Take me back to the good ol days! 14

[kevinsherlock]

I distinctly remember about 20 years or so ago when I was charged with the prestigious task of being lead plumbing engineer on a high profile project in Washington DC. I worked here in Richmond, so it just made it all the more exciting. The architect was outstanding. Before he gave us the backgrounds to work from, he was probably 90% complete with his design. I don’t even remember needing to ask for chases to conceal piping – they were already there. That project went out on time, complete and coordinated. Every line within our preprinted mylar borders was drawn by hand, in ink. My firm made a bundle of money and I got a nice Christmas bonus. This is the ghost of engineering past.

So fresh in the present is the project I am currently struggling to submit tomorrow. It actually causes a bad taste in my mouth. A very nice higher education building with a prominent architect. Big name architect too. We were asked to provide an ample design development package that was virtually complete. They wanted to make a good impression and establish a firm price. Promises were made that the design was firm. Sadly, the firmness apparently only applied to the exterior walls. Almost every fixture in the building has had multiple locations for me to plumb. During the course of developing the plumbing documents we encountered value engineering changes, cost estimate triggered changes, floating ubiquitous roof drains. Every time we were provided new electronic backgrounds, I quaked in my shoes. I watched this fine project with a generous fee turn into an ugly money gouging monster. Tomorrow is near and I just learned from yet another update, the public toilets shifted and no longer line up through the building. Does this have to be the ghost of engineering present? Is there a way choke someone electronically over the web?

Frankly, I am getting more and more salty toward the idea an architect has the ability to alter my personal life. Changes like this the day before the deadline is inconsiderate, unprofessional and now, down right insulting. I’m insulted by the fact he cares so little about my time. Back in the day, an architect magically got it right the very first time. He got right the first time because he knew he had to manually erase and redraw the work. Changes were still necessary, but their timing was manageable. How can we impress upon the new age architects who design by mouse and keyboard the magnitude of the last minute changes? I think we should force them to hand draw the work. Make them think harder up front. Stop with the fool hardy “eyewash” they impose on us. Demand he finish before we do. Do not engineer a fartskin until he’s over 50% complete. We as a group force should join together and brow beat the architectural community to stop the madness. Let’s rearrange the construction document process such that the ghost of engineering future makes the industry fun again.

 

[Unotec]

Ameeen Brotha'!!! Unfortunately you see this scenario not only from architects but from engineers and many other professionals as well. I think people is just not used to think and plan ahead any more. Everything is a rush-rush basis. I know I have a hard time planning because I am not ususally given enough heads up. Or somebody up-above thinbks they know what they don't really have a clue about.. grrrr...

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[TheTick]

Sounds like someone is giving away a lot of free changes. Maybe don't do that? Maybe everybody stop?

 

[ctopher]

Unfortunately it's why the American economy is so messed up. "Pay me more so I can do less".
I tried once to start up a contractor business, I don't have patience for the idiots that don't give a damn and are too lazy to do the job right the first time!
I started out in Architecture and quickly moved into mechanical engineering because of the BS and drama I was around in the Arch communities.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 06/08
ctopher's home (updated Jul 02, 2008)

 

[jistre]

Forget seeing this from other disciplines. I see it from clients from time to time.

 

[HEC]

"We the willing, led by the unknowing, have done so much with so little, we are are now qualified to do anything with nothing!"

I have to agree with TheTick,(purple star from petty cash!) The original fee was based on one design to be detailed, not n many iterations of that design. The only way to get the young mouse jockies to realise the impact of the "just one small change" is to charge them for it. The charge for changes should include dollars and time. Industry and large companies are no better at controlling scope so you are not Robinson Caruso in the architecture world. We try to freeze the scope as earily as possible in teh detail design phase of a process installation. As the design detail is generated a small change may affect alot of the design documentation. A major headache.

The best way to relieve the frustration is a cyber scream as you have doen here. Bosses rarely understand or care


Mark Hutton

 

[BillBirch]

Kevin,
Reminds me of a thought that I had and was going to initiate a thread.

About 25 years ago, I worked on a very successful fast-track oil and gas project in Australia.
The key elements of fast-tracking were -
Shortened overall schedule bringing the project onstream quicker (hence earlier income) brought about by -
- Design sent to the field earlier with budget allowance and field personnel made available to complete the design in the field.
- Larger budget for say air freight or premium payments for accelerated delivery of equipment.
- Larger bulk material contingencies to prevent the possibility of delaying shortfalls.
_ Large workforce - i.e bodies thrown at the project.
All of the above measures attracted additional cost, but it was understood that these could be off-set by earlier production.
All parties signed onto these special circumstances, so for example, the field either completed the design or worked closely with the design office.
So what happened?
Fast track has all but disappeared from our vocabulary, but project managers will cite these pioneering projects as bench-marks of what is achievable in terms of overall schedule. Unfortunately the short cut measures adopted to achieve these schedules have been conveniently forgotten.
It seems that these same project managers have forgotten, or never knew, that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Regards,
Bill

By the way, that's a long post for a guy under pressure, heh, heh!

 

[ewh]

Time to ask the project manager if they want it fast or half-fast.

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[Twoballcane]

Im not sure if it just in manufacturing, but does your industry use what we call Configuration Control Board (CCB)? Where all changes come in front of a board made up of either mangers or leads from all who will be affected by the change. In this case there is a check and balance to the design change. So the CAD jockeys can make all the changes they want, however, if somebody on the CCB does not like it because it does not make sense, it will be kicked out. Another way to look at it is that if there are any big changes, you have the right to say that is out of scope and will cost extra to implement and that may deter any unnecessary changes.

Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."

 

[11echo]

This is a “trend” that has been happening in a number of disciplines! If you know what to look for you can trace it all back to about mid-80’s. During that time two major events happened. First the economic picture for a lot of industries was pretty bleak! So the “powers that be” decided to cut cost by elimination a significant number or all of their Sr. engineering/design/drafting staff. A lot of the Sr. engineers where laid off …keep only afew to ride heard over the cheaper younger engineers. Whole design/drafting departs were let go, the thought was “if” they were needed contractors could be temporarily hired to accomplish the task. …This has gone on for about 20 years now.
The second thing that happened during this time was AutoCAD poked its ugly head into the equation! With the promise of …“making things easier” it has done the exact opposite! Sr. people in the design/drafting field could see no reason to learn a whole new way of doing their job, so opted for early retirement, and their expertise was never passed on and was lost. Plus the demand for these people during this time was very low, so the drop out rate was high for a number of years, going to other professions.
Flash forward 20 years …the young engineers of the 80’s are now in charge of departments and/or projects. They are in place without the “education” of the Sr. people that were lost years ago! Same in the design/drafting departments, it now more important what computer program you know as apposed to any discipline design requirements. Where 3D computer programs are the only way to do things …because it looks “sexy”! So you see drawings going out that are sorely lacking in details and/or poorly documented, but approved by all in charge! …I see this type of thing daily! …And pointing these problems out to the “superiors” is like telling a blind man what the color red looks like …they have no clue!
In today’s world projects are mega-buck, and require the “old” professional way …to be clear, concise, and construable! Something that is hard to do (as pointed out in this post) with today’s efforts. …My $0.02!

 

[ewh]

Been there and have the scars to prove it, 11echo.
The only thing in your post that I disagree with is "3D computer programs are the only way to do things ...because it looks "sexy"".
Engineering departments were forced to go 3D due to competitive reasons. It really is much faster to correctly model a complex part and machine from that model than it is to develop the part definition on a drawing board, often using descriptive geometry, without missing something. Thus, many companies decided to make the part, then worry about the drawings. This is why we now have ASME Y14.41.
Of course, this does nothing to address the problems in the industries in the OP.

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[SWComposites]

kevinsherlock - why are you implementing the architect's value engineering changes, cost estimate triggered changes, and last minute changes without first demanding and getting agreement with a fee increase?

 

[ykee]

I personally think the problem is that the architect drives most projects. My experience is that architects are terrible project managers, have no idea what happens outside of the physical appearance of a buildings and seem to care less about getting a job done on, on budget AND meeting the clients needs. I guess what I'm driving at is that the best way to have positive change would be to have project managers (who control $$) have control over projects, not architects.

As for waiting until 50% drawings before engineers are involved -- let's face it, half of the problems are because there is no early consultation.

 

[crossframe]

Architects with no budgetary control skills? Examime how the fees are structured (for both the architect and the engineering subs). Crazy like a fox...

 

[HEC]

Star for you 11echo, even as one of the engineers that started in the 80's. I was fortunate to be exposed to good solid engineers who believed in the detail and principals!

Mark Hutton

 

[Pipeline1972]

here where i work (A&E firm), we usually "freeze" our backgrounds one week or so from each delivery milestone...
But even then, there's always clients with "late blooming brilliance"...

Personnaly i've only worked on a drawing board in college, so i'm more the mouse-n-click guy. But when i decide of a change on my design, and i need to go tell another discipline of this, i'm always embarrassed...

