AV BIM Workflow in Revit

[MNicolai]

Anyone doing projects in Revit for AV design & contracting?

We're scratching our heads here about how to best go about integrating Revit into our workflow across our office.

Today's discussion is whether or not to use Revit on non-Revit jobs for its document management, but we're having trouble figuring out how to get Revit to handle 2D plan views created in AutoCAD without having come up with some convoluted workflow. It's already looking messy because right now where we draw things like a dozen equipment racks in the same DWG file and plot them on the same sheet, it looks like in Revit we'd have to create each of those racks as it's own DWG, then import it into Revit as a dozen detail views.

Truthfully, I don't yet have my head wrapped around Revit enough to know if I'm even asking the right questions, but we would really appreciate some insight from other consultants who may have already developed their own workflow for this.

One thing's for certain, we need to get this figured out within the next few months because for state jobs over a certain (relatively low) budget threshold, the state is requiring those projects be modeled in BIM, and AV is specifically called out as one of the disciplines required to be working in BIM on these jobs.

Running joke in the office is, "Everyone loses money on their first BIM project..."

[museav]

Running joke in the office is, "Everyone loses money on their first BIM project..."

Not limited to your office and not a joke, everyone I have spoken with says plan to lose money on the first Revit job or two (or three).

Very apropos to your question, BIM was the topic at this year's Independent Consultant Council meeting at InfoComm, so I'll share what I got from that...

Simple numbers, people are telling me plan on $9,000 to $10,000 for the software and a good workstation to run it. Then plan on probably 3 to 4 weeks of intensive training, I spoke with someone who had recently attended some entry level Revit training and every time they asked about the aspects they needed to actually do a project they were told that would be covered in the next tiers of the training. For me that would probably represent a $20k to $25k investment just to get to where I could start to use Revit on projects. Then months of regular use in order to get proficient. It would take me a long time to recoup the investment, if I didn't go out of business in the interim. Which leads to...

There was also mixed response as far as the designers using Revit versus dedicated CAD staff. Most Consultants and Architects I've encountered that are using Revit seem to have dedicated people doing it, that way those people can invest the time and effort without it interfering with other work and income. However, several people have noted that using Revit effectively can require more than simply 'drawing', you need to understand some of the associated relationships and issues. There was some consensus that it would likely be rather ineffective to use third-party Revit specialists if that are not familiar with AV.

The opinion was split as far as using Revit if not required. A couple of firms seemed to go with it because they had committed heavily to having the workflow arranged for Revit projects while other companies used Revit only when required. One person noted that in preparing for their presentation they had been surpirsed to find that the number and p[ercentage of Revit projects in house had actually decreased the last few years and they currently had none in progress. It seems that very few AV firms have transitioned totally to Revit as it is not resally effective for single lines, wiring details, etc., thus almost all still use AutoCAD for some of their work even on Revit projects.

The concept with Revit is that you are constructing a virtual building, you are essentially 'building' the systems and building in a virtual world prior to doing so in the real world. Then as you build you modify the model to reflect the actual installation so that in the end the Owner has a model of their building where they can easily access all of the related information. That's great for some things, but is a bit awkward for others, especially where it may be possible to define the design intent without all of the detail or where the design intent is defined by something other than a physical object. Thus this can become a bit of an issue in regards to custom plates, equipment racks, etc.

This is also where the Levels of Development defined for BIM can be relevant. LOD 100 is basically a Schematic Design level, general concepts and perhaps enough information for a per square foot or similar costing basis. LOD 200 is what might traditionally be Design Development level documents, major equipment locations with some associated information. The general system performance should be defined along with sufficient information for a preliminary cost estimate. LOD 300 would be Construction Documents and Shop Drawings with sufficient information to define the design intent and allow project specific cost estimating. LOD 400 are essentially facbrication and assembly drawings with all the information required to fabricate and install the systems. Finally, LOD 500 would be 'as builts' showing everything in detail as installed and with all associated information. I bring this up as the theory is that a rack in a LOD 100 or LOD 200 model may show more the general size and location of a generic rack while LOD 400 and 500 models should reflect the specific model, the associated equipment, etc.

