Handling Design Options in Revit: One File or Many?

[ABR_Kate]

Revit has a built-in tool for Design Options — and it’s powerful, no doubt. But how often do we really use it to its full potential?

In real-world projects, especially when the client has two or more distinct design directions (let’s say two contrasting facade concepts), things can get messy. One "main option" quickly branches into sub-variants, and suddenly the model becomes… a little chaotic. Especially once you’re juggling 3+ options — different materials, graphic overrides, temporary families, and views for presentation.

👇Below, I’m attaching visuals from a recent conceptual project — the R-House in two color/facade variations:
❤️ Warm timber + concrete

💚 Anthracite + green metal panels

Explore the project in Autodesk Gallery: Residential House Design

Both were fully modeled in Revit, and I initially explored them in one shared file. But eventually, for clarity (and sanity), I split them into separate models — each with its own logic and identity.

In parallel, I kept a third file — I call it my “trash lab”: chaotic, full of quick swaps, overrides, filters, and messy geometry. This is what I use live during Zoom calls with clients — to test ideas quickly, impress visually, and explore without breaking the “clean” files.

For me, working with separate Revit files has proven to be the most flexible and manageable approach — at least for small-scale conceptual projects.

How do you manage design options in your workflow?
Do you keep everything in one file using Revit's tools, or do you also prefer splitting into separate files once things get complex?

Let’s share strategies — we all know every Revit user has their own creative way of staying organized 😉

[mhiserZFHXS]

There are a lot of factors that go into this for me. Design options SHOULD be the norm, but its undeniable that there are major flaws with them that make using them more work than their worth. But the problem with multiple files is that you're duplicating your work and leaving room for errors and omissions between files. 

Knowing you need design options early is one of the big keys. If you know that early in modeling, its not too hard to set up. But getting a big curveball late in a project makes them incredibly challenging to do so. Last time I had this happen, I tried for a few hours to make the changes using design options, but ultimately gave up and opted to duplicate the model. Hosted objects are the big issue. Doors, windows, wall sweeps, hosted casework, all of that will derail a design option if you don't know you need it until later in the process. 

[ABR_Kate]

Totally agree. Design Options sound great — until hosted elements enter the game.
Doors, windows, wall sweeps… chaos.

I often end up splitting into a clean file + one messy “test lab.”
Faster, clearer — especially with clients on Zoom.

Old one swam, old one knows 😉

(Not Hemingway, just real Revit.)

[blank...]

Gave them a go a couple of times. Abandoned them every time.

If design option is have this chair turned on/off, and this sofa moved there from here, then yes. But the moment one starts touching walls, doors, windows, floors... design options become so much more work and confusion then to just have separate files that they're just not worth it.

[ABR_Kate]

And that’s just when we’re only talking about design options…
On larger projects you’re layering design options plus worksets for multi‑user teams, office template rules (graphic filters, phased/reconstruction views), standards, reviews… At some point even very battle‑tested teams start dropping Revit Design Options just to stay sane. I totally get it.

In my practice I sometimes replace in‑file optioning with a more strategic structure: we lock in a stable core early — either the controlling spatial volume (concept stage) or the primary structural frame (but only if the structural engineer is brought in early, not after the “pretty render” is approved). Then we explore planning / façade / interior alternates as separate linked RVT files. Those links go into a “host” coordination model where I can toggle options per view, manage them in the Project Browser, control them with worksets, and still run coordination/clash checks (Interference Check, Copy/Monitor workflows, external tools). Base stays clean; experimentation lives in links.

Curious: Do you lock a core model and link alternates, or keep pushing native Design Options? What’s worked (or failed) for you?

[blank...]

---

@ABR_Kate wrote:

Curious: Do you lock a core model and link alternates, or keep pushing native Design Options? What’s worked (or failed) for you?

---

Neither, literally copy/paste entire file and change them. Not the best approach, but once the investor approves the design, other files get archived.

For me, design options don't exist in Revit.

[SteveKStafford]

My experience, supporting people using Revit's DOs, has been that people, forget about software, often have a difficult time expressing to me how their design solutions actually ripple through a project. The more difficulty they have with that task the more difficult it will be to implement in Revit because that uncertainty or lack of awareness is manifest in creating and managing what IS and in a design option.

Also it depends heavily whether the design problem is macro or micro decisions. When both are being done at the same time the complexity increases. If considering different shapes of the building massing is macro then deciding how to configure the interior is micro. The micro will be affected by the macro decisions.

It's far easier to implement Revit DOs when the problem is narrow enough to express solutions that aren't dependent on the other design problems.

An issue I see constantly is identical elements in the Main Model and in Dos. These generate warnings. If it needs to be in a DO it shouldn't be in the main model because it has not been resolved yet. A main model ought to contain only the design elements that are not in dispute.

As for hosting behavior, if the exterior of a building design is floating a gable and a hip roof as possible solutions then it's likely that everything that touches that exterior needs to be part of the design option set (problem) and design options (solutions).

Ultimately a separate model is completely justified when the macro and micro decisions conflict to heavily. Revit's DOs are just attempting to do, in a single model, what we did in the past with multiple copies of CAD files or multiple drawings shown thru different viewports in the same file. I've even seen it done with design option layers in CAD...layer management to show different options. In "flat land" we are not confronted with all the implications of options in the same way 3D does, regardless of it being Revit or some other software.

