Company standards

[howitzer]

Hello,

 

How realistic is it that company standards can be used so seamlessly that a project can be moved around from person to person multiple times, and each new drafter can go in and pick up where the previous drafter left off without missing a beat?

 

A person high-up (engineer, but not a drafter) in my company believes this is possible, and keeps harping on it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe that company standards are extremely important, and save a lot of time, but I'm sorry I do not think it realistic that they are the be all and end all and that people can move things around as if nothing happened.  Even if everyone uses the same layer names, for example, *how* things are done will vary from drafter to drafter.  No two people have the same process.  No two people think alike.  When a person picks up a project from another, there's going to be some lag time where the new drafter needs to get a feel for how everything was done up to this point, then they can move forward.

 

I am not a big fan of sharing work like that.  I believe it is inefficient, but I understand sometimes it has to be done.  I also understand that in some disciplines people are assigned stages of a project, then it naturally moves on to someone else.

 

I'm in civil, if that makes a difference.

[Cad64]

From someone who was involved with creating and implementing company standards at the last office where I worked, I can tell you that it is not realistic for everyone to do everything exactly the same way. Most people will try to follow the standards but they won't do everything the same. There will always be slight differences from person to person. And then you will always have a few individuals who rebel against it and insist on doing things the way they want to do it. And those people throw the whole system out of whack. So, I believe company standards are necessary, but it's unrealistic that you will be able to get the whole company onboard and moving in the same direction.

 

Just my own personal experience, for what it's worth. 

[CyberAngel]

CAD standards are intended to make the company's finished plans look the same, no matter who drew them. That is not the same thing as workflow. Theoretically, it should be possible to develop standards for workflow, but that's more difficult by multiple orders of magnitude. For instance, worker A puts annotation in model space, while worker B puts annotation in paper space. Both workers's drawings will meet the company's CAD standards, but the workers won't be able to switch projects seamlessly. Civil adds even more complexity.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done. What usually happens is that drafters get pulled into a project when it's running late, and that's the worst possible time to shoehorn one drafter's style into another drafter's drawing. The question is, is it worth the time to regiment everyone's workflow to save those last few minutes? Or is it better to plan ahead and avoid the rush? Ha ha, it's a trick question, engineers never learn from their mistakes.

[RobDraw]

I'm with CA on this to a point. Standards should dictate how a drawing looks and where annotations are placed, not the workflow. I've worked at a few places where these things were followed (for the most part), so yes, it is possible but it is an ideal. There are usually some things that are slightly different from user to user but it is easy enough for someone to jump into a project when needed. Of course, this is all dependent on the level/experience of the users. Most places fall short of all users following standards.

[ReMark]

Let me get this straight.  This person expects there to be a standard order of procedure when it comes to creating and editing a drawing that will then be followed by everyone who works on it?  Example: Do step "1" first, then do step "2" next, followed by step "3" and so on.  Does he also expect to have a checklist made available so when the drawing is passed on to another CAD tech he/she knows exactly where the first CAD tech left off?  Sounds totally unworkable if you ask me.  I can imagine instances where things could easily go awry. 

 

I'd "suggest" the engineer stick to engineering and let the CAD tech decide how to create/edit the drawing.  

Edited October 1, 2019 by ReMark

[Dana W]

7 hours ago, howitzer said:

Hello,

 

How realistic is it that company standards can be used so seamlessly that a project can be moved around from person to person multiple times, and each new drafter can go in and pick up where the previous drafter left off without missing a beat?

 

A person high-up (engineer, but not a drafter) in my company believes this is possible, and keeps harping on it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe that company standards are extremely important, and save a lot of time, but I'm sorry I do not think it realistic that they are the be all and end all and that people can move things around as if nothing happened.  Even if everyone uses the same layer names, for example, *how* things are done will vary from drafter to drafter.  No two people have the same process.  No two people think alike.  When a person picks up a project from another, there's going to be some lag time where the new drafter needs to get a feel for how everything was done up to this point, then they can move forward.

 

I am not a big fan of sharing work like that.  I believe it is inefficient, but I understand sometimes it has to be done.  I also understand that in some disciplines people are assigned stages of a project, then it naturally moves on to someone else.

 

I'm in civil, if that makes a difference.

I've met one other person like this.   "I am a professional and I know what I am doing so well that I can tell anyone else how to do their job even if i have never even heard of it."  This is probably a person so high up that they have delegated everything for the last decade and no longer do actual work nor do they understand the human condition.  Oh, wait.  I get it.  THis is Sheldon Cooper and we are watching a scene from The Big Bang Theory. 

[BIGAL]

One way around consistency is by draw objects not a line. Ie it may be a line but its a water main so is on water main layer therefore correct color and linetype.

 

This does mean having ways to draw common objects quickly I have a lisp that allows you to select an object then correct command is repeated and stuff like layer is correct. This is handy if you have a little group of say line & text objects that you can pick on the side of the dwg erase at end.

 

I know I post my 3dhouse all the time but that uses menus, draw a wall not lines draw a window and so on. I know of a multi re badge of a international company hundreds of sites they used menu's to ensure consistency and again drew objects not lines. 

 

Certainly workflow is up to the user.

 

Toolbars and menu's are easy to make.

 

BRING back the digitiser and the 200 squares.

 

I apologise do not know original author of copycommand I use a autoload and zzz as the run command.

 

copycommand.lsp

[АлексЮстасу]

On 10/2/2019 at 4:29 AM, BIGAL said:

One way around consistency is by draw objects not a line. Ie it may be a line but its a water main so is on water main layer therefore correct color and linetype.

 

 

I followed a similar path - to ensure not all standardization, but standardization of the drawing process and the drawings/models created. But for any desired drawing/modeling standard.

For the desired standard, a description file is created for all desired object types and drawing parameters, desired values of variable AutoCAD, desired resource files - layers, blocks, linetypes, hatches, etc.

- When you load a description file, the variable settings are automatically set. For example, all dwg will have the same work units.
- Also, when you load the description file, all necessary resources - layers, blocks, hatches, text styles, and so on - are automatically loaded.
  For example, in all working dwg identical layers will be called equally, identical blocks, styles and so forth will be used.
- Also, thanks to the description file, you can draw all objects from the object type menu - in specified layers, styles, specified primitives.
  You can also restore the desired display properties of objects using the definition file.
- Also, with the description file, you can find all the wrong objects. And you can automatically fix it.

These are not all possibilities, but sometimes it is useful to use even the first two or even one - the effect is already there.
Provides this free ODXCLASS plugin - for any AutoCAD, ODCLASS - for Map/Civil.