| Author |
Message |
Colin
| | Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2000 - 11:17 am: |    |
This was originally posted by Thomas E. Irvin on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 06:41 pm. The adminsitrator moved the message to a new conversation area:
This is a response to those computer sophisticates who are supporting the AutoDesk propaganda on object oriented CADD.
I guess a lot of us in the middle west are still pooting behind trees when it comes to using ALL the features that CADD (AutoCad) has to offer. As an independent contractor doing both CADD and specifications, I see no immediate danger of specifiers becoming obsolete from the advanced integration of spec information into CADD drawings. If the trends I've observed locally continue on their present course, there'll be a greater demand for specifiers in the coming years.
This statement is based on the fact that very few CADD users ever come close to using all the features available to them. Most offices I work with don't use even the most fundamental time-saving features of CADD such as blocks. Many don't know what the purge command is for. Mention paperspace and modelspace to most users and their eyes glaze over. Few, if any, users have a library of repetitive drawings for common items like dimensional lumber that they can quickly drop in to a drawing (most still draw 2x4's one line at a time!).
Those power CADD users, the ones who really wring out the software, must be assuming that everyone is at their level of proficiency. NOT! I sense that it will be years before specifiers are threatened with extinction from inclusion of spec information in CADD drawings. Most CADD drawing producers are still struggling with the fundamentals.
On the bright side, we'll still need specification-knowledgeable CADD users to make decisions on what goes where, Division-wise. It would behoove junior specifiers just a few years into the business to cross train in CADD. In my experience, knowing both CADD and specifications does wonders for job security!
Thomas E. Irvin, CSI, CCS |
Timothy E. Woerner, PE, CCS
New member
Username: tewoerner
Post Number: 1
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 08:50 pm: | |
I am not up to date on what AutoCAD is proposing -- and I have made a note-to-self to find out. But, specs moved off drawings and into books because of space constraints. I have already learned that, for other than a category of tenant fitout (aka, fitup) projects, "we'll allow specs on a drawing so you can reduce your fee" requires more time to edit and solve CADD import time OR the project will be under-specified. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 46
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 09:42 pm: | |
I agree with Mr. Woerner, having recently led several project managers through the messy learning process of producing "simple" sheet specs.
Ditto on Colin's point as well. Those people who have invested years of time to become power CAD users are unlikely to also find the time to invest the 10 or so years it takes to become moderately competent specifiers. So the idea that CAD files can contain specification information is one thing, and the idea that CAD users will thereby replace specifiers is quite another.
|
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 25
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
I have used AutoCAD since 1986
I started on a copy of ver. 1.4 and then got the NEW version 2.15 to play with on a brand new IBM AT with a rampage board and 512K of RAM! no mouse and no undo command.
I can also flint knap, although admittedly not very well, but I have friends who can knock out a folsom point. I can also produce old english characters with a quill pen and ink - also not very well but readable.
Anyway, besides being a power CAD user I’m and architect, a specifier, and a SCIP member. The real problem with specs, CAD and embedded information in drawings is the means of building production and the process, not the tools available.
The most important advantage of linking the two at this point would be to produce tighter contract documents, for the traditional building process. (see most anything written by Bob Johnson AIA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA)
When it’s REALLY needed and contractors are in the field with sturdy pad type computers linked wireless to the WEB and my office. They will be able to look at the drawings, view the spec, check the drawing and specification cross references, the manufacturer’s or trade association web site and if all else fails call me over the phone and show me a digital photo of the problem. Most all of that is available today but it’s not needed and it’s to expensive to set up.
Pen computing was available several years before any body used it. The first users were UPS and FedX because they had a NEED for the technology. Now many a PDA floats around the office (until it’s dropped, but I guess you could say the same for a folsom point)
On second thought let’s get back to the basics of architecture. Burnt sticks and animal skins and 10 foot iron bars for measuring.
Marc
RA CSI CCS SCIP
|
Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: presbspec
Post Number: 20
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 02:41 pm: | |
Having worked in the field with contractors for the GC, Owner or Architect at various times in my career as well as in the design office as as draftsman (not CADD) and specifier, I find it difficult to imagine the contractors I have worked with using the advanced technology that Marc is describing. Don't get me wrong, some of these guys were very smart and were probably capable of it. Others, well...
It may have been the size of the companies and projects with which I was associated, but the mindset of the people in the construction companies I worked with will not be ready for that vision of the future for quite a while.
Margaret
|
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 84
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 05:52 pm: | |
regarding Marc's comments: I know of architects who are already using wireless connections, tablet PCs, and digital photographs to do exactly what Marc has suggested can be done. We also have "pocket CAD" and punch list programs on a wireless PDA that is used by one of our project managers out in the field. If restaurants (and the Macy's Shoe department, no less) can use wireless PDAs to check stock, place orders and correct documents, Architects can't be too far behind. If the choice is between tablet computing and wireless connections or paying someone for the 3 hours of overtime to come back into the office, get on CAD and fax something... the overtime is going to go away. We find on our large projects that the contractors are ahead of the curve in terms of technology (in fact, they purchased a wireless PDA for one of our project managers because it made their job easier)and our clients are also driving us in that direction.
|
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 158
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 09:35 pm: | |
I believe we should be very concerned not with the hardware but the software.
Yesterday, I met with an architect who was distressed because the contractor on one of his projects could not prepare and keep up a submittals log. The contractor had software that used different MasterFormat numbers that those in the specs. The contractor claimed that the numbers in his project management program could not be changed.
I talked to another spec writer today about this matter. The only solution suggested was to conform the specs to the contractor's program. Seeing that there are many similar programs, each with a different interpretation of MasterFormat, this can be a big problem.
Omniclass may be proclaimed to be the solution but the idea of a software programmer, perhaps with some architectural or construction engineering background, determining what the Section numbers and titles shall be, is very distressing to me. Conforming to a neophyte's understanding of construction contract documents is a very unpleasant thought. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 26
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
John, could you get the name of the software? I'll contact them. I'ts all about getting the word out. Just wait for MF04. Like it or not it's going to get interesting out there
Marc |
|
4specs.com Home Page