My 2 somewhat tarnished pennies 🙂

[ABR_Kate]

Thanks, Steve — your macro vs. micro distinction nails it. In my past experience as part of BIM management teams, I learned that just because software offers Design Options doesn’t mean they fit every project. Strategy first, tool second.

When multiple disciplines and 7–12 people per team are involved, the real challenge is coordination and shared understanding. For us, the safest workflow was:

• Define the “stable core” early (site/volume or structural frame).

• Use separate RVT files for major variations instead of deep DO stacks.

• Link alternates back for coordination when necessary.

• Keep a change log outside Revit to track which version carried which decision.

Even linked files can create chaos if unmanaged, but this hybrid method gave the team clarity and reduced risk compared to complex option trees.

[SteveKStafford]

I've shocked more than a couple people in Revit training sessions when I've suggested some design option exploration should never make it into a computer. Once upon a time we used to sketch ideas and ultimately toss many of them out quickly because it was easy to "see" that they weren't good or solving the problem well. The client never saw those OR some clients actually participated in a design charrette, so decisions could be made quickly.

Obviously part of our job is communicating our ideas to others. If we hope to convince them the narrower (than infinity) set of choices we've proposed are the best, we have to make intelligent choices about how to do that with everything we've got...in the PC and inside our heads. 🙂

[mpukas]

I use both DO tool and saving a copy of the model, depending on the complexity and scope of the options I'm exploring as well as the stage of development. I do residential work, custom homes. In the early stages of design when the model is light, it's fairly easy to implement DO's. As the model progresses and gets heavier, DO's become more challenging to use. Sometimes DO tool is so difficult to use it's just easier to save a copy. Other times, the design has progressed to a high level and the option may be small, so I'll suck it up and use DO. Even in late-stage schematic design / early-stage design development, DO is such a painstaking task.

It's sooooooo tedious to select everything that is effected by a design option, and Revit takes so long to evaluate the selections, and keeps throwing errors/warnings. It's process of selecting and filtering, over and over and over again, until Revit accepts it. It's taken me literally hours just to set up DO's on a fairly simple house through the selecting, filtering and re-trying process. One of the most frustrating and annoying aspects is Revit will inevitably find an element that IS NOT in any way related to the other elements in the DO set being attempted. This happens regularly where Revit will say a wall is associated with a window, but the window will be hosted by a different wall, on a different level, and the wall in question doesn't even have a window it it. 

And then there's the aspect that annotations live in the main model, not the design option that they're relevant to. i.e. dimensions, spot elevations, etc. When I've used DO for a house with different roof forms, I also have to figure out the height limit at points on the roofs above grade, as part of the design process. I do this using spot elevations and dimensions in several different views. Switching options will delete or negate the annotations, hence I loose a lot a work. 

It's been a lot painstaking, frustrating, infuriating trial and error trying to understand how DO work, what to do and not to do, and how - even IF - it's worth the time and aggravation of using DO, or just saving a copy and possibly having to re-do some work. Sometimes, it's absolutely worth it. As when I'm doing a video presentation/meeting with clients and I can show them different design options in real time so we can discuss and make decisions. 

[ABR_Kate]

True — tools should support design, not dictate it. Sketch, filter, then model only what matters.

[ABR_Kate]

We definitely need a Tony Stark's J.A.R.V.I.S. – or an AI assistant – to filter and assign elements on command!

Until then, it's endless loops of select-filter-retry… 😉

[ABR_Kate]

Wrapping Up — Thank You for the Dialogue!

I want to thank everyone who joined this conversation — your honesty, experience, and openness turned this thread into something more than a technical exchange. It became a mini-discussion about how we really work with Design Options in Revit — when the cameras are off, deadlines are looming, and the facade still hasn’t been approved for the third time.

Throughout the discussion, we touched on:

• The technical limitations of DOs (especially hosted elements, annotations, and performance issues);

• Different strategies: single-file vs. multi-file, coordination models, “clean” + “test lab” setups;

• Team psychology: when duplicating a file is better than breaking a working strategy;

• And the core truth that tools should serve the idea — not force their own rhythm.

For me, this was more than a technical topic.
It was about the human side of modeling — where we constantly navigate between chaos and structure, trying to organize the endless “what ifs,” “maybe just one more version,” or “hey, show that green panel again — remember it?”

I’ve turned this discussion into a compact PDF manual — not just a how-to, but a living guide titled:

“Design Options in Revit: People, Ideas, Methods. How We Choose. Why We Abandon. How We Structure.”

It focuses on real practices — the kind shaped by people, teams, constraints, and creative decisions.

If anyone wants to contribute further — case studies, visuals, or just thoughts — feel free to reach out. Your voice is welcome.

Because in Revit, Design Options are not just about alternatives.
They’re about decisions.
And that means — they’re about us.

Thanks again — this was a dialogue that leaves a mark.

Your architect by voice,
Kateryna
KF | Archi BIM
"More insights & tutorials on my YouTube: KF | Archi BIM"