Let me know what you think by either leaving a comment below or by dropping me a line at randerobinson@gmail.com.
Back to the basics,
puhleeeez
Is CADD doing the job we need it to do? The answer for most
DOTS is yes. And no. Yes, because we all create plans electronically now. No,
because we haven't made CADD pervasive throughout the organization.
We still consider it a specialized program when it should be
the "word processor" of the DOT. Everyone involved in
engineering--from the field office technician to the chief engineer--should be
able to access and use the CADD resources of their organization. Besides helping
us work smarter, this would help us solve a problem confronting every DOT and
consulting firm in the country hiring enough engineers and technicians to
handle the work load.
Trade and professional publications say there is a shortage
of engineers. There isn't. But there is a short-age of engineers who do design
work. Too many of our staff engineers (both at DOTS and consulting firms) are
wasting away--shuffling paper rather than doing "real engineering.
Many DOT managers are not applying and improving the CADD skills
they learned earlier in their careers. When they advance up the career ladder
they forget what they learned at the bottom of it. This has to STOP. If it
doesn't, DOTS will never realize the full benefits of CADD.
Consider the medical profession: The higher you move up, the
more your professional medical skills are in demand. In our industry it seems
the opposite is true. Just think how much more productive we would be if all of
the engineers and technicians in a DOT constantly used and applied CADD. That
one thing would radically streamline the design process.
Paper or plastic?
While CADD is the standard for creating plans in every DOT,
there is no standard way of using or interacting with those plans. Too much
time is spent plotting, copying, and distributing paper copies of
electronically-produced drawings. Unfortunately we still need to have printed
plan sheets, especially at construction sites where there are few field
computers.
But paper plans are not always necessary. We spend a lot of
time and money creating networks so our computers can communicate with one another.
We need to start using our networks for the entire road design process. If you
(or a design squad leader or the state highway engineer) need to look at a set
of plans, you should be able to bring them up on a computer for review. Forget
the paper--use plastic (your keyboard). That way, if you see something that needs
to be changed, you can change it. It's a waste of time to have someone print it
out, send it to you so you can mark the changes, then send it back to have the
changes made by someone else...and then finally have it re-plotted and
re-submitted for your approval.
Do a REAL evaluation
When was the last time you REALLY evaluated CADD use in your
organization? I don't mean asking the various department heads. I mean asking the
people in the trenches the users. You will
be surprised at the differences between what the management thinks and what the
users know. This is particularly true in large organizations like a DOT.
To make a meaningful evaluation you need to ask the hard
questions like: WHY? Just as important, you need to wait for an answer. Find
out which programs or parts of programs are being used, which ones aren't, and
why. For example you may find that your roadway design software can export all
kinds of cool things, but the surveyors can't use the information because their
survey software is three versions behind Ask your CADD users what they would
like to be able to do with the program. Again, don't forget to ask WHY?
Rethink customization
I moved from a state that did very little CADD customization
to one that does quite a lot. Guess what? I see very little difference in their
productivity--because the more a system is customized, the more resources it requires
for support and maintenance. Every time
the software is changed it has to be re-customized.
So if you customize your CADD software, ask yourself: Why am
I doing this? (There's that pesky WHY question again!) Originally we customized
programs to improve operator productivity. And it worked. Most of our pioneer
CADD operators were tied to traditional ways of doing things and customization
let them mimic familiar ways to work more quickly and accurately. But I suspect
that customization is a crutch for our users nowadays, rather than a productivity
booster. It's one thing to create and maintain level menus and standard cell
libraries, but it's a waste of valuable time and resources to write programs
that only tweak the output of our CADD products.
Here's an example: Why write and maintain a program that
creates cross section sheets when our design programs can do it for us? We'd be
better off changing the way our sheets look to fit the existing software,
rather than creating and maintaining yet another program. Remember, we are trying
to advance the science, not maintain the status quo.
It's more fun to create a program than to maintain one. The
real challenge in customizing any engineering software is keeping it up to
date. That's why our software vendors get the big bucks!
Create CADD standards
Standards are critical to an efficient and productive CADD
operation. But then there's that saying: "The good thing about standards
is...there are so many of them." A look at any engineering organization
confirms this. Every section, division, discipline, and unit in the department
has its own procedures and standards, and they don't always jive with one
another assuming you can even find them). Most engineers think of CADD standards
as a book of cells, blocks, line styles and level charts. These components are
important, but to have truly effective standards, you need to go further.
Good
CADD standards should have, at minimum, three volumes. The first volume should
identify cells, fonts and levels used in the system and establish drafting
standards for creating a set of plans.
The second volume should be a CADD plan production manual,
providing the user with procedures for creating a single plan sheet and a complete
contract-ready set of plans. This volume should specify when to use CADD and
describe how every unit of the organization will apply and interface with CADD.
In addition, this volume should contain details about which
unit is responsible for each part of a set of plans. This would help enhance
cross unit understanding. While a bridge designer shouldn't be expected to create
right-of-way (ROW) plans, I think she should understand what ROW is and how it
relates to the project.
Finally, there should be a CADD design manual to show the
users how to apply the design software. To
make effective use of these standards, three things must happen:
- They must be available and easily accessible to all CADD users.
- They must be kept up to date.
- They must be enforced.
I have observed that the bigger an organization, the harder
it is to find basic information like standards, simply because staff don't know
where to look. You'd think with the advent of the Internet and large internal
networks, anyone can find anything, right? If you believe that, have several hundred
acres of developable wetlands I'd like to sell to you.
Have several formats
To ensure that all users have access to your standards, they
need to be published in several formats.
First and foremost, there has to be printed set. I would
recommend a loose leaf format to allow for easy updating. This may sound like a
step backward--didn't I just nix paper plans?--but I believe standards will be
effective only if the users can hold them in their hands. In addition to a
printed version, all the information should be available either on the Internet
or the company intranet.
Finally I would recommend creating a version on CD that
could be distributed to any interested party. I can't stress strongly enough
that every user ought to have a complete set of standards at his/her desk. Otherwise
they probably won't make much of an effort to use them.
Training: software
meets the user
I've heard many
arguments against training (even made a few myself) but software, and particularly
CADD software, is not easy to master without continuous use and training.
An effective CADD
training program must be able to teach the novice how to begin using CADD, and
also provide the experienced user with new tips and ideas. It must be an ongoing
process that reaches from the bottom of your organization to the top.
Management needs to know what CADD can (and can't) do so they don't have
unrealistic expectations of the technology.
General training is fine to get novice users up to speed,
but to help experienced users improve, training must pertain to their specific
work activities. The average user doesn't have time to play with CADD, so it is
important to keep users up to date on what's new and how it can be applied to
their jobs.
Whatever you do, don't assume you know what kind of training
a person needs. Just because a person works in construction doesn't mean she
doesn't need a plan production or 3D class. Telling people they can't do
something is counter-productive to organization efficiency Good training should
encourage people think about how they can apply a product or feature in their
own work. And don't forget the basics. Make all your staff who use computers (everyone,
right?) understand the basics of file management, network access and usage plus
some simple computer troubleshooting. This will help ensure they know how to do
more than play Solitaire.
