CAD Standards

[BCrouse]

How do you stop people from questioning the CAD standards that the Company has set for everyone to follow?

Thank you,

Brad

[Opie]

You don't. You do ask for input on the creation of those standards. If those standards don't make sense to someone, that someone will question it.

Standards are also usually just a reference of how the company wants things to look or work. If we don't question the standards, does that mean it is necessarily right?

[Mike.Perry]

Hi

Without the full! backing and support of senior management you can't...

Have a good one, Mike

[Brian Myers]

How do you stop people from questioning the CAD standards that the Company has set for everyone to follow?

Thank you,

Brad
Fire everyone in the company except for yourself? LOL

It's going to happen, the key is to explain why the standards are in place and be ready to defend them. Hopefully management is ready to back you as well.

[BCrouse]

Richard and Mike,

Thank you for your reply. I used the wrong wording in the question.


Brad

[BCrouse]

Fire everyone in the company except for yourself? LOL

It's going to happen, the key is to explain why the standards are in place and be ready to defend them. Hopefully management is ready to back you as well.
I cannot fire them!

Hopefully management is ready to back you as well.

That is easier said than done! It is hard when you have management in your office. Not Corp.

[Brian Myers]

Richard and Mike,

Thank you for your reply. I used the wrong wording in the question.

Brad

Ahhh.. Perhaps you were referring to outside contractors? Much more difficult question...

[Wanderer]

How do you stop people from questioning the CAD standards that the Company has set for everyone to follow?

Thank you,

BradI was looking for some potion to pour in their coffee... but, if someone has something practical.

I get the same thing every time I get files that don't comply. The manager/project manager/engineer, etc, has no idea what i'm talking about (of course, no biggie there), then sends me to some cad monkey, whose used to being the 'guru' of the office and all I get it 'that's not the way that we do it'
well, bucko, I called for serious constructive criticism, not just to be told that the whole package is stupid and worth your time. read the contract, follow it.
'I don't deal with the contract specifications'
well, your boss agreed to them, so follow them.

yep, it's an uphill battle with the same war cry in every camp 'that's not the way we've always done it!' (sometimes without even reading it. I've posted my standards before, and they are not all that restrictive. it just basically outlines good drafting practices and consistent layer names)

So, all I can say is 'good luck' and have an extra :beer: for you the next time I am driven to drinking by this. ;)

[BCrouse]

I was looking for some potion to pour in their coffee... but, if someone has something practical.

I get the same thing every time I get files that don't comply. The manager/project manager/engineer, etc, has no idea what i'm talking about (of course, no biggie there), then sends me to some cad monkey, whose used to being the 'guru' of the office and all I get it 'that's not the way that we do it'
well, bucko, I called for serious constructive criticism, not just to be told that the whole package is stupid and worth your time. read the contract, follow it.
'I don't deal with the contract specifications'
well, your boss agreed to them, so follow them.

yep, it's an uphill battle with the same war cry in every camp 'that's not the way we've always done it!' (sometimes without even reading it. I've posted my standards before, and they are not all that restrictive. it just basically outlines good drafting practices and consistent layer names)

So, all I can say is 'good luck' and have an extra:beer: for you the next time I am driven to drinking by this. ;)
I feel your Pain! It has been a real uphill battle!!!!!!! :beer::beer:

[jaberwok]

I'm an independant (draughting/drafting) contractor. I say "Give me a template file, tell me what you want". I can't be bothered to argue. What I hate is the client who doesn't have any standards.

[Maverick91]

I'm an independant (draughting/drafting) contractor. I say "Give me a template file, tell me what you want". I can't be bothered to argue. What I hate is the client who doesn't have any standards.Can't you then just use your own? That's what I do.

[jaberwok]

Can't you then just use your own? That's what I do.

Yeah. But then I have to think about it or decide which of many schemes from other places is most suitable.
But, yes, I do have a basic scheme which works for most things.

