Software Expertise vs. Technical Subject Knowledge

[Manter]

I would have to say that technical knowledge trumps software expertise. Yes, you can lean the software on your own, have someone guide you through, or even take classes, all in a short period of time. Technical knowledge is derived from your education and and time spent learning from each project, each person, each situation. That takes years.

I have seen my fair share of people claming they know the software, but could not assemble a simple wall section. At the same time, I have seen those who have indepth knowledge of constructability and could not offset a line.

However, the way I see it, if you know the technical, learn the software. I dont care how old you are, what your job title is, or how much money you make. Learn. If you want to be in a particular field and want to be respected, learn the technical. Learn. Two lanes that merge into one.

I have left the soapbox. For now...

[Misteracad]

Two lanes that merge into one.

Nice analogy

[Ryan.yu365419]

The content of this thread prompted me to sign up to this forum. I have a situation that fits exactly into the topic, and the short answer is: Technical Knowledge is what I would look for first above Software Expertise.

There are two "senior" techs with 20+ years of work experience each that I work with, one was never a CAD operator, the other is strictly a CAD operator. One of them has been tasked with learning to become a CAD operator due to the changing times, and the other is expected to be able to produce drawings with little supervision as a senior staff at a high pay grade. Well let me tell you the reality.

The guy learning how to use CAD can barely operate windows, his work pace is excruciatingly slow in CAD, but at the end of the day, what he produces may be ugly, but is more or less correct. The errors he makes are CAD related items that I can teach him to fix, such as how to use snaps to get accurate dimensions. He knows what he is trying to do, even though he may not know the best way to get there. He knows what it is supposed to look like, even though he doesn't have the eye to create aesthetically pleasing drawings. I can trust his work to be correct with minimal checking and I can ask him to complete tasks with minimal guidance. I can feed him pre-setup CAD files and he will do a good enough job from there. I can spend a day teaching him and he will eventually do it right from then on.

On the other hand, the other guy who is an experienced CAD operator has been a nightmare to work with. His drawings are full of errors, of even the simplest things. It is frustrating, time consuming, and at the end of the day when you are up against tight deadlines it just does not work. The work may look better and be done faster than the other guy, but it has to be REDONE so many times that in the end it is more expensive. When you factor in all of the rework and the time/energy of another senior staff member to baby sit someone who does not know what they are trying to draw, it is a recipe for disaster. We submitted one drawing package on a tight deadline done by this guy to the client without time for a proper review. Let's just say the client was not happy at all and we had to spend time carefully picking through the drawing set for errors.

All I can say is, as a manager, you won't have time to micromanage all of your drawings. You need technical staff that know their technical stuff. As long as they can produce an end product that is error free, I would value that much more than someone who can mash together a set of drawings quickly. Like a power tool, if you don't know how to use it properly, it can be very dangerous.

[Richard McDonald]

After a morning of sorting out a badly draughted drawing and taking into consideration BIM (Which wasn't being talked about in 2006) I wouldn't say one was more important than the other.

We are moving into a new age where sharing a model will take preference over the traditional drawing issue.
The model is going to be how your company is going to be judged by not only your end client but also peer companies and the quality (or lack of) will affect future orders/jobs.

The days of as long as it looks alright on the paper copy are going to end sooner than later. For an example exploded/amended dims are just going to infuriate other designers/draughters when their items don’t fit.

I would like to include another important trait from the job. you need a person with Technical knowledge, Software skills and Draughting ability (the pretty bit but also the ability to disseminate the design a clearly as possible)

[molly.e.richardson362184]

As a young engineer myself (23 years old), I find that I can have all the "technical knowledge" you could gain from school, but the transition into applying it into the workplace and learning the "tools of the trade" are a never ending learning process. There are things that you really only learn once you get out of school and into your respective field. However, while in school, if you gain said tehcnical knowledge and also become very tech savy with REVIT or any technical software for that matter, I believe you are invaluable to a company and the industry. We are a computer generation of out of the box thinkers... If they can prove that they can quickly and willingly learn, know that you are bringing in a new generation of skillsets that the older (yet more trade experienced) generation just doesn't understand intuitively. Remember the saying, you can't teach an old dog new tricks..

[jaberwok]

As a young engineer myself (23 years old), I find that I can have all the "technical knowledge" you could gain from school, but the transition into applying it into the workplace and learning the "tools of the trade" are a never ending learning process. There are things that you really only learn once you get out of school and into your respective field. However, while in school, if you gain said tehcnical knowledge and also become very tech savy with REVIT or any technical software for that matter, I believe you are invaluable to a company and the industry. We are a computer generation of out of the box thinkers... If they can prove that they can quickly and willingly learn, know that you are bringing in a new generation of skillsets that the older (yet more trade experienced) generation just doesn't understand intuitively. Remember the saying, you can't teach an old dog new tricks..

Hi, welcome to AUGI. Fresh blood is always acceptable.
Remember that, just because it's a saying, doesn't make it true.
There are plenty of old dogs here who are pretty good with the new tricks.

[molly.e.richardson362184]

Thanks!
And it depends on the breed, some are more willing to learn.. others not so much.
I applaud that ones that take the time (and effort) to change their drafting table ways.

[Richard McDonald]

There are plenty of old dogs here who are pretty good with the new tricks.

My 15 year old dog has a new trick of pulling me home so he can get by HIS fire quicker. His old trick of walking safely to heel was more desirable.

In draughting terms this could be

The young intern that knows all the commands and sets about his general arrangment with vigour, measuring, typing, measuring, typing, a big scrap pad full of hand written notes. Errors on the GA from rounding, miss reading measurments and typos that need to be corrected before issue.

The old dog with his new computermbob trick remembers his old trick of 1st and 3rd angle projection and combines that with his new trick xline. Nice easy draughting little to no errors and a calmness the youngun can't understand.

A fresh perspective can be a good thing but so can learning from experience and wisdom.

[rmckee.93951]

For the original subject heading, I'd prefer the perfect job candidate to be experienced at both. A happy median of sorts. However, if you only had a choice of one or the other, the techinical expertise is preferred. Reason being, if you get a person well versed in my arena, Architecture, they tend to carry over habits they've learned from other firms. This is not always favorable. I prefer to keep then green. I can teach Architecture to anyone because it's all the same. To use Autocad, well there are a 100 different ways to do the same thing and for some it's more expedient to do it their way as opposed to yours. I'd prefer to direct a person to get from Point A to Point B, not necessarily how to get there. In the business model, if you are spending time telling people HOW to draw things in Autocad you are wasing time and money.

As for the old dog, new tricks. I am an old dog and I have a bag full of new tricks. I was fast and accurate before and even faster now....however, when some of the new commands/tricks don't work like they should, only the old dogs can pull out some of those old tricks. So, it's a win win

[Wanderer]

A fresh perspective can be a good thing but so can learning from experience and wisdom.

I love working with one of our mechanical engineers here. Together, we are unstoppable.
We met when I used to hang out with his two youngest kids back in high school. He's got experience and perspective, I've got fresh eyes and technical speed... get us working on the same project and it comes out accurate and fast.

It takes being open-minded on both of our parts. Not everyone likes to work with this engineer because he (I believe literally) knows everything, but, I adore it because I want to learn everything he can teach me. Not everyone wants to work with me either, because I tend to flip through things pretty fast and I don't care if you can follow along or not, that's what I need to see to process... he doesn't get uptight about it because he can let go and sit back until I pause to ask or answer a question.

While it's true that neither of us could work together at all if we weren't both analytical and logical or in possession of a basic technical education as a starting point, but, we're both open-minded enough to learn from each other and to know when to step back and let someone more apt handle it. <- Those factors are far more important than education, age or experience in my opinion.