Description
Key Learnings
- Discover the benefits of spec-based piping design.
- Learn about assessing the differences between and characteristics of Revit families and Revit Fabrication Parts.
- Learn how to evaluate quality and efficiency gains on projects using Revit Fabrication Parts.
- Learn about challenges encountered during implementation of Revit Fabrication Parts at SSOE.
Speakers
- JCJosh ChurchillI am a VDC Professional who started my career doing basic red line markups in AutoCAD during summers in High School. From those days I progressed into the roll of a Mechanical Designer focusing in Plumbing/Mechanical/Process Piping design and coordination. Never backing down from a challenge, I've worked on both the Design and Fabrication side to give myself a well rounded experience. I have since morphed into a VDC Technologist role developing and implementing workflows for many platforms such as AutoCAD MEP, Revit, BIM360 and ACC.
JOSH CHURCHILL: Thank you for attending this Autodesk University presentation on Beyond Fabrication, using Revit Fabrication Parts Perspective and Design. Today, your presenters will be myself, Josh Churchill, and Claudia Calderon. So first off, a little about us. Again, my name is Josh Churchill. My industry background is mechanical designer and eventually kind of morphed over to the VDC specialist role. I specialized in mechanical design, particularly plumbing and process piping systems. And I've worked on both sides of the fence, both at companies like an AE firm like SSOE and on the contractor side, so I've kind of seen it all from a technology implementation side and kind of understanding why there's head beating that goes on between the two entities on projects.
I'm currently employed at SSOE in our Toledo, Ohio office as a VDC technical leader. What does that mean? Well, I'm a technical champion at the firm, implementing new technologies, workflows, and educating and training users on the ever-evolving technology ecosystem that we have. I'm also an internal SME for all things Revit and Revit fabrication parts, ACC BIM 360, Navisworks, AutoCAD, MEP. Basically any sort of MEP type program, I probably had my hands on it at some point here at SSOE.
CLAUDIA CALDERON: Hello, my name is Claudia Calderon. A little bit of background about myself. I have a bachelor's degree in architecture. My first experience in the industry is as an architectural and mechanical designer. I currently work for SSOE facility in Leon, Mexico, as a project leadership VDC/BIM specialist. I'm involved in model coordination, implementation of new technologies and processes. I have participated in Revit and BIM 360 and ACC pilots, and I'm in charge of creating and maintaining BIM standards for specific clients.
JOSH CHURCHILL: So what do we want to accomplish in this course? What are our learning objectives and what do we want everyone to take away from this course? Well, first off we want everyone to discover the benefits of spec-based piping design. We want to assess the differences in characteristics between traditional Revit families, with which a lot of Revit users are familiar with in Revit fabrication parts.
We want to evaluate the quality and efficiency gains that we've seen on projects using Revit fabrication parts. And more importantly, we really want to educate and share our learning experience as we implemented fabrication parts here at SSOE. It's certainly been a journey-- a very positive one, if that. But the key takeaway is, why did an AE firm go down the road of using fabrication parts, something that's more catered towards a contractor.
CLAUDIA CALDERON: So a small summary of what SSOE does. SSOE is a full-service AE firm with large presence in industrial markets such as automotive, battery manufacturing, chemical, food and beverage, glass, semiconductor, and many more. We are over 1,200 employees across more than 18 offices located in the US, in Mexico, and in India. We are heavy users of Revit, AutoCAD, Plant 3D, and Inventor, among other softwares.
So what are fabrication parts? In a nutshell, Revit Fabrication Parts is built into Revit, but does not utilize traditional Revit family or RFA content. This content is created and sourced from provocation CADmep making them ITM files. The way this content works is that it is bundled up in service templates, which you can also think of as a spec. Service templates can be applied to services, giving the designer a palette of content to model with.
For example, for cold water, hot water and hot water return systems, a copper pipe service template or spec can be created to drive these services. It is database driven, which means that an admin controls the specs, and the users in Revit cannot deviate from them or modify them.
JOSH CHURCHILL: So what are the major differences between Revit and Revit fabrication parts? This is a question that commonly comes up, and we wanted to illustrate, from a high level, what's the big key points and the big key differences. Well, first off, modeling traditional piping or duct work or whatnot in Revit, you're using Revit families RFAs. Those have limited control over users changing those properties or that geometry, which can be good and bad.
The good is it's a little more flexible for the user. The bad is, people can go in and make changes and maybe edit things they're not supposed to or that they think they should know or they think they should change and they shouldn't change, and sometimes they get surprises by that data at the end of a project.