[Mike.Perry]

Hi

The Rules of CAD (http://augi.typepad.com/augi_news/2005/10/the_rules_of_ca.html) by BLAUGI

Have a good one, Mike

[jaberwok]

Hi

The Rules of CAD (http://augi.typepad.com/augi_news/2005/10/the_rules_of_ca.html) by BLAUGI

Have a good one, Mike

Hmm.
Interesting that "accuracy" doesn't even get a mention.
Must be an archie, I guess.


:-?

[Mike.Perry]

Hmm.
Interesting that "accuracy" doesn't even get a mention.
Must be an archie, I guess.


:-?Hi

Rules 3, 4 & 5 are particular relevant to this discussion (in my humble opinion).

Have a good one, Mike

[Brian Myers]

The rules are exactly right... of course, Rule 1 is the real problem that CAD management faces: "Everything takes a back seat to meeting deadlines, budgets and quality standards" (with deadlines and budgets reading ahead of standards).

This is one of the big reasons CAD programs with much of the quality control/CAD management tools built in (and more robust than today) will be an even bigger priority over the next 10 years... likely even bigger than BIM as it will effect every CAD/Design industry. With more "objects" being designed instead of lines, keeping standards will only grow more important as each entity interacts with each other.

[jaberwok]

The rules are exactly right... of course, Rule 1 is the real problem that CAD management faces: "Everything takes a back seat to meeting deadlines, budgets and quality standards" (with deadlines and budgets reading ahead of standards).

Since "quality standards" was earlier used to refer to the internal quality of the CAD file,
isn't this a restatement of the old saw "You want it quick, you want it good, you want it cheap - pick any two." ?

I'm still worried that accuracy isn't considered a bigger factor. All the paper and ink in the world is of limited value without accuracy.
I do understand that a construction project involves a comparatively long timespan so there is opportunity to fix things later but this apparent lack of concern is still worrying.

My £0.02.

[Brian Myers]

Since "quality standards" was earlier used to refer to the internal quality of the CAD file,
isn't this a restatement of the old saw "You want it quick, you want it good, you want it cheap - pick any two." ?
.

One area I think we tend to clump together is Standards. What I mean by that is that we tend to put "drawing standards", "Quality standards" and "CAD standards" together too often and in many ways they are different.

Drawing standards = The look of the final product when it goes out the door. Does the product look like something yourself and the firm would produce?

Quality Standards = Is all the information correct? Can something be built/constructed well from these documents? (This includes accuracy.)

CAD Standards = The method by which the drawings are produced. Will this cost us extra money/grief/man hours if not done correctly?

I believe "Quality Standards" are #1 and should always come first.

Drawing Standards is #2 as it's a direct reflection on your company and the image it projects to the public. High quality drawings often bring back more business (since accuracy of Quality Standards is expected).

CAD Standards is #3 as it's an internal function... but it still can be very important when it comes to extra money/grief/man hours. BUT it's the least likely of the three to come back and effect you and it's the only one you can handle internally. Quality and Drawing Standards effect clients (or management, production, etc) in the outside world and can directly effect the revenue stream coming into your organization. No matter how good your marketing department is, if your product is bad.. then its bad. Word will get out and effect your bottom line. But internal CAD standards can be enforced on a "company" level and proven with production benefits. If the bottom line looks bad because of this then you can make internal changes to ease the problem. On the other hand, almost nothing makes a client happy that's been burned by a bad product.

That's why we should focus on the original question which was "CAD Standards" which is really much different from the question of accuracy. You can be accurate without following CAD Standards (but not following CAD standards could effect accuracy down the line and force further revisions... and cost.. then again, it might not depending on the product and which CAD Standards are broken).

[BCrouse]

Hi

The Rules of CAD (http://augi.typepad.com/augi_news/2005/10/the_rules_of_ca.html) by BLAUGI

Have a good one, Mike
I tried to subscribe to the BLAUGI and I cannot. Do you know I can subscribe to it?

Thank you,

Brad

[Brian Myers]

I tried to subscribe to the BLAUGI and I cannot. Do you know I can subscribe to it?