With the LODs defined you somehwat go from a generic object that can be used to reflect the general size and location to very detailed and product specific objects. This is a big change for many designers, for example a Mechanical Engineer can no longer easily create CDs with a generic or worst case air handler shown on the Drawings, they need to select and show a specific product. It also sort of blurs the lines between LOD 300 CDs and LOD 400 fabrication and assembly drawings as Revit can make it difficult to provide the detail required in some aspects without also getting into greater detail than desired in others.

So that probably doesn't really answer your question other than to say that others seem to be facing some of the same issues and there may not be one 'best' approach, however I have not spoken to any AV designers, consultants or contractors that have moved completely to Revit or BIM without still also using some other CAD platform for portions of their work.

One thing's for certain, we need to get this figured out within the next few months because for state jobs over a certain (relatively low) budget threshold, the state is requiring those projects be modeled in BIM, and AV is specifically called out as one of the disciplines required to be working in BIM on these jobs.

One of the presenters at the meeting specifically discussed the Wisconsin requirements relating to AV. They were a BIM proponent and presented that as evidence of why everyone needs to move to BIM. I have a feeling it may be more someone at the State being sold on it without having any idea of what it represented or the implications. That seems to be a common view, that Autodesk and some early adopters have done a great job of selling Owners and especially government agencies on BIM without any real proof of concept, we're just now really starting to be able to assess the impact of CAD on many building life cycle issues and costs, and many legal and liability questions yet to be resolved. But hey, it Green, it's state-of-the-art, it uses the Cloud and so on so it must be great!

[adonkle]

We've been using Revit for about 2 years and had 6-7 big projects with it so far (originally we moved because one of the architects we work with regularly completely transitioned to it, and requires all consultants to do the same).

Like Brad said, we still use AutoCAD for our one-lines diagrams, rack layouts, and details (you're correct that you need to break them into separate DWG files to use them in Revit easily). Revit's drawings features are pretty poor compared to AutoCAD, so it's much faster to draw in AutoCAD and then link the files in. We do our legends in Revit though. And definitely don't waste time modeling any gear inside a rack. Just toss a rack model in, and focus on modeling the visual stuff in the room like touchscreens, projection screens, LCD monitors, speakers, etc.

If the architect is using AutoCAD though, we definitely don't try and use Revit though. No point in the hassle, since we've done AutoCAD stuff for so long.

Revit's main advantages, currently, are for the architect (to see the building visually), and MEP (the system analysis tools Revit has built-in are incredible).

From an AV perspective, we see a few advantages though...
1. Taking section cuts of anything we want is nice, and because everything is a model our projection screen will ALWAYS be the exact same size in all elevations and in the RCP.
2. Rendering a 3D image can help get oriented visually with a space more quickly sometimes (2D drawings definitely have some limitations when the ceilings get kinda funky, or the ME just has a strange way of drawing duct occasionally).
3. If you setup the rack as a electrical panel, and connect your AV elements to it, Revit can give you the X,Y,Z conduit distance requirements which is helpful for long runs with cable distance limits.
4. Lots of manufacturer's have Revit models available already (Christie, Middle Atlantic, Crestron, Da-Lite, Soundtube, etc.) so it's becoming less of a pain to have to create custom elements.
5. For Mechanical noise analysis, it's great to get the ME's Revit file and is much faster since all the duct/air velocity data is built into the model.
6. Trying to work in AutoCAD when the architect is in Revit is a huge PITA. Revit "can" export to AutoCAD, but we've spent a lot of time cleaning up those exports with weird layers and lots of problems. For that reason, it's honestly faster for us overall to use Revit at this point if the architect is.

Revit is likely in everyone's future, and we've already talked with Autodesk about creating a dedicated AV family category in the software so that we can start having some AV specific features (even simple amplifier calcs for 70V speakers would be a start). In the mean time, I'm just hoping they at least add structured cabling into Revit 2014...

[MNicolai]

There was also mixed response as far as the designers using Revit versus dedicated CAD staff. Most Consultants and Architects I've encountered that are using Revit seem to have dedicated people doing it, that way those people can invest the time and effort without it interfering with other work and income. However, several people have noted that using Revit effectively can require more than simply 'drawing', you need to understand some of the associated relationships and issues. There was some consensus that it would likely be rather ineffective to use third-party Revit specialists if that are not familiar with AV.

We're all familiar with CAD and AV, but right now the office only has one Revit guy, and he's getting baptized by fire. He took a couple training classes -- has spent a few days recently watching tutorials online and then playing inside of Revit. We're still trying to figure out enough about the program to determine how we want to integrate it (if?) throughout the office.

