Forums >> General Discussion >> Revit Project Management >> Family Library Organization

derxaj

active

Joined: Thu, Oct 13, 2005
91 Posts

My office is having discussions on how to organize our family library.  Should we try to keep it organized the way Revit does, or should we try to set it up in CSI format?  What does everyone on here think and do in their firms?  Another coworker and I got in a small argument about handicap symbols and the correct place to put them, if they should be under Annotations or under Specialty Equipment or Generic Models or what.

This user is offline

Mr Spot

site moderator|||

Joined: Mon, Jan 12, 2004
2889 Posts

Its really a matter of "What is going to be the easiest way to find things?"

Every office is different as it will depend on the knowledge of the staff and how they think.  If they are used to thinking in the CSI format then this may be easier for them.  If they generally aren't familiar with this format then perhaps a more straight forward classification is in order.

In our office i've basically taken the standard revit classification and modified to better suit our needs.  Refer the attached screen shot for an outline.

HTH.

Attached Images

-----------------------------------

Regards,

Chris.

Co-Founder | BIM Consultant | Software Designer  B. Arch)

Xrev Revit API Addins | Revit Rants

This user is offline

View Website

hjacobs

admin

Joined: Sun, Jan 19, 2003
568 Posts

Setting it up like Revit does has its benefits, namely it's easy to upgrade the families from version to version by just copying over the families that come with Revit and also the Revit Categories match up well with the folder structure.  It's also fairly intuitive.

However, although my current firm does not do this, I prefer the CSI organization.  Here are some of my reasons:

1. CSI has a predermined format that lists where most items go, so there is little confusion about what folder to put something in (if everyone is taking the time to put things in the right place)  Here's the link to the documentation for that http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/docs/9400/9361.pdf
2. It is the industry standard organizational system
3. As people use the CSI formatted library, they learn the CSI divisions fairly quickly - useful for young architects

Some things don't fit nicely into CSI divisions, profiles for example.  For these cases at my previous firm, Oculus, we defined additional categories to house these items.

-----------------------------------

Hiroshi Jacobs

The Catholic University of America

This user is offline

View Website

derxaj

active

Joined: Thu, Oct 13, 2005
91 Posts

Hey thanks guys...this has been really helpful.  Our firm keeps going around and around about the right way to organize stuff...we have like 3 different libraries with different family's in each and its just a mess.  I'm definitely leaning towards the library structure like yours Mr. Spot...its pretty intuitive and already works with the way Revit has families set up...but I can also definitely see the benifits of setting it up in CSI format.

I noticed in your library structure that you do not have a folder for "Speciality Equipment"...that folder is one of our main areas of concern because it seems so general but it also applys to many different objects, like fire protection equipment, or toilet accessories - grab bars etc, even ADA symbols and things like that... What do you do with general speciality equipment like those? 

Thanks again...

This user is offline

everist

active

Joined: Thu, Jun 26, 2008
90 Posts

This user is offline

jpetit

active

Joined: Wed, Feb 11, 2009
2 Posts
No Rating

Hey guys!

I contacted CSI about the link that hjacobs posted and it points to an expired web page. The new link is this:

http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/MasterFormat/MasterFormat-2010-Update-Numbers-Titles.aspx 

This user is offline

Browser Organization without Family and Type

1

Family properties type browser pulldown organization

3

Organization Methods

1

Sheet Browser Organization

5

Browser organization

2