page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |

[Don] If they are an Autocad shop...

[AFR] Are you finding that?

[Don] Yeah, if they are coming from Autocad that may be their inclination, but it really depends if we have jumped out and touched them. That maybe their default position. It is our job to get out there and let people know there are alternatives.

We need to continue to educate the market. A lot of people do know of us. We get lots of calls from people. But it usually ends up us and Revit.

[AFR] I see.

[Don] You know I classify architectural practices one of three types: I'm 2D and I don't want to change. I'm 2D and I want to change and I'm going to call Autodesk. And thirdly, I'm 2D and I want to change, but I don't know what I want to buy and I want to look at the market. I think that really captures all three constituencies.

So the guys that are 2D and don't want to change are the laggards. You will get some of those but they are tough nuts, tough nuts to crack. The middle group, are like what your question asked, they will automatically call their dealers if they are Autocad guys. And the last case is the big group, where a lot of folks are saying they want to look at the market and will call us in to talk to them. And if we come in, and they genuinely go through the presentation and we do a good job, then yes, we do very well that way.

[AFR] Right, and I would think in the third case, you get firms that say, okay, we understand that BIM is where we need to go ultimately, so we are doing this now -- as a starting point -- whereas the second group, they will say: we'll invite the Autodesk folks in. They may be contemplating, okay, we are going to compare Autocad to Revit, which is really comparing two different types of approaches...

[Don] Hmm, yes that is right...

[AFR] ...with the trial being, sort of, if Revit doesn't work, then we'll fall back on Autocad. And I would imagine that in the case of those trials that there is a percentage that do indeed do that, fall back, because in the case of Revit, it isn't quite working for them, on some level.

[Don] Yes, and I think a lot of them -- of that middle constituency -- are quite jaded, because they had a reasonable unpleasant experience with ADT (Architectural Desktop).

[AFR] Now you have a new product that really addresses BIM on the construction level. Can we talk about that?

[Don] Sure.

[AFR] Some people have suggested that Graphisoft has not entirely given up on trying to take market share from Autodesk but instead is doing an end-run around them by planting the seed of BIM in the construction sector itself, sort of creating an island in which the architecture -- design side - can reach over to.

[Don] I think that is fair to say. In the strategic sense, that is a way to compete with an opponent, to change the rules. I would say that is a fair statement. We are planting seeds, if you will, in places that are causing wonderful collaborations, and we are reaping those benefits and they are fabulous. We are learning an awful lot about these practices and one of the fruits of this is that we are providing services where we are actually using our own product to produce models to help firms.

[AFR] What size construction firms are adopting the Construction BIM product, Graphisoft Constructor 2005?

[Don] Generally they are quite large. There are also smaller firms adopting. But most of our Constructor 2005 customers produce over $500 million in annual sales. Large companies like Turner Construction come to mind. Another is Webcor, in California.

We also have the designbuild guys who often have a sole practice, or a ten-man firm and they are organized around collaborating with others and they are also onboard.

[AFR] Right, these are the early adopter, technology-favored firms

[Don] Yeah, and we have focused on the larger folks because they tend to have more pull in the market. Pushing is okay, but pulling is always better, right?

[AFR] So in this case are you really hoping for an architect to get in a situation where if they are working for a large client and there is a builder already onboard and they say, "we really want you to be our architect but you have to use ArchiCAD so you can integrate into our builder's technology," is that something you are sort of looking at?

[Don] Yeah. Absolutely, and it's working. It's just starting but it's working well. And as I mentioned earlier, we have started to see technology-based firms working with object-based frameworks that can really help this industry. We are documenting it, sharing it with our early adopters. And we think, of course, we will be a big winner too. And our early adopters will be big winners.

[AFR] You are describing a scenario now where the construction folks are kind of the magnet, they are pulling everyone else.

[Don] Well, ...yes, it kind of makes sense, because everyone that is in a project carries insurance for errors and omissions. But the people that carry the most insurance -- and pay the most in both premiums and risk -- are the construction guys.

You know the owner is usually pretty firm about what he wants, and the architect and the construction company -- combined with the engineering -- have to live up to that. And the construction company has the lion's share of the risk. So, they tend to be a good place to go and talk about 'risk reduction'.

[AFR] You know recently I published an interview with Nemetschek North America CEO, Sean Flaherty, and he said he thought there were two types of BIM, construction BIM and design BIM -- and that BIM was bifurcating the market. Do you see that happening?

[Don] There are two different applications of the technology. Our vision is that those become one. And we are working hard to facilitate that. For example, you can develop a building in ArchiCAD and put the model right into the Constructor Series products to get your estimation data.

[AFR] And essentially, all your products both design-oriented and construction-oriented are all based on the ArchiCAD engine? Is that correct?

[Don] Yes. So we do aspire to have the same model have multiple and different uses.

[AFR] So you feel it is necessary to build out products on the same code base, not just because it simplifies code development but because of the necessity of the data transfer. Would that be fair to say?

[Don] Yes, ArchiCAD is a great modeler, so if you need a model, why reinvent it, why send it to some other state?

[AFR] Maybe because someone else does modeling better?

[Don] ArchiCAD is a very powerful and proven modeler that can also tap other modelers.

You know we have a new and powerful connection to SketchUP and we also have a new jointly developed tool called MaxonForm. So Form is a surface modeler and it runs inside ArchiCAD.

And you can create an object in Form -- like a really beautiful curtain wall, or a roof, and ArchiCAD will bring that in as an ArchiCAD object. You can do everything we can typically do with it.

[AFR] So even though it was created physically in MaxonForm, it functions just like you created it in regular ArchiCAD?

[Don] Yes. We are very happy with version 9, but we aren't happy enough. So we sought out new ways to make it better, to extend its power. For example, we are meeting with a company in the next room about energy analysis. We are working to make ArchiCAD green.

[AFR] Green as in energy conservation?

[Don] Yes.

[AFR] So you have some interesting stuff in the pipeline then?

[Don] Absolutely. The SketchUp and MaxonForm stuff is 'upfront' technology, but we are working on 'output' stuff with energy studies and other items.

The eco system around 9 is much larger than what we had before with version 8. We have E-Tabs structural analysis integration (an IFC based connection). And we do motion studies, green energy studies; but in future versions of ArchiCAD we will move forward on our "architectural simulation" ecosystem.

[AFR] Such as?

[Don] I'm not at liberty to discuss future products with the media.

[AFR] I completely understand. Companies need to protect their leadership and it's fair to say that Graphisoft has been the market defining BIM leader for...nearly two decades now.

Let's talk about BIM from the view of interoperability with other software systems. What is Graphisoft's view of this moving forward? How does BIM ever become truly useful if deep interoperability can't occur?

Continued >

page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |