Take me back to the good ol days!
Take me back to the good ol days!
(OP)
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.
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.





RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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)
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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!
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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!
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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. - Robert Hunter
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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.
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
Mark Hutton
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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"!
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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.
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
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?
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
Another * for another rant.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
I often work as a piping engineer and I must say that 3D models are a blessing for piping. You must admil that many in other disciplines cannot decipher piping drawings. Quite often clients send operations reps for design reviews and they love the walk-throughs compared to trying to read piping drawings.
GMcD,
I agree with you on the fundamentals of drafting. Recently I had to explain to, what I believed to be a fairly experienced draftsman,the fundamental principle that you should leave out one string dimension if you are including an overall dimension.
Regards,
Bill
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
I agree that we should stick to our guns and "require" the architect to be done before we are, but with tight fees and stuff like that, it is difficult to raise the stink and hold firm. With the architect and/or construction manager acting more as an extension of the owner rather than as a team mate, it puts the engineer in a difficult position.
He typically works for the architect who works for the owner so he doesn't have much say about how the architect runs the show.
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
If besides delivery delay, if the change cost us money, we just raise the price of the machine. Of course if the change cost just a small amount its done for free, but change of over 1000 dolars, have to be paid for.
Luckily I'm in a branch where you can do this without pissing the customers off. We are one on the few companies in the world that build this type of autmation machine....
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
3D programs (along with other drafting programs) are nothing more then a pencil, paper, and an eraser! If you rely on them to do your thinking, then you get only what's put into it. I'm sure this may vary in the different disciplines ...but in general it's a universal problem.
[IMG]ht
[IMG]http
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
We just delivered a design where the contractors are being required to have software that can look at our Revit Model in 3d. They are being required to have it for coordination, conflict resolution, and as builts.
It is the first project where that has been required, but I doubt it will be the last.
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
I had the good fortune to receive my design drafting degree from a school that places a high value on learning the "basics" first. We learned how to draft on a board before we ever produced a drawing in ACAD or 3D CAD program. This taught us not only the need for good technique but also the whys of producing a good drawing.
The same department cuts that 11echo mentioned took not only the experienced engineers but also the experienced draftsmen that essentially did the layout work for those engineers. Now engineers are expected to not only design but also to layout and dimension but they are not given the training in school to do these tasks. They are instead given CAD programs that they are told will "automate" these tasks for them and given 1 semester of practice. In my opinion there is no substitute for quality education. You wouldn't hire the architect to install your plumbing or electrical would you? No, you would hire an electrician or plumbing contractor. You can't expect someone to do the job right just because they know what the finished product SHOULD look like.
Rant ended...
David
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
"1 Semester" I was short changed then, I only got about a 1/3 of a semester, something like 3-5 labs.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
Fundamentally I agree with what you say. Indeed, you must generate plans, sections and isos to fabricate and install. The only point that I will labour is the benefit of a model. The client reps I refer to have been production people (senior operators, superindendants) within the client companies who have been assigned to support the project by reviewing operability, maintainability etc. These guys do not claim to be qualified engineers - they have accumulated hands-on operations experience and are more at home with P&IDs. Importantly, these guys often sign off on the construction, so it is useful that they understand the details during design, rather than arguing after construction with you claiming "but you approved the drawings".
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
We work in 3d entirely, and every Friday everybody's latest work is tesselated up and dumped into a 3d visualisation program, that pretty much anybody can drive to some level.
This means the designs get subjected to 'many eyes' reviews, in fact that visualisation program has become an essential tool when reporting problems with the design, if you click on a part you can (I think I don't do this) generate a problem.
It can also do clearance checks, assembly ops etc etc. It has the great advantage that the guy designing the assembly line, who doesn't know what a carbon canister is, can still easily visualise how it gets fitted into the car, and can check the ergonomics of that operation.
Cheers
Greg Locock
SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
All interior disciplines (A, S, and MEP) did the project in Revit. The contractors are going to be required to have Navisworks which allows them to take our model and view it in 3D.
They cannot make any changes to our model but are able to "walk" through it and see above ceilings, floors, etc. They can run interference checks to see where conflicts are at.
The idea is this will put all parties ahead in the field coordination effort.
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
On the topic of 3D modelling, it is superior in almost every aspect. If a good draftsman operated a 3D modelling program, the results would be outstanding as you would have the best of both worlds - well detailed 2D drawings and 3D models. The 3D models can be used for FEA/CFD/assembly checks/virtual walkthroughs/etc, while the 2D detailed drawings can be used for construction. Both done by the same draftsman at the same time. The benefits and drawbacks come down to the operator, whether it be with a pen and paper or mouse and keyboard.
On a broader note, I have found that companies and individuals that cannot adopt the newer technologies, techniques and tools will soon find themselves obsolete and out of work. 3D modelling is one of those newer tools. We're not manufacturing/constructing/machining in 1813 anymore. It's time to grow up. Also, saying that you should have a good technical background to be "allowed" to read or approve a drawing is just an illustration of your unwillingness to accept the merging worlds of business and engineering. If you drafted a house for an individual with little technical ability, would you expect the customer to be able to fully read and understand the even the best drawings? Of course not! A good 3D model can better communicate the plans in a fraction of the time. And time isn't cheap anymore.
Ending my rant, I do appreciate a well crafted drawing (hand, 2D CAD, or 3D Model) that was made with pride. There is NO substitute for that.
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
I have to offer my apologies to kevinsherlock for highjacking his post here! I've "bend it" to my own rantings! ...Sorry! Next time I'll start my own, when I feel the need to "vent"! *G*
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
No apologies required. This thing evolved rather quickly. I felt better after my rant and rave posting. I have to say that the replies have been interesting too. Nice to know the read gave everyone a boost.
Cheers
RE: Take me back to the good ol days!
I have had this happen on a project, and it has delayed the project start date by over 2 months since we had to go back to the City for additional engineering review. This was a worse case, since the building drastically changed(the building location on the site moved to the other side of the site).
These nice suprises from the Architects are greatly appreciated when all I have left in my budget is the moneys left for construction adminstration changes. I have gotten change orders for extra cash, but not always possible with some clients.