The piping systems are defined by routing preferences. So again, it's kind of that good/bad scenario. It's easy for users to edit In the model, which in a case can be good, but it's also bad, because you can have a user go in and adjust those routing preferences to make the Revit modeling work, but it may not be the right thing for a project or the right way to construct something.
And it's somewhat limited on what can be controlled. If I want to control fittings or pipe, that's fine. If I want to get into the real nitty gritty details like piping accessories, maybe I want to restrict a certain service to only use maybe two or three different valves, it's not as easy to do that, where fabrication parts has a lot more flexibility on that aspect. But when it comes to flexibility, routing with Revit family content has a lot better ability to create 2D drawing deliverables. There's more flexibility. It's more native Revit, more inherent, more what people are used to doing and seeing.
So on the fabrication part side, the big difference is we use ITM content. So this content is completely different from Revit families. You have to build new content in order to use fabrication parts-- something people have to understand. Users cannot edit that part geometry or metadata in Revit. It has to be done in CADmep It's done outside of the Revit model. There's pros and cons to that, but it does ensure that it's getting done right.
Our piping systems are defined by service templates or spec, so it's really putting the spec into Revit. That spec-driven nature that you might be familiar with if you've used Plant 3D. So it's driven from the CADmep database. It's not driven from Revit specifically. So users cannot edit that spec in the Revit model. So it's enforcing more control over content and metadata, keeping things consistent, making sure people don't inadvertently change things that they shouldn't.
And you can get a lot more granular with that control. So I could, for instance, specify that I want to use these two specific ball valves for a cold water system or I want to use a butterfly valve for another system, and I can get very granular to very specific manufacturers or models of what I want to allow the user to model. But ultimately, it is less flexible in those 2D drawing deliverables. And you really need to know your end goal. And that's going to be a common theme here, is knowing your end goal. If you do not know what you're trying to accomplish at the end of the day, this will be very, very challenging implementation for anyone.
So again, know your end goal. I'm going to sound like a broken record on this, but there's a reason for it. Contrary to the name, fabrication parts does not mean fabrication ready. While spooling or installing from a Revit model using fabrication parts is certainly possible, it requires upfront planning with all parties involved.
So look at it from the lens of an AE firm, we may not know or at some point in the project or maybe ever, let's say, who that mechanical contractor is going to be on a project. So using fabrication parts for us, yeah, it helps us build more constructive, accurate models, but every contractor does things a little differently. And if you're not in a situation where you're directly working with those mechanical contractors and everyone's on the same page, making spool drawings is probably not going to end very well, because again, everyone does things differently. So you have to make sure that all parties are kind of involved from the get go on a project. But when they are, , you see a lot of benefits of this, because the engineering side and the construction side kind of mesh together a lot better.
So why fabrication parts at SSOE? Why would an AE firm go down this road? Well, it's quite a few reasons, honestly, but you'll tend to see a common theme here. So being a full-service firm, SSOE is often tasked with a design scope that ranges from the architectural and structural of a building, going down into process piping, electrical, all your mechanical, life safety systems, et cetera, et cetera.
So almost all of that scope outside of process piping traditionally has been modeled in Revit. Process piping typically it was modeled a little bit in Revit and more in AutoCAD, Plant 3D. The reason being that traditional Revit piping tools, like those routing preferences we talked about with Revit family content, they lacked that spec driven system. That was a huge benefit of Plant 3D. I mean, it's still a huge benefit of Plant 3D, which allowed users to accurately model very complex projects across many piping specs.
Some of these projects we're working with might have 100 different piping specs, and it just get to a point where it's hard to keep track of everything. And if that's all front loaded in your Revit model or your Plant 3D model or whatever you're using, it makes it a lot easier for the designer, keeps things much more consistent, you're less likely to make mistakes.
So knowing that, we didn't have that Revit system, it was a little bit of a challenge until fabrication parts came. And using AutoCAD for all those disciplines that we used Revit for would kind of be a huge step backwards for the company, and really in the BIM world and coordination in general. So needless to say, Revit in AutoCAD Plant 3D integration, where we're doing everything but process in Revit, process and Plant 3D, it's temperamental, at best.
We have workflows, we have best practices. But at the end of the day, there's a lot of extra work that has to be done to get the two to play together nicely because they're two different pieces of software and they're not intimately connected. And then if you add Shared Civil coordinates into the mix one, of those, if you know, you know scenarios, it only gets more exciting.
If you want to mesh with Civil 3D and Revit, no problem. You want to mesh with Civil 3D and Revit and Plant 3D or any AutoCAD platform, it gets pretty interesting. So the answer is pretty clear for us, which was, we need to look at fabrication parts. Once that fabrication parts piece came into Revit, I want to say it was 2016, it wasn't quite there for us. But as time went on, Revit 2018, Revit 2019, it started to make more sense to look at it again because it was becoming a little bit more of a mature product that might actually work for us.
So it checked off a lot of boxes, being spec driven in Revit. That was the huge thing that we constantly heard-- Claudia and I-- about well, why can't Revit do Plant 3D? Why can't it just be spec driven? And well, it couldn't up until fabrication parts. It provided us with the centralized database, specs, and content to load into a model. It gave us data integrity with metadata and bill of material outputs. And this is a huge one right here, is real connectivity rules. So no more unconstructed designs.
If you've been modeling in Revit, you're familiar with pipe connectors and how as long as you have a connector on one end of fitting and another, anything kind of goes together. But that's not necessarily how it works in the real world. I mean, you might have welded fittings, you might have glued fittings, you might have grooved fittings. And all those things can't just go together on their own. It requires adapters or certain things just shouldn't go together at all. So it really started to enforce that from a quality perspective.
Ultimately, it provided a lot easier coordination between other disciplines who used Revit because it was Revit. So seeing updates in a much more timely manner was huge, and the whole coordination aspect of not having an AutoCAD platform and a Revit platform just made things a lot easier.
And finally, it provided a pathway to fabrication intent design and spooling-- something we'd wanted to do for a long time but it just-- it never seemed to pan out. The right tools weren't there. And really at the end of the day, it's one less piece of software to train users on. While there is a learning curve to using fabrication parts, trying to teach a Revit user to use fabrication parts is going to require way less training than trying to put a power Revit user into a platform like plant 3D.
So want to talk a little bit about implementation and really how we went about that here at SSOE. The easiest way to break it down is really into three different sections-- one being content creation, database and specs, and drawing outputs. Well, we don't intend that this be a real technical presentation we think it's important to understand that the building blocks of this to move forward with that parts. So I'm going to turn it over to Claudia here to talk a little bit about content creation.
CLAUDIA CALDERON: So for content creation, a few things to note, first. As mentioned before, fabrication parts are not built in Revit, they are built in fabrication CADmep. There are two very different ways to create these fabrication parts, and we're going to go into more detail in the following slides. One is native content using patterns and the other one is modeled converted using 3D DWGs in a container.
Out of the box content exists that can be used as a starting point, and ITM content can also be purchased from third parties as well. It is important to understand that RFA content can still be used in conjunction with ITM content in the design, but this RFA content cannot be loaded into the service template or spec.
So the native items. They are created in CADmep using a pattern, which is more or less a template to start from. And there exists many patterns in CADmep that are available. Typically, there is a pattern for each type of part-- one for pipe, one for elbows, one for reducers, et cetera.
In these templates, you can modify the size, the diameter, the angles, the length of each component. And it is also critical to have the material and the connectivity rules in this part of the content creation before modeling. This is the preferred way to handle content creation, not because it's simpler than the other one. You need to use less softwares to achieve this. And it also creates lightweight and high performance files for Revit. One caveat is that not all patterns work in Revit.
So for the model converted, these are also created in CADmep But you need a 3D DWG to start with. And it can sometimes be a complex process. We advise to use this in situations where a pattern isn't available or does not work in Revit, or when an extraordinary level of detail is required for a part.
We like to call this the necessary evil. It may be necessary to use it-- to use them-- but we advise to avoid them if possible. Some cleanup of the file may be needed prior to using them. For example, either embossed text or engraved text on an object, it will kill the Revit performance. So for example, in these valve, there could be a lot more cleanup that could be done before using it.
In this type of content, it is also important to get the material and the cut and the connectivity rules right, just like with the patterns. Another warning is that it has limitations in Revit. It is important to test it in Revit prior to releasing it to the design team.
JOSH CHURCHILL: So next we're going to talk about database and specs. So really, the database that's putting the spec into Revit, right, something we can't do with Revit family content but we can do with Fab Parts. So the biggest takeaway here, Revit fabrication parts requires a database that's created within fabrication CADmep, and it can include items such as item material specifications. This might be used to geometrically control the outer diameter of a pipe. We all know a four inch pipe isn't necessarily a four inch OD.