The opinion was split as far as using Revit if not required. A couple of firms seemed to go with it because they had committed heavily to having the workflow arranged for Revit projects while other companies used Revit only when required. One person noted that in preparing for their presentation they had been surpirsed to find that the number and p[ercentage of Revit projects in house had actually decreased the last few years and they currently had none in progress. It seems that very few AV firms have transitioned totally to Revit as it is not resally effective for single lines, wiring details, etc., thus almost all still use AutoCAD for some of their work even on Revit projects.

Seems about the conclusion we've reached. Even if Revit was excellent at those things (which it sorely isn't), we couldn't afford to have all 6 consultants in the office cease work on everything they're doing for a couple weeks of Revit training. Not to mention once they did begin work again on real projects, they'd be chugging along very slowly as they get used to Revit. It's just not practical. That said, if we could find a way to let people work within AutoCAD and then had a couple people wise enough to set up the document management in Revit and made it so Revit was only needed to plot the set out and otherwise people could continue working within AutoCAD, then that would be something we'd be interested in exploring.

One of the presenters at the meeting specifically discussed the Wisconsin requirements relating to AV. They were a BIM proponent and presented that as evidence of why everyone needs to move to BIM. I have a feeling it may be more someone at the State being sold on it without having any idea of what it represented or the implications. That seems to be a common view, that Autodesk and some early adopters have done a great job of selling Owners and especially government agencies on BIM without any real proof of concept, we're just now really starting to be able to assess the impact of CAD on many building life cycle issues and costs, and many legal and liability questions yet to be resolved. But hey, it Green, it's state-of-the-art, it uses the Cloud and so on so it must be great!

The architects we're working with generate models that they send us at certain checkpoint (35% Review, 50% Review, 65% Review, etc.), and as we go, they update the model and send us a new model, and then we send them our stuff to put on top of their own. That means updates to the model will tend to happen in chunks and not fluidly as if they were in the cloud -- if we put a lot of time into laying out a wall, it's possible that wall will be deleted in the next update from the architect. One point raised by our in-house Revit guy is "anyone who knows anything about Revit knows you never move anything you -- you delete is and create it again". So another problem we face (having not tried this myself, I don't know that this is true) is if the architect deletes a wall we have a bunch of wall plates on, then builds a new wall a couple feet back from the previous one, do our plates move or do they all get deleted and then we have to hope we notice that they've been deleted and need to be created again?

Lots of manufacturer's have Revit models available already (Christie, Middle Atlantic, Crestron, Da-Lite, Soundtube, etc.) so it's becoming less of a pain to have to create custom elements.

But nobody is building those elements to any standard. A rack from Middle Atlantic shows up as a "Generic Model", a ceiling speaker from Commmunity shows up as a "Communications Device", a ceiling speaker from another manufacturer shows up as "Specialty Equipment 1". There's no rhyme or reason to whose equipment will show up in which category. We're also faced with the problem that on all of our state jobs (the ones that would require Revit), we as the consultant cannot mandate a specific manufacturer for any piece of equipment. This means we can't just go download a Revit file from a manufacturer's website if it's going to have that company's logo included in the model. Makes it a real pain for us because you get into the Crestron gear and we could be speccing a whole DM system with lots of different rack units and wall plates that has logos on every piece of gear, and then we have to go in and remove those logos or hope our DSF (Division of State Facilities) project manager doesn't red flag us. The DM system is a good example though of where this gets tricky, because there isn't an exact direct alternative for DM that wouldn't blow the entire model to pieces if somebody were to substitute in AMX or Extron components everywhere.

Revit is likely in everyone's future, and we've already talked with Autodesk about creating a dedicated AV family category in the software so that we can start having some AV specific features (even simple amplifier calcs for 70V speakers would be a start). In the mean time, I'm just hoping they at least add structured cabling into Revit 2014...

Getting an AV category would be good. What would be better is having a way to delineate who owns which elements within a model. Currently if the Telecom guys put in a bunch of ceiling speakers in one part of the building and then the AV consultant puts in a bunch of ceiling speakers in a building, when we try to generate equipment schedules for the gear that we are responsible for, there's no way to filter out the Telecom contractor's stuff. The worst-case example is with wall plates. When we place all of our wall plates in a model, there's no easy way for us to generate wall-plate/back-box/mounting-type schedules that wouldn't also show us gear from all of the other contractors working within that same BIM model.


