Giving work to CAD operators 2

[CTW]

Up until a few months ago, I had done all analysis and design as well as the drawings. I now have a CAD operator working with me, and I'm struggling with getting him the information needed to complete my designs. It seems so much simpler for me to do the drawings since everything is in my head. I feel like I'm spending more time going back and forth with the drawings now than I did before.

I'm curious what others are doing and how they are making efficient use of CAD operators. What can I do to make the transition from my designs to this person without increasing the time spent on the project? I feel that if I have to sketch something out on paper, I could have just input it into CAD and been done with it.

 

[whyun]

In a single word: TRAINING.

At first, it may be time consuming but over time, with proper training, the drafter will learn what you expect of him.

I've seen structural firms with different philosophies about structural drafters. One favors a drafting team led by one or more strong drafters (like a seasoned Sergeant who is able to train young Lieutenants). Other favors drafter to be tracers where engineers provide literally "everything". There are pros and cons for both although I tend to favor the former.

I'm not sure what the experience level of your drafter is. If he is not very experienced, you will have to be very patient at first and start training him. Otherwise, be ready to pay extra for a higher level drafter (very hard to find).

As for engineers performing CAD work.... There are two philosophies about this as well (at least). I tend to not allow engineers to perform CAD work as engineer's hourly rate is higher than the drafter's. This can be different in a very small office setting, however.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this as well.

Good evening.

 

[jheidt2543]

In my opinion, you have to look at the CAD operator more like an archivest. He is taking your hand sketches and putting them on the contract drawings. The single biggest advantage of CAD, IMHO, is the ease in which changes can be made. The first time a drawing is done is the most time consuming whether it is by hand or by CAD. After awhile, you and your CAD operator will have built up a data file of standard details that will make things go much quicker and educate your operator in your methods.

Yes, you might do it faster the first time through, but what about those changes you have to make later on?

 

[flamby]

I am also quite fast on CAD, and so prefer to draft a to-the-scale sketch in CAD and give the file to Cad Operator for further detailing. I even check on my screen first before asking him to get a printout.

If you can visit his desk during your breaks and see how the things are going, you will not regret the time spent. Initially it looks like that you are wasting time, but in long run, as the operator picks up with your expectations, you actually end up saving a lot of time for more important engineering stuff.

BFN

 

[3dboy]

Training, as has already been mentioned is key. This takes time. A good drafter can take a sketch with very little detail and knows what is going to be required and "fill in the blanks" This saves the engineer a lot of time. You can then go back after he has it pretty much done and make sure the important parts are there and that the intent of the detail is communicated.

 

[pba]

I’ve done work as both design drafter and as a ‘pure’ engineer. The is a culture change need when you move from one to the other.
What has not currently been discussed is the quality of the CAD operator. Is he any good? A good CAD operator is a rare thing indeed and deserves every bit as much respect as a good engineer.
Once a relationship has developed between engineer and CAD operator productivity is likely to increase as each person is allowed to focus on their own strengths.
For my own part, I use CAD operators to set up drawings, reference model files, set up layer naming conventions, check dimensional accuracy and draft details without intrusion from me. As an engineer I try to supply member sizes, sketch details, notes and basic plan information. Outside of these areas there is of course plenty of scope for overlap. As I can use AutoCAD to some level of competence, It often makes sense for me to develop details at complex areas of geometry rather than trying to explain to the CAD operator. I’m unlikely to go as far as full annotation of the detail.
Cynically, also note that engineers are paid more than CAD operators. If you want to be a CAD operator expect a pay cut.

 

[jheidt2543]

Speaking of CAD Operator pay, I know of a precast concrete manufacturer that pays its CAD operators a base salery and then a "piece work" bonus based on how many sf of precast shop drawings are produced per day. Their product has a lot of repeatition and standard details. This doesn't work for every firm, but it does boost the CAD productivity at this particular firm.

 

[whyun]

This is a nice thread of discussion.

One more thing I would like to add is the fact that computer and AutoCAD is just a "tool" for CAD operators. New and improved pencil/eraser... What they are really getting paid for is the actual content that they generate using AutoCAD.

There can be a young CAD operator who is extremely fast and know all the latest functions in AutoCAD. However, he is no match for a drafter with years of experience and know how buildings are put together. This knowledge is something you can't learn in school.

In a large office setting, you need both to complement each other. Juniors getting trained by not only engineers but senior drafters who knows his stuff.

 

[UcfSE]

I would put together a library of details to use, whether in a details folder or a list of projects with standard details. If you have everything in a library, you can tell him, say, masonry detail 5 and 6, ftg detail 1 and 2, concrete 11 and 17, or maybe project 2004-159 4/S-4 and so forth. These will have a good detail of info/text on them. You don't need to re-sketch a foundation detail or joist bearing and so on. If something is different you can print it out yourself and get some white out and a pen and sketch out what you need, enough so he can draw it. It's also faster for your drafter to look it up and maybe modify it a little than to have him redraw a whole detail.

Currently I do all my own drafting as well as engineering as I have for about 3 years now. Some friends of mine at better firms where the engineers do engineering and drafters do drafting use the method I described above and say it works great for them and seems to make a lot of sense to me. I think I'll give that a shot when/if I get my own drafter. The hard part is compiling a library or list if you don't already have one.

