I have been getting a lot of questions about which classes I will be teaching in 2017 and I thought it would be fun to show you how I decide which classes to propose each year.
It starts with me making a list of all the classes that I Previously have taught since 2012.
See the list below.

I try not to teach the same exact class at the same conference so it helps me narrow down which classes NOT to teach. Then I make a list of all the classes I WANT to teach.
See the list below

In this case I have about 35 classes in this list and I could not realistically propose to teach everyone of these classes so I have to narrow it down to some manageable number. In this case the top 6 shown in Red I have (just) proposed at RTCNA/ BILTNA2017.
How do I decide which top classes get proposed?

Well its usually the classes I am the most excited about but if you readers and the AEC community feel there is a better class to propose that is on or off this list I would be happy to hear  your input in the comments below or as a mention on twitter.
@marcellosgamb
Thanks!

2 thoughts on “Deciding on Which Classes to Propose for Conferences in 2017

  • Sean Spence

    I'm voting for Revit connections. Especially if you have found a way to change the default settings or force changes to all the connections of a particular family type.

    Thinking of Base Plate and the multitude of different base plate sizes/ types we may have on a project. I don't want to have to select each and every base plate and change their settings. That's whats suppose to happen when we duplicated types to create new ones.

  • Kieran Atherton

    Hi Marcello, Can you please do a class on how to get Revit to Tekla please? This has been the biggest thorn in the backside for Structural engineers for a long long time and I would love to know how to resolve this issue once and for all.

    Currently, the way we go about this process is we design two separate models (Revit and Analytical) in line with each other then we would do a manual check with marked up drawings to check that the structure is mirrored. Surely this cannot be the correct way to this process? In theory, the right way to do this would be to design your Revit model, then pass your model to Tekla to check the structural elements are correct then once you are happy pass it back to Revit with the updated structure.

    Marcello, Please can you show us all how should be done.

Comments are closed.