--

So let me bounce a question off of you guys. If we built our drawings in Revit except for our 2D stuff (schematics, block diagrams, etc.) is there a good way to get the AutoCAD title blocks to jive with the Revit title blocks? Currently our title blocks are whatever we get from the architect, though DSF has their own standard they use. The problem is that the state only has a title block for AutoCAD -- they have not made a standard for title blocks on Revit-generated drawings, and getting Revit to play nicely with the title block DSF provides has not gone well -- one architect we work with just made their own title block in Revit that fulfills the intent of the DSF AutoCAD titleblock, but it's not identical.

That means if we do a dozen drawings in AutoCAD and a dozen drawings in Revit, but don't go through the hassle of linking our AutoCAD drawings into Revit, we end up with half of our sheets using one titleblock and half using the other. We have a second issue then which is that the Revit stuff is all automatically numbered and titled whereas the AutoCAD stuff isn't, so if Revit goes and updates our numbering scheme, is there any sane way to avoid having to then go in and renumber all of our AutoCAD sheets? Is there also a sane way to generate an all-inclusive index page in Revit even though all of the sheets are not being processed together in that Revit file?

[rwhealey]

As of a couple years ago the architectural engineering department here no longer teaches autoCAD - Revit only. I'd expect to be seeing it a lot more in the future.

[museav]

Currently our title blocks are whatever we get from the architect, though DSF has their own standard they use. The problem is that the state only has a title block for AutoCAD -- they have not made a standard for title blocks on Revit-generated drawings, and getting Revit to play nicely with the title block DSF provides has not gone well -- one architect we work with just made their own title block in Revit that fulfills the intent of the DSF AutoCAD titleblock, but it's not identical.

We're also faced with the problem that on all of our state jobs (the ones that would require Revit), we as the consultant cannot mandate a specific manufacturer for any piece of equipment. This means we can't just go download a Revit file from a manufacturer's website if it's going to have that company's logo included in the model. Makes it a real pain for us because you get into the Crestron gear and we could be speccing a whole DM system with lots of different rack units and wall plates that has logos on every piece of gear, and then we have to go in and remove those logos or hope our DSF (Division of State Facilities) project manager doesn't red flag us. The DM system is a good example though of where this gets tricky, because there isn't an exact direct alternative for DM that wouldn't blow the entire model to pieces if somebody were to substitute in AMX or Extron components everywhere.

You have to love the government, requiring that you use Revit but then not being able to provide the title blocks they want you to use in a Revit format. And dictating that you use project documentation software that virtually requires being product specific while also requiring that the design to be product agnostic. But they don't have to actually resolve the problems they generate so why am I not surprised?

That means if we do a dozen drawings in AutoCAD and a dozen drawings in Revit, but don't go through the hassle of linking our AutoCAD drawings into Revit, we end up with half of our sheets using one titleblock and half using the other. We have a second issue then which is that the Revit stuff is all automatically numbered and titled whereas the AutoCAD stuff isn't, so if Revit goes and updates our numbering scheme, is there any sane way to avoid having to then go in and renumber all of our AutoCAD sheets?

This has been a problem for many since Revit was introduced and apparently has yet to be resolved. MEP designers also have to deal with things like single line diagrams and apparently the most efficient approach to those is still to draw them in AutoCAD and link them into Revit.


All of this is representative of the overall problem I have with BIM and Revit. They are both great concepts, but there are hurdles with both Revit itself and with construction industry practices that have to be addressed to make the concepts work and their implementation practical. For example, Revit seems greatly predicated on the concept that the building and building systems can be completely defined by the physical components involved and their physical relationships, a concept that may work for Architecture and some trades but that does not work for others. That type of issue would have to be resolved to make it feasible to create an entire project within Revit. On the construction side, I have been involved in past projects where the design team went to great lengths to coordinate the trades and the work shown on their drawings only to subsequently have the work installed in a manner that deviates from the Drawings and causes conflicts with the Owner accept those deviations, thus subverting all of the prior coordination and documentation. That type of issue is also going to have to be addressed to make the theory behind BIM viable.