Your connectivity rules, and this is really important. And that's enforcing compatible elements can connect. You don't have copper pipe being welded to a carbon steel elbow. You don't have PVC pipe getting put into a carbon steel elbow. It's enforcing those rules so you make constructive role models. And then another piece I like to bring up is MAPPROD. And what that does is it controls a variety of your metadata, typically your bill of material outputs.
It ensures your data integrity is intact and no surprises in our Revit schedules, which we've all ran into at some point in our career. We also have service templates. So this is defining what content is allowed in a given spec, kind of loosely equate spec with service template. Sometimes they get used interchangeably. It's careful to know your lingo in CADmep because a specification and a service template are truly two different things.
Then you have services. So your services-- think of them as your piping systems. Simply put cold water, hot water, hot water return, all those different systems you have referencing a service template or a spec. So you define all your systems, you place them on a certain spec so they only use that particular material or valves or whatever content you want and run with it. But it's important to understand that this CADmep database has to be loaded into Revit models, and it's somewhat static. It's not a live link. So any time you do updates, you have to be mindful of that and push them to the Revit models.
So database musts. What are things you absolutely need to consider here? Limit database admin access to one or very few individuals. Having multiple people edit a database at once is just asking for trouble. Don't ask Claudia and I how we know this. Individual's editing the database should have a good understanding of piping design and how it is built.
One minor mistake or wrong assumption in a spec can wreak havoc on a project, as designers are relying on the specs to be correct. It's kind of a little bit of a paradox, right? You didn't have this before, now you have this people get kind of complacent on those specs being correct. And if there is a mistake, it doesn't always get caught because people make the assumption, well, the spec's right and fabrication parts.
Every single piece of content should have a unique ID assigned to it. Life will be much easier down the road if you do this. And finally, make sure your CADmep database is being backed up. Corruption or just generally strange things will happen at the worst time when you don't expect it. Having that backup to pull from makes your life much easier. Yeah, you might lose an hour or two, but it's better than losing your entire database.
So next we'll have Claudia talk a little bit about drawing outputs. And actually, I'll talk about this briefly. So I always like to use this example here. Is it a valve or is it a valve? If you would have told Claudia and I when we first went down this adventure of implementing Fab Parts that creating the 2D drawing would be the most challenging aspect, we probably both would have laughed at you and not taken you very seriously. We've since found that this was by far the most complex process that we had to figure out in this Fab Parts journey at SSOE.
CLAUDIA CALDERON: So the first thing to note is that the fabrication parts do not have a difference of display between coarse, medium, and fine detail. A single line symbology does not display different than using RFA or even Plant 3D isometrics. Part geometry is displayed as it is in a view. So in this example, you see how the 3D geometry is shown in a 2D view. There's no way to change that.
And we found that the project teams were caught off guard when creating the drawings at the end of all these setups that we've made. And so we cannot reinforce this enough, like, know your deliverables ahead of time. It is very important to know them.
So to create drawings, creating a plan view is no issue in Revit with fabrication parts. It is very straightforward. It is very similar to using RFA content. The main difference comes when we are doing spool drawings. Out of the box, Revit is not very useful to make assembly drawings.
So back in the day when SSOE started using RFA content to do spooling work, we had an in-house custom adding developed. This, however, did not work for fabrication parts. It was RFA-driven only. So we had to make a decision. Did we want to invest in custom development time for something that worked for fabrication parts, or did we want to look for an external solution? For SSOE, the external solution made more sense at the time. And Josh, if you can explain further why we came to that conclusion?
JOSH CHURCHILL: Absolutely, Claudia. So it wasn't a decision we took lightly here at SSOE. We do have an in-house development team, which makes some of these issues we run into a lot easier because they can make magic happen behind the scenes that still just amazes me. But what we looked at-- we kind of looked at it from a couple of different perspectives.
The current solution still required a lot of development time as it was, even though it did work with RFAs, it still was eating up a lot of our dev team's time. We also kind of have to consider the idea of, well, if we ever do work share or we need to potentially sub out some work, we can't exactly give them our own custom add in to install in Revit. That's not going to work.
So we kind of took those things in mind and a few other considerations and went down the road, that we need to look at an external solution. A, it takes time off our dev staff for that and B, that external solution is going to have dedicated resources devoted to fabrication parts and keeping things in line. So there's a few different options out there.