Thank you,

Brad

I believe you should be able to simply open the page and read it. ( www.blaugi.com )
I've yet to try it here (but if the link works) all you should need is an RSS reader.....

[BCrouse]

I believe you should be able to simply open the page and read it. ( www.blaugi.com (http://www.blaugi.com/) )
I've yet to try it here (but if the link works) all you should need is an RSS reader.....


Thank you very much Bmyers.

[Mike.Perry]

I tried to subscribe to the BLAUGI and I cannot. Do you know I can subscribe to it?Hi

Use the "Subscribe to this blog's feed" link to subscribe to the sites RSS feeds (refer to attached screen capture).

Note - Your e-mail client or web browser requires RSS functionality for this web technology to work OR use a standalone News Aggregator.

Have a good one, Mike

[sschwartz]

One area I think we tend to clump together is Standards. What I mean by that is that we tend to put "drawing standards", "Quality standards" and "CAD standards" together too often and in many ways they are different.

Drawing standards = The look of the final product when it goes out the door. Does the product look like something yourself and the firm would produce?

Quality Standards = Is all the information correct? Can something be built/constructed well from these documents? (This includes accuracy.)

CAD Standards = The method by which the drawings are produced. Will this cost us extra money/grief/man hours if not done correctly?

I believe "Quality Standards" are #1 and should always come first.

Drawing Standards is #2 as it's a direct reflection on your company and the image it projects to the public. High quality drawings often bring back more business (since accuracy of Quality Standards is expected).

CAD Standards is #3 as it's an internal function... but it still can be very important when it comes to extra money/grief/man hours. BUT it's the least likely of the three to come back and effect you and it's the only one you can handle internally. Quality and Drawing Standards effect clients (or management, production, etc) in the outside world and can directly effect the revenue stream coming into your organization. No matter how good your marketing department is, if your product is bad.. then its bad. Word will get out and effect your bottom line. But internal CAD standards can be enforced on a "company" level and proven with production benefits. If the bottom line looks bad because of this then you can make internal changes to ease the problem. On the other hand, almost nothing makes a client happy that's been burned by a bad product.

That's why we should focus on the original question which was "CAD Standards" which is really much different from the question of accuracy. You can be accurate without following CAD Standards (but not following CAD standards could effect accuracy down the line and force further revisions... and cost.. then again, it might not depending on the product and which CAD Standards are broken).

I am copying this exceptional description and printing it... Very well put!

[TeriblTim]

I am copying this exceptional description and printing it... Very well put!

Yea, that was one of the best bits I've read in a long time.

[RICHARD_JONES]

How do you stop people from questioning the CAD standards that the Company has set for everyone to follow?

Questioning the standards I don't mind. Completely ignoring them, that’s a completely different story! :veryevil: Unfortunately I’ve come across that situation all too often.:banghead:

[burchd]

This is a great thread.... thankyou... wonderfull input..

I would like to add 1 additional comment.

Standards in all cases, must be rules. Much of the process of our work, is based on these rules. It is important for standards to have defined methods and processes of being upgraded and changed and then implimented into the process.

Making an arbetrary change to an office standards, no matter how awsome it is, is bound to have downstream concequences.

Too often these changes come in the form of new staff ,who have not been properly oriented in the standards, make arbetrary changes to them midway through projects. Maybe, this helps that user finish something on time, but more often than not, it creates a nightmare for the 'next guy' who works on this 'tweeked' project.

Good or bad, cultures form in offices around processes. Changes to these must be properly considered or and methods to review and revise standards must be in place and inforced.

'A Standard' is not 'An Option'.

Having defined processes also helps avoid the political issues which sometimes crop up in theses sorts of discussions. Being sensitive to culture, and letting people have their voice in the right setting, goes along way to equalizing those feelings, in my opinion.

[Opie]

'A Standard' is not 'An Option'.
A standard is an option when it becomes a barrier to finished a project on time and within budget. Of course, if that happens too often, the standard should be reviewed and possibly modified.

[Brian Myers]

Thanks for the nice comments about my posting, it's been 2 years and a job ago since I typed that... but I still believe it.

I feel CAD managers sometimes take things a bit too personally. As a CAD manager its your job to quantify how not following these rules effects the bottom line and communicate this to upper management for them to take the appropriate action. It's not your job to ENFORCE these standards, it's your job to communicate these standards and quantify their effects. It shouldn't be your job to FIX these issues (at least if you are being used correctly) as it isn't your job to do the job of others... but it is your job to quantify how someone elses errors are likely effecting the bottom line and the work of others. Remember.. you are MANAGEMENT and management reviews the deliverable and the process by which it is created, they ideally don't DO the work of others. You are not managing drawings or likely employees... you are actually managing the effects of this process by which these deliverables are produced and quantifying how the process that created each deliverable (following standards or not) effected the bottom line. You supply the tools (hardware, software, and process) and communicate to your employees what they SHOULD do... it's up to them to do their jobs. Once you given them the tools you can evaluate how well they are using them to the benefit of the company and suggest when changes need to be made either in company process or employee process while QUANTIFYING why these changes need to be made. Let upper management decide based on your findings what the best thing to do with this information will be.... so don't take it personally...provide them with the rope to drag the company toward record profits or hang themselves... it's just your job to give them a rope and quantify how they've been using the rope.

[hughrjt]

Thanks for the nice comments about my posting, it's been 2 years and a job ago since I typed that... but I still believe it.

I feel CAD managers sometimes take things a bit too personally. As a CAD manager its your job to quantify how not following these rules effects the bottom line and communicate this to upper management for them to take the appropriate action. It's not your job to ENFORCE these standards, it's your job to communicate these standards and quantify their effects.

I don't agree, it is the Cad managers job to ensure that the drawings are in compliance with the CAD standards. After all it is probably the Cad Manager who developed the standards in the first place and subsequently approved by management. Why do you think they were created? If no one follows the cad standards and end up doing their own thing then the bottom line will suffer. No point in trying to sort the problem after the event.

You are not managing drawings or likely employees... .

Managing drawings is an integral part of being a cad manager.

[Brian Myers]

I don't agree, it is the Cad managers job to ensure that the drawings are in compliance with the CAD standards. After all it is probably the Cad Manager who developed the standards in the first place and subsequently approved by management. Why do you think they were created? If no one follows the cad standards and end up doing their own thing then the bottom line will suffer. No point in trying to sort the problem after the event.

Managing drawings is an integral part of being a cad manager.

It partially depends on your company organization. One of the top complaints most CAD managers have is that they don't have the authority to really enforce standards regulations when problems are repeatedly committed by certain employees. This leads to the question... WHY have they not been giving the authority to do it? In some cases, it's a matter of difficulty quantifying the bottom line to those that do have that Authority.
In other cases employee rentention and company culture are often an issue... mostly because these problems are being worked out within the company without a major percieved impact on the bottom line.

I do agree the CAD manager has a duty to make sure that standards are being followed, but I don't believe in most organizations they have been given the authority to enforce them. (Virtually every office I enter says they have CAD standards in place but how closely they are followed usually leads to smiles, nudges, and joking...).

To answer the question you asked "Why do you think they were created?" well I didn't say they shouldn't be followed, the rules are in place for various reasons, ultimately leading to production and bottom-line benefits. But what I am questioning is a practice I've seen in many companies of fixing items that don't require being fixed. An example: a new employee puts the majority of the text on the same layer when they should have been split between a handful of different layers. These CAD files are to stay inside the company and don't need to meet outside standards. If the CAD manager or the employee goes back in to change the layering of all those text entities when in reality this text being on the same layer likely will have zero effect on the bottom line ... well this bothers me. This is a point where a subtle reminder (or a quantification of the effects of this action) is enough.

In the end I'm not questioning CAD managements authority over the standards and the tools... but I do question if they understand the best way to package their worth. A CAD manager does need to manage files that are "going out the door". But I stand by the fact it shouldn't be their job to actually do the work, they simply should be the ones to report back that the work hasn't been done correctly. I don't believe its the CAD managers job (in most cases) to "manage" drawings... it's their job to track that employees are being productive and doing their jobs correctly in terms of the technology, and reporting/quantifying/and communicating when they see issues in production and the drawings that effect the deliverable or the bottom line and communicating this appropriately.

