By Mark Behrens
As an AutoCAD user and CAD manager for over 35 years, having experience with several different companies, I have seen many approaches to creating and managing CAD drawings.
This article includes my observations on CAD management and the result of varying corporate interest levels in CAD documentation. My apologies if this article gets long winded, however, I have included discussion on the problems that occur when CAD standardization is not considered, and the long-term effects.
Legacy drawings issues
When I first started at one of my past employers (many years ago), the concept of CAD standards was not even discussed. There was so much work to be done that we used any drawings we could to get machines built and shipped.
This was a mixed blessing from my perspective as a CAD operator. The organization had many machine designs that went back as far as 20 years. As we would re-release legacy drawings, there was only a short time for me to look them over, if at all.
Utilizing legacy drawings brought all the issues of the original files, as well as creating additional inaccuracies. As the budget for most machines was very tight, I could not work on a base package for new machines. The replication of legacy drawings, it turns out, created more issues than I expected.
The need for standards emerges
As time would allow, I started to look over some of the drawings that we had released. A CAD standard was needed, before we got into designing the next group of machines. I could see the benefit of a base package to establish quality design drawings. This would also be beneficial in bringing users with little or no AutoCAD experience up to speed, while following the company drawing guidelines (even though they were yet to be established).
I, being only a CAD operator (and new employee as well) did not get much consideration on my idea, even though it was presented by my manager. Project managers, especially, were not too keen on adding to the budget on a job “just for the drawings.” As foolishly hopeful as I was, I really wanted to see this keep moving forward, and approached higher level managers, hoping for them to buy in to the proposed plan. It turned out that they were not interested in that level of detail about a job at all, basically just the budgeting and bottom line.
Support needed
The reality that I found, as frustrating as it was, showed me what kind of challenge I had ahead of me. Certainly, I was not the first CAD admin person to have this type of experience. I would also not be the last to attempt to establish CAD standards, or a standard drawing package, and see this mindset from the company. I realized that without support from upper management, establishing CAD standards will not be considered a priority, however hard you push from the bottom up.
As the company grew, we developed more industry presence, and explored new product development. The engineering staff, as it grew to support this effort, became focused on the engineering tasks necessary, rather than the required documentation, as we expanded. I had been doing all the CAD work to support the engineers from the time I started there and knew what was needed to produce the required drawings.
As I worked with people, I got a better feel for what their preferences were, and the engineers began to put less detail into their red lines, based on this. The engineers and I developed into a team with a plan that worked for everyone. On occasion engineers would do their own red lines. Engineers are smart people, and very resourceful. They can usually figure out any challenge they get. When it comes to CAD however, this is not necessarily a good thing.
As I would often have to revisit drawings previously edited by others, I found many variations in the style and quality of the work done. Being the CAD person, it was my task to update drawings regardless of the quality of the drawings I received. When I could, I tried to show others best practices. I found that some engineers were interested in learning about CAD, while others just did what was easiest for them. This became a frustration to me, as I saw the same lack of serious interest in a standard that I had seen with management.
The busier that we got, more attention was being directed to budget and margin on incoming jobs. This highlighted several areas that routinely ran over allotted hours on projects.
Documentation quality and consistency
Documentation quality and consistency started to be more of a focus as the work throughput was being scrutinized. It became obvious that some “simple updates” were taking excessive time and drawing consistency was lacking. I tried a couple of times to explain what I do and the challenges that come with it. Too often, you cannot get a PM or management in general to understand CAD, as they are focused on their own issues.
The constant delay in implementing a CAD standard was not seen as an issue by anyone at a higher level than myself. I could, based on previous experience, see issues with the way that jobs were being processed, and the timelines realistically necessary to complete them.
However, I was not being taken seriously when discussing the subject of documentation quality and standards and got nowhere.
Management questions time
The issues associated with poor documentation practices will not be on anyone’s radar until the bottom line (read: profit margin) is affected. Upper management began questioning the time required for CAD drawings to be completed. The subject was brought to my manager, who questioned me on the issue.
As I had many examples of the problematic drawings, I used them to explain how things work. The suggestions that I made, even with support from my manager, to improve the situation, never gained much support, as there was a cost related to fixing the situation. Management would not buy in to the concept of a small investment up front being profitable in the long run.
Quality becomes priority 1
As we expanded our customer base, the concern for quality started to become priority one. One area of that discussion was CAD documentation. In the past, when the PMs would get a budget together, there was no serious thought given to documentation creation and quality.
I brought up too many PMs as well as management, the benefits of standards for drawings and documentation in general. I explained that this example of quality could be valuable as a potential upsell to customers, when promoting our company brand and product design. As the quoting of jobs to customers has always been driven by margin, however there was not any real interest in losing a few percent margin on a potential new job.
When additional companies began producing similar product, management began to sharpen their pencils more. While scrutinizing company brand and image, as perceived by existing and potential customers in the changing environment, no stone was to be left unturned.
Documentation comes into the spotlight
As all levels of product development were examined, documentation came into the spotlight. Management was now looking at the real time it took for documentation to be produced.
The interest in streamlining product design, when started by top management, was the catalyst that was needed.
A core team of CAD-related people was planning to be set up, and standards for documentation to become their focus. The company began reviewing their existing procedures and documents. A plan was put together, changes were developed, and implementation started.
By implementing standards that CAD users support, quality and consistent documentation format improvements started to show. Any standard will be continuously improving, but at least the drive to do so became an interest. Considering CAD work as a product is really the only way that it will have a perceived value.
Mark Behrens is an electrical CAD administrator at RedViking, a system integrator based in Plymouth, Michigan.