The three that we looked at were the Stratus program from GTP, Msuite BimPro and Victualic Tools. And I'll be honest with you, the service we got from all three of these companies was phenomenal. What you'll find as you go down this road is that there's no one size fits all solution. Every one of those applications has got pros and cons-- not necessarily the application itself, but it's the pros and cons of your workflow. You're going to find one workflow may work better for one of those particular plug-ins where another may be suited to a different plug-in.
So it really emphasizes that it's critical to know the end goal and deliverable of your project. It was something we ran into initially, is we thought we would just go with one solution. It was a great solution. It didn't quite work with our deliverables and we had to switch gears a little bit to make things work. So knowing what you want at the end of the project, even if it's as simple as a 2D deliverable. And it's not something we always think about from this big implementation standpoint with technologies-- so many of us younger folks, I should say, are in the 3D mindset.
And we focus so much on the 3D mindset, the BIM model, that data, that accuracy, keeping things consistent. And sometimes the 2D drawing part, well, we look at a 3D model and figure out how to build it. But not everyone's like that. So knowing what that end goal is, what your client expects, it's really, really important.
So what did we learn from this implementation? Well, to put it pretty simply, we learned a lot and from a lot of different aspects. So from content creation that Claudia talked about a little bit, there's a lot of content that you're going to need to build, or potentially purchase, for successful Fab Parts implementation. This is kind of a front loaded effort. You build a lot of this out for your projects, you're eventually going to find as you reach that technology maturity, you don't need to build a lot of content. It becomes a onsie, twosie, one off as you start a new project instead of building an entire library.
So traditionally, examples and advice we were given was, you need to build everything by the manufacturer, have the manufacturer's part number on it, et cetera, et cetera. And from a contractor perspective, that does make some sense. From an AE perspective, in a lot of cases, if we're just using Fab parts for that spec driven design and we're not focusing on the fabrication aspect of it, it makes no sense for us. Because we don't know who that mechanical contractor is going to be at the end of the day. We don't know what vendor they're going to be preferred with.
I mean, it depends on the country-- or what part of the country they're purchasing that content in where the project's being located. There's so many different variables there. So building out every manufacturer's piece of content for things that were somewhat standard didn't make sense. So we chose to build out items governed by a standard is a generic item to cut down in time.
So when I say buy a standard, like fittings that might fall under ASME B16.9. They're dimensionally going to be the same fittings. It doesn't matter who makes them. There is an ASME standard that's governed by them. So building out a generic ASME library made a lot more sense from an SSOE perspective than going down the road of finding every vendor that might make a carbon steel elbow and putting that into our library, because that would have just-- I can't even imagine how many parts we would have at that point.
Another thing when it relates to content creation-- and we got burned on this, thankfully very quickly into this process-- was define your database folder structures and get that all ironed out before you start building content. What we did, we had a folder structure. We did kind of-- we thought ahead, we wanted to get ahead of it. We built a structure, we started building content, we started building our service templates and specs and we realized that structure just didn't quite work.
So then we, of course, what naturally people do, they go around, mess with folder structures, hey, look, all my content's where I want it. Well, all those templates and specs you built, yeah, they're referencing the old path. So while it's not impossible to go adjust that, it's a lot of extra hassle that you could avoid by just getting that ironed out up front.
Again, I'm going to bring this up, sounds like I'm a broken record here, but every item needs a custom ID assigned in your library of parts. If you do not do that, you will pay the price. MAPPROD So this was something we didn't completely comprehend at the beginning of implementation. We were so focused on just getting the content built and getting the specs built, we didn't really think about this MAPPROD utility.
And that's, ideally, in our case, we're using it to control those bill of material outputs. So if something changes such as a part number, it's much easier to update that data when it's in MAPPROD If you embed custom parameters on your ITM files, yes, when you do a database update in Revit, it's going to pick up on that update, but only for new content that you place. Anything you've placed before doesn't get updated.
When you use MAPPROD it does get updated. It's tying that to that custom ID that you have in every part. And when something changes, it's reflected in your model. It's more of just a metadata perspective. You are limited to the number of fields you can use with MAPPROD but leverage this as much as you can, especially if you have something or some sort of metadata that might be in somewhat of a flux.
Limit access to your CADmep database. Just that point alone should say enough. If you have too many people in there messing around, you will get corruption, you will get files locked out. You will have a lot of circling the wagons that you have to do to get things to work. Updating the database in a Revit model. This could be its own slide, honestly.
First off, everyone needs to be out of the Revit model. We didn't know that initially. We figured it out pretty quickly. Not a big deal. But therein lies the sub bullet point here-- avoid excessive database update frequency in Revit models. So when we first started piloting projects, we were making changes on the fly pretty regularly. It wasn't uncommon to potentially need to do a database update in these Revit models every other day.
Well, that becomes problematic. You have to kick everyone out of the Revit model. You have to find a time to kick everyone out of the Revit model. You have to do this database update, then you have to get everyone back in the Revit model. And it's all fine and dandy and maybe not the biggest deal if you're dealing with one particular RVT file. But if you're dealing with 10 or 20 or 30 Revit project files on a project, that's a lot of inconvenience that you have to put in designer's hand. You got to kick a lot of people out, have to go into a lot of models and update them. It's not efficient.
So you really have to get that database good and ready to go up front. It's not to say that you're never going to have to update the Revit models-- of course, that's going to happen. It's just going to happen, naturally. But avoiding that, doing it every day or every other day or even every week would be really wise to do.
So there's a learning curve for Revit designers who have not used fabrication parts. It's not huge, but don't expect success without some training. What we learned from this is we trained a few key people and kind of say here, kind of trickle that knowledge down. And on the face of it, it makes sense. The problem is, everyone's super busy. Well, some things don't-- that knowledge transfer doesn't always happen.
So we found that kind of getting a group of all your designers together, explaining the differences, walking through some examples with them, is a little more successful than trying to trickle that knowledge down. And one thing you have to understand is there is no one size fits all solution. Sometimes RFA content or even Plant 3D may still make sense. You have to know that deliverable and you have to make sure the project team is on that same page with those project deliverables, whether it's a 2D drawing, whether it's an expectation from the client that they may want Plant 3D or something else.
We ran into a scenario on a project where the client said, hey, we'll give you this process work if you use Plant 3D, because they saw the value of the spec driven nature. What they didn't know is that Fab parts existed and could basically serve that same purpose. So we had a conversation with that client, explained to them basically everything we talked about today. And they were ecstatic.
One, they were kind of bummed they didn't know it existed before, but they were ecstatic that they could have spec driven software-- a spec driven system in Revit and keep their whole project in Revit and not have to segregate it out into different platforms.
So at the end of the day, was this worth it for our SSOE to go down this road? Yes, absolutely, no questions asked. It was totally worth the time and effort. It was a lot of effort, but it made a lot of sense and it still does on our projects. So have Claudia kind of talk about the good things we saw of adoption here at SSOE.
CLAUDIA CALDERON: Yes. So the first one is that we found that model accuracy increased significantly. The spec driven nature of fabrication parts ensure that accurate and constructive modeling was being reinforced. Due to this specific-- sorry. Due to this spec driven nature, we saw that model modeling productivity increases over similar projects using RFA content.
This enabled a path to generate spool drawings for fabrications, too. It was important for us to have a single source of content and fabrication part provided that. Users no longer had to search for numerous Revit families to load into models. This allowed to have only accurate content to be modeled. No more non-existent parts snuck into the design. Also, designers took more interest into how they were modeling, which has led us to numerous and continuous improvement conversation. It was very interesting for us. As a bonus, designer preferred using fabrication parts of RFA content after the adoption at SSOE, so that was a very positive outcome.
JOSH CHURCHILL: Yeah, and I kind of want to add to what Claudia said. That the second to last bullet point, designers took more interest in how they were modeling this. Quite honestly, I don't know about you, Claudia, but it was a complete shock to me. Everyone's just moving along modeling in their Revit models, and all of a sudden, we started getting these questions about, hey, we see this spec as this and that. That doesn't really make sense. Well, yeah, it's what's in the spec.
But in some cases, they were able to have conversations with clients and adjust things. In some cases, we changed how we modeled or design systems a little bit based on that. So it was surprising, but in a good way. A lot of people just get busy, they go along modeling. But having that feedback and that full feedback loop come back to us was really exciting, honestly.
I mean, don't get me wrong, there were some challenging conversations with that as well. But it really led to everyone being more on the same page of what they were designing, which was huge. And honestly, I saw a lot of benefit with some of our junior designers who maybe they've only worked on projects for a couple of years. They started seeing things that maybe they wouldn't have thought about and started asking questions of, hey, well, why does this work that way? So not only from a modeling perspective do you see benefits, but just general understanding of what you're designing, users were seeing some benefits there as well.
So at this point, we'd like to thank you for attending this presentation today. And since this is recording, there will be no questions or answers, but thank you very much.
Downloads
Tags
Product | |
Industries | |
Topics |