Now in some companies the CAD manager WILL BE the person that has the authority to state "You WILL do X-Y-Z"... and this is fine. The only issue I have with this is when/if it leads to "benevolent dictatorship" of CAD management being "the rules" and not part of the "team". I've seen this setup lead to many inner-office clashes (designers vs CAD management) and many long-term CAD managers that get stuck in their ways and don't evolve. CAD management I believe should be more about relationships, quantifying value, providing the appropriate tools, and checking the deliverable. You are part of the team that ensures a good product and that jobs are done efficiently. Managing drawings is just a function of the bigger picture of CAD management (that your team is productive and meeting its goals)... or at least I feel that it should be if done effectively.

[hughrjt]

I do agree the CAD manager has a duty to make sure that standards are being followed, but I don't believe in most organizations they have been given the authority to enforce them. (Virtually every office I enter says they have CAD standards in place but how closely they are followed usually leads to smiles, nudges, and joking...).

I agree I have also witnessed this situation in offices I have visited - however from my own perspective I was given this authority in my last job - managing 300 multi discipline cad draughtspersons in 3 different countries and unfortunately the buck stopped at my door if it all went wrong - management just did not want to know. Sometimes though I had to pull in the big guns if I had specific areas of concern that would impact the project schedule.

To answer the question you asked "Why do you think they were created?" well I didn't say they shouldn't be followed, the rules are in place for various reasons, ultimately leading to production and bottom-line benefits. But what I am questioning is a practice I've seen in many companies of fixing items that don't require being fixed. An example: a new employee puts the majority of the text on the same layer when they should have been split between a handful of different layers. These CAD files are to stay inside the company and don't need to meet outside standards. If the CAD manager or the employee goes back in to change the layering of all those text entities when in reality this text being on the same layer likely will have zero effect on the bottom line ... well this bothers me. This is a point where a subtle reminder (or a quantification of the effects of this action) is enough.

This makes a lot of sense and mirrors some of my own comments on previous threads related to cad standards. Your comments regarding text is a good example of a common sense approach to managing the implementation of cad standards.

Now in some companies the CAD manager WILL BE the person that has the authority to state "You WILL do X-Y-Z"... and this is fine. The only issue I have with this is when/if it leads to "benevolent dictatorship" of CAD management being "the rules" and not part of the "team". I've seen this setup lead to many inner-office clashes (designers vs CAD management) and many long-term CAD managers that get stuck in their ways and don't evolve. CAD management I believe should be more about relationships, quantifying value, providing the appropriate tools, and checking the deliverable. You are part of the team that ensures a good product and that jobs are done efficiently. Managing drawings is just a function of the bigger picture of CAD management (that your team is productive and meeting its goals)... or at least I feel that it should be if done effectively.

Again I find myself agreeing with your comments. Our ideas and methodology are not so different in many respects.

[jcotey]

How do you stop people from questioning the CAD standards that the Company has set for everyone to follow?

Thank you,

Brad
I have usually found it a good practice to stick as close as possible to the National CAD Standards. When someone questions my reasoning, I just point them in that direction.
On this same subject, can anyone out there point me to a document or standard that would highlight or enforce the following statement, "Dimensions should not be repeated in a string or vary in tolerance on any given plan."?
I couldn't find it in the NCS.
Thanks,
jcotey@firstsolar.com

[troy.osgood]

One area I think we tend to clump together is Standards. What I mean by that is that we tend to put "drawing standards", "Quality standards" and "CAD standards" together too often and in many ways they are different.

Drawing standards = The look of the final product when it goes out the door. Does the product look like something yourself and the firm would produce?

Quality Standards = Is all the information correct? Can something be built/constructed well from these documents? (This includes accuracy.)

CAD Standards = The method by which the drawings are produced. Will this cost us extra money/grief/man hours if not done correctly?

