Re: Branch Connection.

Hawco, Paul R. wrote:

> This stuff works really well "IF" you use it right - your organization
> currently seems to be not using it right - no surprise really - that is
> the norm - that's why this stuff gets a bad rap.

I'm not with an organization at the moment (except for this one) and if the norm is not using it right, then where is the advantage?

> Allowing designers to use whatever they want is not a good solution
> either - these days many piping designers initially get into the
> business because they know CAD and they learn about piping after. It's
> all about control - someone needs to control the specs - the
> "spec_compiler_guy" should be either a piping designer/engineer - the
> pipe specs are the heart of any piping system - if they are not right,
> big problems - no matter if you are talking drafting, 2D or 3D.

I agree, but for common off-spec items an alternative should be easily available without involving too much complication.

> Internal procedures, processes and staffing are management issues -
> sounds like management doesn't know how to steer the ship - again no
> real surprise - usually takes a few years of using these tools to find
> out how to best use them UNLESS you decide to hire a few experienced
> guys, invest in training your own and attend conferences to learn how
> others are using these tools - do this and you can shave years off the
> learning curve.

Again, I agree. But operating and supporting multiple 3D CAD systems because of client dictates can get very expensive very fast. Can the average small to mid-size engineering firm afford to have multiple PDS, PDMS, Autoplant, Cadworx, Cadpipe licenses and the special knowledge people to admin, troubleshoot and operate them all?

I think maybe the problem goes back to the owner/operators who insist on one specific system with which all work has to be done.

Paul Received on Sun Sep 18 01:41:00 2005