Overall, I think BIM and Revit are great concepts, however they're simply not sufficiently developed or matured to be practical to implement without exception and it may be years before that is practical. Unfortunately, some groups, many of whom benefit from the use of BIM and the related software while also not being the ones most at risk from its use, are out there promoting all the positives and glossing over the current limitations. And that is creating a bad situation for many Engineering and design firms.

[adonkle]

So let me bounce a question off of you guys. If we built our drawings in Revit except for our 2D stuff (schematics, block diagrams, etc.) is there a good way to get the AutoCAD title blocks to jive with the Revit title blocks?

We've tried, and the short answer is that it's almost always faster to just take the time to link all the AutoCAD files into Revit and print from a common title block. For titleblocks, we just wait for the architect to send us theres (or copy it directly from their Revit model).

You're correct that manufacturers aren't building models to a standard yet (Infocomm has development and published a standard that a few are with, but they've got a long way to go). That said, we haven't found that it makes much of a difference. We still don't use Revit as much more than a 3D drafting tool (much better than the nightmare/joke known at AutoCAD 3D), we can't see scheduling in Revit being worth it unless we populate the equipment racks and there's almost no reason to populate the racks in Revit.

Currently, we have a Revit models folder on our server that I manage. Our main folder has generic AV equipment with notes about what it's modeled from like "Generic 8" ceiling speaker - Tannoy 801 DC". Generally we just leave our model that generic regardless of what brands we actually put in specs until there's an advantage to doing more detail. If we do put something specific in (like SMART board with short throw projectors because we need the camera to miss the retractable projection screen in the ceiling), then we create a specific manufacturer folder and save it. We convert ALL our stuff to communications-type families with a comms electrical connector though (well, except AV racks as electrical equipment in case we want to create systems, but we're still experimenting the usefulness of it). Main reason for common family type in all our models is that it lets us use a common device tag for everything, and comms electrical outlet so we can auto-wire systems.

[museav]

Our main folder has generic AV equipment with notes about what it's modeled from like "Generic 8" ceiling speaker - Tannoy 801 DC". Generally we just leave our model that generic regardless of what brands we actually put in specs until there's an advantage to doing more detail. If we do put something specific in (like SMART board with short throw projectors because we need the camera to miss the retractable projection screen in the ceiling), then we create a specific manufacturer folder and save it.

That seems to be where the LOD (Level of Development) can factor in as if you are committed to create LOD 100, 200 and maybe 300 level models then it may be possible to be less product specific, but LOD 400 and 500 models require a level of detail that pretty much requires being product specific.

It appears that the transition from LOD 300, which is essentially CDs and might typically be created by the design team, to LOD 400, which is a fabrication level and most likely the purview of trade contractors and/or fabricators, is an area with many potential concerns. Much of this seems to relate to the continuity used in BIM and with Revit differing significantly from the clear delineation of the two 'phases' that had been developed over and encouraged for many years. I think there is agreement that progressing from LOD 300 to LOD 400 requires adding additional detail and information, but changing one party changing what was previously developed by another party seems to get into a grey area. If you specify projector Models X, Y and Z as acceptable and include projector Model X in the Revit model then who is responsible for modifying the Revit model if Model Y or Model Z projector are provided and is that a "change"? And what about Value Engineering, who is responsible for modifying a Revit model to reflect any VE items accepted (and where does VE fit in BIM)? If the designer modifies the model to reflect the work of the Contractor are they then potentially assuming liability for the associated LOD 400 documents and related work? If the Contractor or fabricator changes the model are they modifying the design and thus assuming any associated liability? This is the type of issue that doesn't yet seem to have any definitive answer.

In fact, I was in a project meeting yesterday and it was asked if anyone there had worked on a BIM project through the entire process. Only the Civil Engineer had and they said that due to the liability concerns the Contractors ended up creating their own BIM model from scratch. It was also noted that many steel fabricators, sheet metal fabricators, etc. use specialized software that does not necessarily translate directly with Revit, so they can actually end up with two sets of documents and additional areas of potential miscoordination.

[MNicolai]

I've been scouting Revit components for our library. Here are the manufacturers who have had Revit models available for at least a good chunk of their product lines, asterisks are by the manufacturers who get a gold star for having most of their products modeled in Revit or all of their models accessible in a single download instead of 70 individual downloads:

+Acoustical Surfaces, Inc.
+AMX*
+Biamp*
+Cambridge Sound Management
+Chief MFG*
+Christie
+Community
+Crestron*
+Da-Lite*
+Draper*
+Extron*
+FSR*
+Meyer Sound
+Middle Atlantic*
+Premier Mounts*
+SMART Technologies
+Soundtube

What I have found disappointing is a lack of projectors, flat panel displays (19" thru 80"), and presenters' stations available in Revit models. If anyone has good leads on where to find some of those, it would be appreciated.

