Dealing with Noobs

How do you deal with noob engineers who don't want to learn the vertical product you have? Or even want to use newer features that make work easier?

We have Civil 3d, but I am the only one on staff who knows it. I am the only one on staff who really knows AutoCAD well too so when others run into quirky issues with newer features such as multileaders they prefer to abandon them altogether rather than just step over it.

I see that maybe it would be "best" for them to just use plain AutoCAD for everything like we were using R14, but for me, especially concerning my career and trying to keep up with the newer software (most notably Civil 3d), I'd much rather just stick with the new stuff. I am faced with either drafting in "vanilla" AutoCAD or either having two separate sets of dwgs. One set of Civil 3d and one set of dumbed down "vanilla" files.

Note: I really don't like the using the term "vanilla" in regard to plain AutoCAD. Personally I find the vanilla flavor quite tasteful and believe that applying it in negative fashion towards AutoCAD is just awful. Vanilla is one of my favorite flavors.

I tend to sit the (person) down and whatever it is - i highlight both

the advantages and then disadvantages of BOTH ways and gently

steer their descision in a discussion that the option i'm putting

forward is the better one (My way or no way!). but this is only after

extensive research on my part - i apply this to both cad platforms

and other software.

All I have to say to that is, Word. People that refuse to keep up will be left behind and become extinct. Anyone in this field of work MUST be a perpetual learner. No one is amune to having to learn more.

Been drawing, drafting, using AutoCAD "vanilla" for 40+ years.

Love shortcuts and learn something new all the time.

Or at least "remember" something all the time.

Love "vanilla" too!

Some of that resistance is due to the ever increasing pressure to get stuff done in less time with less....everything. If someone has to learn something new, it slows them down (so they think). Never mind that the next time it will be faster, it's gotta be faster THIS time. Modern civilization has foolishly allowed themselves to become enslaved by their clocks.

Another big part of it is that people are creatures of comfort and familiarity. Being able to say "I know I can get this job done this way and it will work" is a very safe way to do things. On the other hand, if you try this new "thing", well, it's an unknown and people tend to fear what they don't know. Beyond here there be dragons.

The hardest to overcome is just pure stubbornness. Some of the guys I used to work with who had been drafting for many years and had CAD forced upon them saw computers simply as electronic drawing boards and refused to do any more than produce lines on paper. Many of them refused to change layers, everything was drawn on layer zero. None of that mattered, the product was the lines on the paper. Never mind that the material takeoff department had developed all sorts of lisps and other stuff to help them do their job that were dependent on things being on the right layer, and drawn in a particular way. All a drafter should do is lines on paper, they thought. Everything in these guys drawings was exploded (no blocks, no polylines, none of that stuff), on layer zero, and cyan. Would make your head hurt just looking at it.

If you've read these forums or any of the others out there you know that there is constant debate raging over 3d vs 2d, with the common misconception that 2d is always faster. There again, that stems from not knowing how to do it, or even having done it in the past, becoming frustrated with it and abandoning it, all the while turning a blind eye to advancements in software and computers to make it faster and better. If you're using a 5 or 10 year old computer, the newer software is going to drive you crazy.

The "noob" as you called him has to face and overcome all of these obstacles and prejudices while dealing with his own insecurities in a new job or position. I'd hazard a guess that 90 percent of people are "water"...they'll take the path of least resistance to get the job done and get the paycheck.

I agree with the need to keep up with the newest facets of technology, but moreso I want to defend "Vanilla" AutoCAD.

Vanilla is not an insult, it is the foundation from which all the vertical products are built. Where would tin roof sundae, rocky road, or chocolate chip cookie dough be without vanilla ice cream after all? Vanilla isn't a bad option, it simply lacks the complexity and added features of the other flavors.

Modern civilization has foolishly allowed themselves to become enslaved by their clocks.

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.