 

[JStephen]

It depends a lot on the CAD operator. It seems about half of a CAD operator's usefulness comes from a knowledge of how to properly use the CAD system (from both school and experience) and the other half is from experience with the product being drawn.

If you are forever doing new stuff that no one at your company has ever done before, it could be frustrating either way. But if you tend to do the same or similar things, your CAD operator should need less and less input from you to put out the finished drawing.

I've seen CAD operators without enough basic math skills to do the layout they needed to get their drawings done. That is obviously a big slowdown.

 

[yack]

CTW,
I am a young engineer (relative to the profession) that has been having the same experience. It is hit and miss with the drafters. In sum, I use the drafters about 33% of the time.

A further problem is when the boss asks me to divide up the time spent drafting and time spent designing--similar to trying to dividing up the time typing and writing this response! I can type about as fast as I can speak or think, and definitely faster than long hand. So, how much time should be allocated under the catagory typing? The secretary is similar to the drafters, I use the secretary about 33% of the time.

Generating CAD vector images is part of my engineering design process. I'm a little jealoous or envious of the older engineers that have the clear seperation of drafting and engineering.

 

[whyun]

UcfSE makes a great point. Detail library is a must have for office of any size. Senior drafters develop them with engineers' input of course. Junior drafters learn from them. With a detail library and a set of preliminary structural plan layout, drafters can assemble a reasonable design development level package together just using the typical details. This saves a lot of engineers' time, which can then be used for developing special connections, special design calcs, etc.

On a side note, engineers should also develop typical design calc library for most common structural design applications to refer to.

 

[vmirat]

There's a lot more to putting together a set of project drawings than just details. A CAD technician can coordinate the other discipline's drawings with yours (i.e. make sure the duct work doesn't go through your wide-flange by XREFing the mechanical floor plans and sections into your drawing), lay out the sheets properly, manage the title block info, insure proper use of layering, etc. In short, they are drafting managers, responsible for the end product. These are little details that an engineer shouldn't be consumed with. They will also keep up with all the updates and nuances of whatever software and hardware you have to be proficient at their job. It's also good to have someone else look at your design whose mind is more attuned to the imaginary three-dimensional world. They may see something you don't. I'm an engineer but I have been doing my own CAD work since 1982 when we got the first Tectronix CAD station that had only two colors - green and orange - and ran off of 7-1/2" floppy disks and tape cassette! I've watched the evolution of hand drafting to CAD, both for engineers and draftsmen. We had the same situation prior to CAD. Some engineers would do their own drafting, some would use the drafting section. I think each firm comes to a balance that is unique to them depending on size of company, type of work (single-discipline vs. multi), and the personnel they hire. I'm in favor of Engineering Technicians (I prefer not to call them CAD operators) who can add value to the design process.

 

[CTW]

Nice discussion. I've got a pretty good library of details going that I've shared with the CAD operator. Several of you hit the nail on the head: TRAINING. I now understand how critical this is and that the time spent up front will pay off with large time savings in the future. I guess I just need to be patient right now in his learning stage.

 

[Maury]

When our company first invested in CAD, the owners were intimidated by the both the hardware and the software and adopred the idea that they would have to hire "computer people" to do the work. We ended up with a number of computer experts and CAD whizzes that knew nothing about civil engineering. It took a long time (and a lot of bad hires) for the owners to realize that they needed to train civil designers and drafters to use CAD rather than train computer people to be civil designers.

 

[whyun]

A company needs one CAD guru to establish the CAD standards for the office. It also needs one older drafter who knows his typical and standard details and general construction methods who is able to train the newer CAD drafters what the elements they draw represent. This older drafter, usually, is not well versed in CAD as he was trained in manual drafting.

Once a company has these two, then you staff up with drafters with varied levels of experience. Many of the youngsters from local technical schools are quite knowledgeable in CAD already.

They will now learn the office CAD standards from the first guy and learn about structural drafting from the older guy.

This is my view of an ideal office setting which works for me.

If the office is very small... as in one or two drafters, engineer must carry the burden of training them.

 

[BigH]

Call me old, but for me, the design engineer works up the drawings (hopefully he knows what an engineer's scale is) and then gives it to the draftsman/CAD operator and let's him work out the details on the drawing. Then, take a print and edit, give back and that's about it. You shouldn't let the CAD operator do any "design" work for you - he is there to put down what you designed onto a drawing. I've seen far too many drawings come out where the engineer and CAD operator design "on the screen" and what comes out is craaaaaaa. . . . This is also a bone of contention about outsourcing your design drawings to India, Pakistan, wherever. Overseas CAD might be cheap, they might be good, but they are not jurisdictional - and they aren't designers.

 

[apetr26542]

I agree with BigH. It is often difficult to get your design down on the first shot. Giving them drawings that look like someone bled all over them may make the interpretation more difficult. We usually start with the line drawings, then gradullay adding more notes and details as the job prgresses. I might see 3 to 6 versions depending on the difficulty of the job and each generation is more and more detailed.