[adonkle]

I've been scouting Revit components for our library. Here are the manufacturers who have had Revit models available for at least a good chunk of their product lines, asterisks are by the manufacturers who get a gold star for having most of their products modeled in Revit or all of their models accessible in a single download instead of 70 individual downloads:

+Acoustical Surfaces, Inc.
+AMX*
+Biamp*
+Cambridge Sound Management
+Chief MFG*
+Christie (mostly their high end stuff -- very little we'd spec on the average job)
+Community
+Crestron*
+Da-Lite*
+Draper*
+Extron*
+FSR*
+Meyer Sound
+Middle Atlantic*
+Premier Mounts*
+SMART Technologies
+Soundtube

What I have found disappointing is a lack of projectors, flat panel displays (19" thru 80"), and presenters' stations available in Revit models. If anyone has good leads on where to find some of those, it would be appreciated.

Just to add to your list
+Atlas Sound
+Tannoy

And personally I found Christie's website a pain to get to the Revit models for each projector, but the firm that built their models hosts them all together which is very nice: SMARTBIM | High Quality Free Parametric BIM Objects

Autodesk Seek is also a good way to find Revit models as well when a manufacture's website makes it difficult to find all the models.

On LCD monitors, I built a generic, parametric 16:9 monitor model that requires the drafter to input the screen size, then the model scales the other dimensions correctly. Not perfect, but good to rough in screen size.

Also, I really wish Vaddio builds some models soon. I hacked together an HD-18 from the Google Sketchup library (Vaddio HD18 by blindbnisee - Google 3D Warehouse), but those programs don't play too nice...

[MNicolai]

Also adding:

+DPI

Companies we've gotten confirmation from that they're working on models that we can expect in 6 months or so:

+ Panasonic (commercial displays, PTZ cameras, etc.)
+ Cisco (TelePresence products)

[parleyburnett]

Hey everybody.. As the Autodesk Content provider who is creating much of the A/V Revit content you mention here, I naturally found your discussion to be very insightful. Rest assured, QUALITY Panasonic, Meyer Sound, Planar, Video Mount products, Middle Atlantic and more are soon to be released, or even out there already. Check seek.autodesk.com for updates..
We would love to expand on our beta testing network. You can help us gather a more broad consensus on several standards related questions we commonly encounter: ex: common attributes, subcategories, category assignments, visibility etc. Please let me know if you're interested.
-Parley Burnett
Inview Labs
INVIEW labs > redefining why

[adonkle]

Just to add as I think this list is well worth keeping updated, Planar added models into Autodesk Seek recently

Autodesk Seek: planar Planar Systems, Inc.

[MNicolai]

Just to add as I think this list is well worth keeping updated, Planar added models into Autodesk Seek recently

Autodesk Seek: planar Planar Systems, Inc.

You can thank parleyburnett's company for that. They also did all of the Revit families for Panasonic and have additional audiovisual families underway. They're a firm worth keeping an eye on.

[parleyburnett]

You can thank parleyburnett's company for that. They also did all of the Revit families for Christie, Panasonic, and have additional audiovisual families underway. They're a firm worth keeping an eye on.

Thank you Mike! I should note though, we did not do the current models for Christie.. We would certainly welcome any feedback for the others though from the community here (Panasonic, Planar, Video Mount Products & Meyer Sound). These are all currently available on Seek.

[MNicolai]

The Panasonic families have come through our office and I know that our lead Revit guy has liked them quite a bit.

What has become apparent is that Revit families can either be as primitive (just the 3D geometry) or as brilliant as you want them to be. The latter potentially saves a great deal of time.

I was showing a technical director yesterday how to create one family that could be used to model most of his theatre's stock platforms, and he was blown away at how simple it can be. I'm sure when he dives in for himself and tries working on his own families and models that he'll quickly realize how slow it can be as well.

By the way, a quick word of caution in hiring. If anyone out there is asking questions in an interview, don't repeat our mistake: find a better way to word the question "Do you have any experience in family creation?"