It's really frustrating though. I've been doing cadd work for 14 years now. I am good at it and I want to just get better, but it is so hard when the coworkers are such a hindrance. It would be easy for me to just grouch them out over it, but that isn't the route I like to take.

No Civil 3d. No multileaders. No annotative styles (we've had a hard time with those. very glitchy.) The only time anyone cares about doing things in 3d is when they want me to run profiles or sections of if they need earthwork which can be a bear when you're trying to duplicate hand designed work using Civil 3d. Then after spending the time and effort to run profiles and sections they'll go in there are start exploding stuff, copying stuff, etc. Thanks guys! Appreciate that!

Crack him over the head with the edge of a steel rule.

Take away his Civil3D and make him do all his work on Design Review with Mark-up. That is essentially what is being done anyway.

Then you can put the design in C3D.

And vanilla is the building block of all others.

I agree with the need to keep up with the newest facets of technology, but moreso I want to defend "Vanilla" AutoCAD.

 

Vanilla is not an insult, it is the foundation from which all the vertical products are built. Where would tin roof sundae, rocky road, or chocolate chip cookie dough be without vanilla ice cream after all? Vanilla isn't a bad option, it simply lacks the complexity and added features of the other flavors.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using "vanilla" Autocad exclusively if that's what you want to do and it gets the job done for you. It's great, and I use it a lot. But I know a guy who clung stubbornly to doing things the way he did in release 9, all the way up through 2000. He left the company shortly after that upgrade so I don't know what he's doing now. His argument that all that point and click stuff just took away from being a drafter and made it so anybody could draft. My argument to that was always that if you make the software easier to use, it gives you more time to be a drafter and less time being a data entry clerk. He would draw by typing coordinates, you see.

Making the software easier to use should not be an excuse to hire idiots for minimum wage, they still have to know what they are putting in the drawing and why. Many companies do that though, and the state of the industry is a reflection of that. The reasoning is "well, they know how to use autocad, they must be drafters, right?" Most people can use a pencil, but that didn't make them drafters back in the board days, did it?

Moving forward with newer technology is as necessary in this line of work as it is in any other. Roofers can install shingles with just as much quality with a nail gun as driving nails by hand with a hammer, but none of them pine for the days when that was all they had to use, nor do their customers who just want the roof finished. One day of listening to a nail gun as opposed to a week of listening to a hammer...which would you choose?

The point in all this is that companies should use the tools that are appropriate for the work they are doing. If board drafting is appropriate, do it. If Autocad does it for you, great. But if you can cut your drafting time in half by using Inventor or ADT, why not do it? If drawing in 3d will reduce the prototyping time in your shop, you should do it. It saves machining time, reduces wasted material, keeps moral higher. Nobody, from drafters to engineers to machinists wants to build the same project over and over because something didn't fit or didn't work like expected. Its even worse when you get the product to the machines, and after the process, the product won't come off the tooling. If you've done it up in 3d all the way through, you know that and can fix it long before the first chip hits the floor in the machine shop.

everyone must change, the world is constantly changing you must adapt and learn

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using "vanilla" Autocad exclusively if that's what you want to do and it gets the job done for you. It's great' date=' and I use it a lot. But I know a guy who clung stubbornly to doing things the way he did in release 9, all the way up through 2000. He left the company shortly after that upgrade so I don't know what he's doing now. His argument that all that point and click stuff just took away from being a drafter and made it so anybody could draft. My argument to that was always that if you make the software easier to use, it gives you more time to be a drafter and less time being a data entry clerk. He would draw by typing coordinates, you see.[/quote']

 

Thats pretty much my boss in a nutshell. To him, the modern versions of AutoCAD are nothing more then flashy buttons; not needed despite the ever increasing demand for more work done in less time. He still types in everything...and I mean everything! As far as he is concerned, what he learned by poking and fiddling with the program is what anyone learns by going to school for actual Computer Assisted/Aided Drafting and thus has a very low opinion of it all. To him, anyone can be a draftsperson.

