I love getting models from designers. It isn't as exciting as when we got our first one - I think I actually sprinted down the hall to tell John Tocci about that one - but it is still pretty phenomenal to know that we won't have to do a tedious 2D conversion.
Yesterday, we received the architectural and structural Revit models for a project in preconstruction. Whenever we get a model from an architect, I briefly review it for internal use:
Organization - separate models for structure, architecture & site (just like us!)
Worksets - setup logically and followed well (for the most part) i.e. core items are in the 'core' workset
Geometry - some items aren't model how they will be built i.e. walls spanned the entire height of the building
Allignment - all models line up in Navis - a definite good sign! We'll have to wait for MEPs in AutoCAD 3D to see how well they did that.
Object Nomenclature - a little messy; wall types aren't inherent in the wall names (i.e. walls are named "Interior - Conference Wall" rather than "Interior - 14A"). Wall type annotations aren't 'smart'. This could result in more document discrepancies... There are even walls named 'Generic - 6" '
Assembly Code - does match up with wall function (normal for designers)
Assemblies - are modeled as one object (instead of being modeled in build-able components) - again, typical for designers
I have no complaints about the way they model (well, not too many...). In most cases, I understand where they are coming from. They are modeling to produce a set of design documents. How could and more importantly, why would they anticipate the needs of a builder? (This is very similar to my thoughts modeling philosophy, which I posted over a year ago).
This reinforces the need for standards of modeling for collaboration - I guess we need to hurry up with the BIMForum's Process Mapping Task Force work.