Time and Motion Study
Our team ran a comparison of 14 routine tasks performed in native Revit against the same tasks performed using IQ Tools. The tasks were designed using Autodesk's documented procedures and validated using a live commercial coordination model.
Less workload across fourteen tasks: 1,250 clicks and 679 keystrokes reduced to 73 clicks and 47 keystrokes.
Recovered per active project model per year, using a moderate use scenario. 20 hrs recovered using a conservative scenario, 153 hrs recovered using an intensive scenario.
Faster to complete 50 edits. 9.87 s time spent waiting on the Revit UI versus 0.27 s, measured live in the Revit API.
Headline figures use a conservative case throughout.
Tested in the Real World
Native Revit task times were reconstructed with the Keystroke-Level Model (Card, Moran & Newell), the standard HCI method for predicting expert task time from documented procedures. Every native workflow comes from Autodesk Help, ASCENT courseware or Wiley's Mastering Autodesk Revit.
Each IQ Tools workflow is tested against the most efficient Revit workflow: proficient-keyboard schedule entry, or the Properties palette where that is faster.
The workflows were tested using Revit 2025 using a copy of a real building model - now built in Auckland, New Zealand. 136 doors, 195 sheets, 193 warnings.
Fourteen tasks, side by side.
| Workflow | Native clicks | IQ clicks | Native keys | IQ keys | Native time | IQ time | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Ad-hoc parameter audit | 22 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 45.4 s | 3.95 s | 91.3% |
| 2 · Bulk parameter edit (50, Properties palette) | 4 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 12.0 s | 11.4 s | 5.0% |
| 3 · Sequential renumbering (50) | 108 | 6 | 350 | 4 | 477.8 s | 10.8 s | 97.7% |
| 4 · Standardise types (20) | 82 | 6 | 160 | 10 | 253.4 s | 14.1 s | 94.5% |
| 5 · Visibility diagnosis | 12 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 35.1 s | 4.45 s | 87.3% |
| 6 · Sheet set update (100 sheets, Properties palette) | 6 | 11 | 24 | 24 | 21.8 s | 24.1 s | −9% |
| 7 · DWG links audit | 103 | 7 | 40 | 0 | 287.6 s | 13.8 s | 95.2% |
| 8 · Model groups audit | 90 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 457.5 s | 4.6 s | 99.0% |
| 9 · Search functionality | 5 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 14.3 s | 3.10 s | 78.3% |
| 10 · Normalise values (136 cells) | ~141 | 9 | ~66 | 0 | 250.2 s | 14.3 s | 94.3% |
| 11 · Grouping | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 23.7 s | 2.85 s | 88.0% |
| 12 · Warnings Triage (12 of 193) | ~66 | 15 | 10 | 0 | 151.2 s | 21.4 s | 85.9% |
| 13 · Export to Excel | ~13 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 30.7 s | 4.97 s | 83.8% |
| 14 · Sheets and revisions check | ~586 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 19.4 min | 3.95 s | 99.7% |
| Totals | ~1,250 | 73 | ~679 | 47 | 53.7 min | 2.3 min | 95.7% |
Proficient-keyboard native baseline. Against the mouse-driven baseline the first eight tasks alone cost 767 clicks and 50.6 minutes; the lower figure is reported throughout.
The Baseline
- Task frequencies are estimates. No published time-on-task study for Revit exists.
- Transaction times vary with model size. The trial ran in a 5 level apartment building. Larger models are slower.
- The trial covers only 14 available workflows. IQ Tools has multiple other workflows which were not included in the trial.
- One model, one Revit version. The trial did not include a large-model test and only ran in Revit 2025.
Shaped by what broke.
IQ Tools was made by someone who runs model data for a living, and it went through beta inside a working architectural practice, on many live project models, through their actual workflows and deadlines. What ships is what survived that: the grid the beta team used every day, sharpened by what broke and by what they asked for.
Beta teams were productive in the grid after one 30-minute session, with no scripting knowledge on the team.
One practitioner's judgement is the strength at two seats and the question at two hundred. The continuity commitment on the support page answers it.