 

The time will come when there will be no choice but for them to upgrade, but some AutoCAD users get so stuck in their ways that there is no talking to them.

if you can cut your drafting time in half by using Inventor or ADT' date=' why not do it? If drawing in 3d will reduce the prototyping time in your shop, you should do it. It saves machining time, reduces wasted material, keeps moral higher. Nobody, from drafters to engineers to machinists wants to build the same project over and over because something didn't fit or didn't work like expected. Its even worse when you get the product to the machines, and after the process, the product won't come off the tooling. If you've done it up in 3d all the way through, you know that and can fix it long before the first chip hits the floor in the machine shop.[/quote']I agree wholeheartedly, but the accounting departments which rule this world insist on departmentalising costs, so increasing a draughting cost to produce an even bigger saving in the workshop doesn't show up on paper as a draughting efficiency increase, so no wonder there are those who are reluctant to shake up the system

 

I agree with the need to keep up with the newest facets of technology, but moreso I want to defend "Vanilla" AutoCAD.

 

Vanilla is not an insult, it is the foundation from which all the vertical products are built. Where would tin roof sundae, rocky road, or chocolate chip cookie dough be without vanilla ice cream after all? Vanilla isn't a bad option, it simply lacks the complexity and added features of the other flavors.

I'm wondering how many companies make best use of the vertical products they DO have

 

The electrical forum on here seems to be excessively quiet. Last time I did some work for a manufacturing control systems company they told me they had ACAD Elec, but they just didn't have the time to give anybody to leave the office for the training course (and in a peaky environment such as theirs I can see where they were coming from... besides, I wouldn't have been there if that wasn't the case!)

 

Another issue is compatibility between different disciplines or client/contractors. I'm assuming most of their drawings were produced on vanilla as that is what the existing client drawings they are modifying are produced on, and the standard they are required to work to

Many folks who have Civil 3d aren't using it fully. I'd venture to say most of them aren't. In my case we were sorta tricked into upgrading from Land Desktop to Civil 3d. My boss paid $7k (give or take) per seat and got 3 seats of it. The way I look at it is we (the company) spent all that money on software. We should darn well use it! Otherwise why spend the extra thousands of dollars on it? We had just enough training to get our feet wet and from there I've busted my @$$ trying to learn more about it via tutorials, cad forums, etc.

The fact of the matter is that if a company uses the product in the way it was intended more work can get done in less time, especially where a good process is put in place. The engineer or designer can do design work using the program as opposed to marking it up on paper and the program essentially will do most of the drafting on its own. You just need to then clean it up. This boosts production and also allows more time to refine your design as well as your drafting. You can have the engineer/designer designing a project while the drafter does drafting work at the same time.

I am all for slowing things down some instead of rushing rushing rushing all the time, but I still prefer to use the vertical products as a design tool so I have time to focus more on "prettying" up the plans. This does wonders for your submittals. I have taken note that our permitting agencies always approve plans much quicker when the plans look good and are clear. If you have more time to focus on making plans clear and concise then you will get approvals sooner and have much happier clients.:wink:

I agree wholeheartedly, but the accounting departments which rule this world insist on departmentalising costs, so increasing a draughting cost to produce an even bigger saving in the workshop doesn't show up on paper as a draughting efficiency increase, so no wonder there are those who are reluctant to shake up the system

 

That is a very very big problem in today's business mindset. Instead of looking at the company as a whole, they've chopped it up and try to pretend that every department, and in some cases, every employee, is a completely separate entity and that by reducing costs at that level, they reduce cost overall. While some of that is necessary to keep people engaged in the business, it can't be the only model you look at for cost reduction and efficiency. If you do it that way, you see some temporary, "feel good" cost reductions that can and will bring about the demise of your business.

For instance, lets say that your one and only fork truck is leaking engine oil. You want to replace it but the accountant says no, citing that it would take years to make the money back. We'll have it repaired later (when the economic climate is better), and replaced when we absolutely have no other choice. "It's cheaper in the current economy (meaning today's cash flow) to buy a few quarts of oil." So you do that, but now you've got a spike showing up in janitorial and hazmat costs for cleaning up the spilled oil and disposing of it properly. Well, that's got to be the janitor's fault, right? After all, we've never had those costs before, so what's this janitor doing that's causing it? After a thorough and completely demoralizing meeting, the janitor, having proved that oil on the floor is the reason for the cost increase in his department, now no longer cares if it gets cleaned up at all, but has agreed to find a way to reduce the costs. This of course means that he's only going to clean up half of the spilled oil every day, leaving the other for tomorrow, and so on. In the mean time, the accountant, armed with the janitor's information about oil on the floor being the problem, makes a decision. Oil on the floor is the problem, so he eliminates the problem. He stops buying oil! He has no idea what the oil is for, or how it's getting on the floor, but the janitor says that's the cause of all the increased hazmat costs, so by jove, we just won't buy any more oil and all those problems go away. We save money by not buying oil, and therefore reducing or eliminating the cleanup costs at the same time. A meeting is held, all these cost reductions are presented to the executives (who's butts are the same shape as the seat of their very plush chairs and who's hands have never been dirty) and all is well, right? Yeah, till the engine in the fork truck blows up because it's being run without oil. Now you got a pile of unscheduled down time, your orders are late because you can't load and unload the trucks, you've got to rent a fork truck and work all kinds of overtime to get back on schedule, yada yada yada....top executives demand an explanation! An investigation is conducted, today's hot buzzwords are frantically tossed around and fault is found. Guess what....did the accountant who, by his own ignorance caused this dilemma get called on the carpet? Of course not...they fire the janitor! After all, it was his cleaning cost spike that caused all this!

You can substitute "drafter" for "janitor" and "software and computers" for "oil" in this admittedly somewhat exaggerated example, but the point is the same. Today's businesses, especially the large ones, are not being run by people who know or understand even in general terms what's happening because of the decisions they make. It's not that they are stupid, its that they have no practical experience in the day to day operations. You see it on the news every day. Giant corporations in bankruptcy, or floating on government bailouts, but still handing out huge bonuses because certain goals were met. Goals set by people who didn't know what really makes the business tick, and met by people who know how to manipulate reports and data to meet those unrealistic goals. Why do I say the goals were unrealistic? If the goals had been realistic, wouldn't the business be healthy and prosperous instead of being one day's cash flow from bankruptcy and shutting down permanently?

Ok, I'll shut up now.

can somebody please bomb Harvard?

every year we get a new collection of silly games for managers to play, and they all believe wholeheartedly they are doing something REALLY important by massaging the figures by a new method from the latest graduate of this godforsaken establishment!

Remember the days when people understood the whole business, what makes it tick, who makes it tick, and what the customer actually requires?

can somebody please bomb Harvard?

 

every year we get a new collection of silly games for managers to play, and they all believe wholeheartedly they are doing something REALLY important by massaging the figures by a new method from the latest graduate of this godforsaken establishment!

 

Remember the days when people understood the whole business, what makes it tick, who makes it tick, and what the customer actually requires?

Or at least eliminate the "new buzzwords 101" class?

the buzzwords don't cost money and jobs as much as the new ways of playing musical chairs (otherwise known as 'hot desking'? )

the buzzwords don't cost money and jobs as much as the new ways of playing musical chairs (otherwise known as 'hot desking'? )

sure they do. it's a way to mask the fact that none of these managers know what they are doing. they can toss them around and point to charts and graphs get congratulated for dragging the company down

old habits do die hard, sometimes they don't die at all...

but rusty hit the point, why invest on a software when you don't even want to fully use it.

if your given a nail gun but dont know how to use it yet, wouldnt you rather train yourself to using it rather doing a masters degree using hammers.

I feel i at least owe a company where i work for when giving me a chance to learn about a new software, or if you bought it for yourself, then owe it to yourself