Process - Piping

 

[11echo]

You know I can see where 3D would be very beneficial to a number of disciplines! ...Even in mine (process piping) to a lesser degree, like the old model walk through the clients did. Command and control of the overall project, and automatic MTO generation. However there are a number of problems too! Everybody that deals with computers knows that your "window of view" is to narrow! It's hard to see the "big picture" like you could with full size drawings (normal drafting scales) or with models! The other problem is the way the computer programmers set up the piping programs graphics display! They seem to think that they need to setup the program to show things EXACTLY they way they are in real life with double line representation! Old school process piping drafting is about 40% graphic representation. I defy you to look at a real-world drawn plug valve in plan-view and tell me it’s not a ball valve! …Back on the board drawings days I could! There are a number of other “graphic display” issues I could/can name!
The other MAJOR problem with computer drafting programs is …there are too many of them! I know of about five different 3D piping programs and afew different base drafting programs. It has divided up the drafting/design force! It now has become more important as to what computer program you know as apposed to your experience in a particular discipline and field!
I regret sounding the pessimist here, but to be honest I don't see how the knowledge to make "good" drawings is getting passed on! I heard an axiom once that says it all ..."IF good work is not recognized, when poor work will follow!" And boy, truer words were not spoken! ...I guess time will tell, but from what I’m see these days I suspect that the “quality” that use to be in drawing will be/is lost, and some “grubby” system will take it’s place, dictated by some computer programmer & a “know-nothing” draftsman that thinks it looks “cool”!

 

[TheTick]

"It's only a model!"

11echo is on to something about details in models. Many times right here on Eng-tips I have seen designers fret over details unthinkable in the past.

We need to remember that detail is not the same as accuracy or effectiveness.

 

[KENAT]

* for that 11echo. Nice to see someone else ranting over some of these issues.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[GMcD]

The nice thing about ACAD in the AE Building Design world is that all the drawings "look" uniformly professional, however, upon closer examination, fundamental design, design information, and communication issues abound. It's like Excel spreadsheets- they allow many more people to make very precise mistakes.

The other issue is that all the ACAD courses that modern engineers and Architects take when graduating from university are not starting with the basic "what is a drawing" fundamentals - why do we want a good margin on the left side of the sheet? How to arrange notes in a neat, readable manner, how to actually spell check and "speak english" when you have a note on the drawing telling a contractor what you want built, the old "drawings are contract documents - treat them as such" lecture....

ACAD has given Architects (and Owners/Clients) the ability to easily make changes, and quickly, however, they consistently fail to remember the domino effect - the cause and effect of those "easy to make (in thier mind) changes". There are a number of other sub-consultants under the Architect that all have to incorporate a change and coordinate it with the rest of the building systems, and that work does NOT happen instantaneously, the day before issuing the drawings. When asked when I can be "ready for Tender" I always respond "A week after the Architect issues for tender". They think I'm joking, I tell them, no, you want my final Tender documents, then I'll be done a week after the Architects' drawings are frozen/finished. Period. Project Managers don't like that, I get labelled as "not a Team Player". Tough bananas- somebody has to educate these people.

It's even worse with the new wave of fast-tracked construction management flavour of building project delivery. It never fails that M&E drawings get issued for Tender/Construction soon after the Structural Package and then we spend twice the design time afterwards dealing with Change Orders due to the Architectural changes on the subsequent packages - like: Oh we saved some $$ on the windows, the U value and solar gain coefficients are "almost the same" (not likely), and now I have to add more heating and cooling to an already under construction Mech system, that probably changes the Shop Drawings for the already submitted chiller and main air units....but all the Project Manager remembers is "all those big Mechanical Change Orders- what a screw-up", conveniently forgetting that we'd already designed it once based on Architects' Plans dated six months ago that weren't even near finished, and that the initial tender packages were taking the project over-budget so all the following Tender Packages had to be "value engineered" (slashed and burned) without considering the ripple effect on the already under construction work.

I am in the habit now of checking for changes (never highlited or shown by the Architects on the new CAD files, by the way) and writing my fee letters based on a detailed fixed fee = fixed service for ONE design based on a fixed schedule - any changes after the initial issue of the drawings = Design Change Notice and additional services fees. Do I manage to collect on these? Most times when I'm dealing with a professional enough Client, but Architects will usually weasel into paying 30 cents on the dollar if they can get away with it, and will usually tell me to stuff it until I get "testy" and go directly to the Owner to deal with the issue. Do I lose some Architect Clients like this? Yes, but then who needs a client who wants you to be a charity to finance the project?