I believe "Quality Standards" are #1 and should always come first.

Drawing Standards is #2 as it's a direct reflection on your company and the image it projects to the public. High quality drawings often bring back more business (since accuracy of Quality Standards is expected).

CAD Standards is #3 as it's an internal function... but it still can be very important when it comes to extra money/grief/man hours. BUT it's the least likely of the three to come back and effect you and it's the only one you can handle internally. Quality and Drawing Standards effect clients (or management, production, etc) in the outside world and can directly effect the revenue stream coming into your organization. No matter how good your marketing department is, if your product is bad.. then its bad. Word will get out and effect your bottom line. But internal CAD standards can be enforced on a "company" level and proven with production benefits. If the bottom line looks bad because of this then you can make internal changes to ease the problem. On the other hand, almost nothing makes a client happy that's been burned by a bad product.


AMEN!

At the end of the day, all that matters is the finished product (in this case the drawings). How the client can use those drawings and likes them is all that matters. The client could care less how they are produced, as long as they get them within budget and timeline.

CAD Standards make it easier for Person A to go and work in a drawing produced by Person Z. Broken down into it's simplest form, thats what a CAD Standard is, just a means and methods for everyone to be able to work in any drawing at any given time.

[cadtag]

AMEN!

At the end of the day, all that matters is the finished product (in this case the drawings). How the client can use those drawings and likes them is all that matters. The client could care less how they are produced, as long as they get them within budget and timeline.

CAD Standards make it easier for Person A to go and work in a drawing produced by Person Z. Broken down into it's simplest form, thats what a CAD Standard is, just a means and methods for everyone to be able to work in any drawing at any given time.

Dependng on the client and the job, this may be true, partially true, or mostly false. Much of my work is designing infrastructure - facilities and systems with very long life spans and permanent maintainers. the more astute clients are interested in more than just the drawings to build the facility, they are requiring the CAD files to incorportate into their maintenance and operations systems. clean, buildable pictures on the paper are important, and will continue to be important.

Increasingly however, that's not enough. Facility Life Cycle planning is become just as critical to the better clients as constructability. when that's a factor, the CAD standards definitely need to include the 'How to Produce Drawings' as well as the 'How Drawings Look'.

[hughrjt]

Increasingly however, that's not enough. Facility Life Cycle planning is become just as critical to the better clients as constructability. when that's a factor, the CAD standards definitely need to include the 'How to Produce Drawings' as well as the 'How Drawings Look'.

This actually a very good perspective on the cad drawing life span. The typical project that I have worked on usually have cad standards dictated by the client as a contractual requirement specifically because eventually the design drawings become an integral part of the facility operations. The cad drawings may be reused in part for development by the client for their own facility management purposes.

It is often perceived that when preparing drawings for a project design that the primary function is to convey the design intent - which is true - but in my experience the actual lifespan extends beyond that for both 2d and 3d design.

[RICHARD_JONES]

One area I think we tend to clump together is Standards. What I mean by that is that we tend to put "drawing standards", "Quality standards" and "CAD standards" together too often and in many ways they are different.

Drawing standards = The look of the final product when it goes out the door. Does the product look like something yourself and the firm would produce?

Quality Standards = Is all the information correct? Can something be built/constructed well from these documents? (This includes accuracy.)

CAD Standards = The method by which the drawings are produced. Will this cost us extra money/grief/man hours if not done correctly?

I believe "Quality Standards" are #1 and should always come first.

Drawing Standards is #2 as it's a direct reflection on your company and the image it projects to the public. High quality drawings often bring back more business (since accuracy of Quality Standards is expected).

CAD Standards is #3 as it's an internal function... but it still can be very important when it comes to extra money/grief/man hours. BUT it's the least likely of the three to come back and effect you........

When broken down into three standards, has you have done, your individual statements are true. But, I see this as one those situations that when I look at the sum of the parts I come to a different conclusion. A good set of CAD Standards (and I’ll emphasize good set) directly affect your ability to be able to meet your Drawing & Quality Standards. The problem I’ve too often encountered is that the Cad Standards have not been setup properly to achieve this.

Along that thought, I think that Autodesk has a lot of room for improvement when it comes to promoting the ability to coordinate Cad Standards.

Just my 2c

[troy.osgood]

It is often perceived that when preparing drawings for a project design that the primary function is to convey the design intent - which is true - but in my experience the actual lifespan extends beyond that for both 2d and 3d design.


Have never run into that level of requirement in the CAD documents. All clients I've ever worked for just want the buildable plans when printed out.

In the case of the CAD file, itself, being the final product, then yes a more strict CAD Standards needs to be in place. But the standard should never be so strict that it inhibits the different drafters from being able to function to their best.

With the CAD file itself being the final product, it is still the LOOK that the Standards have to create, in this case the LOOK is the file where typically the LOOK is the final printed document.

Any company I've worked for has always been reluctant to release CAD files for liability reasons.

[dgorsman]

Have never run into that level of requirement in the CAD documents. All clients I've ever worked for just want the buildable plans when printed out.

In the case of the CAD file, itself, being the final product, then yes a more strict CAD Standards needs to be in place. But the standard should never be so strict that it inhibits the different drafters from being able to function to their best.

With the CAD file itself being the final product, it is still the LOOK that the Standards have to create, in this case the LOOK is the file where typically the LOOK is the final printed document.

Any company I've worked for has always been reluctant to release CAD files for liability reasons.

Very different here, with piping drawings. We often get drawing files that were created 15-20 years ago, when the refinery was built, then worked on several times to reflect modifications and upgrades. The drawings and 3D models we produce today can expect a similar lifespan. Nobody wants to rebuild a plant in either 2D or 3D every time a drawing needs to be changed, so the drawing files go out to the EPCM's, who modify them, then send back the modified and new files for the next go-round.

[Harold Pei Jr]

Also, if the CAD drawings are the final product, you're not going for the looks, especially if someone else has to work on them. The files have to be made to allow someone else (besides the person who put the files together) to be able to seamlessly work on them. They don't want to have to fix your layering problems, or figure out why there are lines and pipes and what ever else is in the drawing floating around on there.
We've had some drawings where the archs had put everything on the same layer, they just changed the color. It's very hard to isolate certain objects if everything is on the same layer, and it's just more time out of our schedule to have to go through and fix them.
If everyone just wants the sheets to be printed out, I see no problem with everyone going laxed on the standards, but if the CAD files are the deliverables, or if the project is expected to go longer than 2 years, then I make sure my team goes by the book. It just makes it easier for other people to work on IMO. You never know if the person who works on one project will still be here in a year or two, or even tomorrow.

[dgorsman]

Also, if the CAD drawings are the final product, you're not going for the looks, especially if someone else has to work on them. The files have to be made to allow someone else (besides the person who put the files together) to be able to seamlessly work on them. They don't want to have to fix your layering problems, or figure out why there are lines and pipes and what ever else is in the drawing floating around on there.
We've had some drawings where the archs had put everything on the same layer, they just changed the color. It's very hard to isolate certain objects if everything is on the same layer, and it's just more time out of our schedule to have to go through and fix them.
If everyone just wants the sheets to be printed out, I see no problem with everyone going laxed on the standards, but if the CAD files are the deliverables, or if the project is expected to go longer than 2 years, then I make sure my team goes by the book. It just makes it easier for other people to work on IMO. You never know if the person who works on one project will still be here in a year or two, or even tomorrow.

You could even end up shooting yourself in the foot, standards-wise; you might be the one getting those files back in the future for updates.

[Harold Pei Jr]

You could even end up shooting yourself in the foot, standards-wise; you might be the one getting those files back in the future for updates.

I've actually had that happen. A few files I've worked on for one company were for the company I currently work for. One set, I had just finished before I left. When I started my new job, I was assigned the project with that very set of files.
I'm glad I followed the standards at that point (especially when seeing some arch drawings... some of them don't change layers, just color of the layer... yes, layer). :shock: