I agree with sticking with the Existing and New construction phases as I have already tested creating Phase naming projects. I think I need to spend more time understanding Design Options and how they can work for us. As of now I have not been able to set up a view that shows a specific design option choice. For some reason I see either one or both. A tutorial on this would be nice to review.

[advandes]

I am not sure Phases as separate projects works very well since I think the idea of phasing is to show a sequence of work, unless you can explain a specific way to set this up. Thanks.

[loboarch]

Here is a page from the help with a tutorial video on design options and how to control the visibility of them.

http://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2018/ENU/?guid=GUID-AB630DF7-1BC2-46E6-B2B8-172C6919A48F

[chrisplyler]

---

@advandes wrote:

I am not sure Phases as separate projects works very well since I think the idea of phasing is to show a sequence of work, unless you can explain a specific way to set this up. Thanks.

---

Well, instead of defining every new project that comes along - a warehouse expansion, a restroom remodel, etc. - as a phase, can't they each be considered a new project? Each such project could start with all previous projects - basically an up-to-date model - as the Existing phase, with the scope of the project modeled in the New phase (or multiple new phases if it's a complex enough project). Simple, and although it does end up creating multiple files over the life of the facility, the most recent one would always be up-to-date, and not cluttered with views and sheets of every single project ever done over the history of the facility. Whenever a new potential project comes up, you just take the most recent file, do a Save-As with a new name, move everything over into the Existing phase, clean up views, sheets, and annotations that aren't relevant to the new scope, and start modeling. Clean, simple work flow that everybody can understand.

[ToanDN]

I would suggest the same as @chrisplyler.  Putting everything in one file with multiple phases and design options can be a nightmare when you enter production state.

[Anonymous]

Ok, lets say you set up multiple phases (as projects) so it would like this in the Project Phases dialog box :

1 Existing

2 Project 01

3 Project 02

4 Project 03

5 New Construction

Is it possible set up a view that only sees Existing and Phase 2? If this is possible then I would agree to use Phasing to isolate various projects form the model.

[chrisplyler]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Ok, lets say you set up multiple phases (as projects) so it would like this in the Project Phases dialog box :

1 Existing

2 Project 01

3 Project 02

4 Project 03

5 New Construction

Is it possible set up a view that only sees Existing and Phase 2? If this is possible then I would agree to use Phasing to isolate various projects form the model.

---

Well, if you're going to do it that way, you would not need one called "New Construction." You would put the new stuff in the one named for the new project. And each view should be set up to Show All. In this way each one will show all previous phases as existing, but not show later phases. So Project 02 views would show both the original Existing condition plus work done in Project 01 as gray lines, only the current Project 02 as black lines, and would not show Project 03 at all.

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

I think @chrisplyler's second post is basically the same that which i wrote initially, with the exception of creating a new file once a project is completed and components from that project is moved from "New Construction" to "Existing".

I agree with Chris that this is a better solution, as this would mean you can keep an "archive" of projects (separate project files) for each of the projects you are doing, and always go back to see how that project was planned and carried out.

You would still only work with two phases: "Existing" and "New Construction", but the workflow would then be:

• Open the facility file.
• Plan whichever project you want in the "New Construction" phase.
• Upon project completion, save a new file, maybe naming it something like: "FacilityprojectXX.rvt" and in that file move the finished project from "New Construction" phase to "Existing".

Then just repeat those steps for each new project you are doing. If you have a case where multiple projects are planned and only some carried out / some abandoned, you would have to clean those up upon saving the new file, as @ToanDN is correct about having too many phases / design options will eventually create problems for you.

I think regardless of whicever solution you decide on here, the main thing is to keep a solid project management and maybe a project log, to make sure the workflow for your projects are created and executed in the same way in Revit. If you have multiple users working in the file, consider creating a document explaining the workflow you want, to make sure the file does not end up in a mess.

I guess this too speaks for the "save to new file" solution described above, as you would have a solid backup after each completed project.

[advandes]

So, basically it sounds as though we are managing this facility the way most people do, by copying the file, doing the project and then copying the revised back to a master file as existing after the project has been completed as an as built state. I was thinking people may have had a more creative way to manage  a facility. Thanks to everyone who provided there ideas. 

[chrisplyler]

Well, I think the other process, wherein you just have one file that gets new phases added with each project, is superior in several ways. It's just that the negatives seem like big ones to me.

Throughout the life cycle of the facility, it's likely to become VERY cluttered with views, sheets, etc. Keeping it organized is going to be a task of focused diligence. If you have to send it out to a consultant, they're going to be very confused trying to figure out what's what. I mean, this is the process I use, as a design/build contractor, when I know a client has three or four upcoming projects. But then my involvement will come to an end as will the progress of my file. And it's just me, so I know how I organized the file. If I had to let someone else use it, I would have to sit down with them and explain it. If my involvement was for the life of the facility, over dozens or perhaps even a hundred different projects over the years, it would become a burden.

That's why I'm suggesting a progressive, sequential system of single-project files. Each one set up with all previous work as the Existing, accomplished by opening the prior file (which itself had all previous work set as Existing when it was started) and moving its New work to Existing, cleaning up, and then doing a Save-As to create the new project file. Maybe you've got a couple of sheets with standard notes that apply to your facility, defining applicable codes, standards, etc. that you never change. So your Existing always matches the current status of the facility. In other words, you don't have to go back through ALL the old files to concatenate everything into a current state, because you've been doing it bit by bit every time you start a new project file. But each file contains one simple project, one set of views, one set of sheets, etc. Simple and organized. Any user that's been learning Revit for a couple of weeks could print out the right sheets the first try. Any consultant or contractor you might send the file to will see ONLY the current project and not be confused by all the mess you would have with the other process.

[advandes]

Thanks Chris,

But here is my other thought that would have gone along with the one master file for each discipline in the facility:

I would still create a separate project folder where the master central file would be linked into. In this separate project file we would create all the views and sheets, therefore NOT cluttering up the master central file. I don't know how well this would work with nothing but linked files since as far as I know Revit likes to tag and schedule equipment in the parent central file.

[ToanDN]

You can tag and schedule link files no problems (for schedules, check includes elements from links). But I am not following how a master file would be useful. Let's​ say if you need to demolish something you would have to go to the master file to do it?

[chrisplyler]

I see no logical reason to maintain a "master" file, except that staff may want to play around with project ideas before one officially becomes a Project with a capital P.

In this case, you could just go ahead and make an up-to-date file of all current work completed, by using the most recent completed project file and moving everything into the Existing phase, cleaning up, and doing a Save-As. This provides you with a working file in which to play around with new stuff, or just to look at or make "current existing" prints of.

[advandes]

Toan,

Exactly, and there lies my initial concern. Can demolished items be included in design options? My major concern was managing projects that end up on the chopping block and having to go back and fix demolished items that need to return to existing. With all the options available with Revit there certainly must be one process that works best for this kind of situation. If anyone would like to share their CAD Standards documentation for this type of file management, I would be happy to incorporate them into our workflow. 

[advandes]

A master facility file makes total sense. It makes no sense to not have a current master file of your facility. I was playing around with a work flow process that works very well. You basically transmit the master file (btw-nothing but existing objects should be in the master file) with all the linked files as desired to a new project directory. Do the new work on a new phase and once the project is installed and as-built, copy and paste the new work back to the master file. It works, and its fairly easy to manage. There is one issue that I have not figured out and I am not sure anyone has a solution for, and that is dealing with demolished items. If demolished items are copied back to the master file you will receive a warning that there are overlapping duplicate objects. I believe this workflow works best when managing a facility. If anyone has a solution for the demolition issue, that would be awesome, otherwise you have to duplicate some of your efforts in the master file by deleting demolished items.

[chrisplyler]

Well, I misspoke. What I meant was that there is no reason to keep an original master file from the beginning and keep updating it.

Every time you do a new Save-As, moving everything over from the previous project in the existing phase, you're "making" a current master.