RE: CAD Drawing Standard/Drawing Office Procedur

<snip>

>>I'm trying to make the standards more like guidelines
>Bad philosophy. An optional standard standardizes nothing--it's a
>suggestion at the very best and with a built-in reason to ignore. Maybe
>the thing to do is make up a 4 hour lecture covering expected good
>practices for your new hires rather than a standards manual.
>

Perhaps I used the wrong word.
I think I'm aiming for something more along the lines of a procedures manual, it will lay down the way the way we use the CAD system including the system setup, but also detail level structure, text and font settings, etc. But the most important thing is that if somebody finds a new/better/quicker way of doing something then we can change the procedure, after all it's only me writing this thing so I won't get it right first time <g>.

>>we are a sub-contractor for
>>the big engineering contractors so we get told how they each want the
>>numbering to go, and believe me they all have a different system!
>I bet that's a big part of your problem--too many standards, not too few.

That's why I wanted to stay away from the areas like material specs, valve specs and layout practices as these are always covered in the particular engineering contractors specification and are vigorously adhered to. Topics like symbology, text height, sheet sizes, etc. are also covered but 9 times out of 10 they say do it your own way as we're too small a company to cause them problems. But with them all having there own ideas I thought this is the area I wanted to concentrate on, however I don't want to come up with something that's wildly different, I'm trying to find a common ground between all the different specs so that I can keep them all happy.

Nathan. Received on Thu Jul 20 04:17:00 2000