(Reprinted with permission from upFront.eZine)
Replies from Readers React: Does CAD Degrade Drawing Quality (10 July 2001)?
Leo Schlosberg, founder of Heavyware.com, last week asked in a guest editorial if CAD software is the cause behind the worsening quality of construction drawings. The readership disagrees; rather, you feel that economic pressure and a software-oriented education are the cause for the decline in drafting knowledge. Here are just a few of the many letters I [Ralph Grabowski] received; more next week:
"Mr. Schlosberg's editorial asks an interesting question, but fails to recognize that CAD is not the only thing which has changed in the design industries over the last two decades. The economics of design has changed dramatically in the corporate environment; driven by billability, profitability, and the price of the stock.
"The lack of qualified detailers and other people 'who understand what they draw' is a direct result of neglect in the development of these resources in favor of the next annual report. When the current generation of design talent retires, what then will pass for 'design'?
"Fear not, for those jobs will not disappear. They will have moved offshore. Think how cheaply you can get the drawings done!"
- Calvin Smith, CAE Software Analyst
"While I believe the root of this trend is complex and not easy to pin on even a handful of trends, let me highlight two:
"First, as a longtime instructor in technical graphics, I've seen overly -complex, user-hostile CAD software crowd out the instruction of core technical graphics content. Instead of teaching the language of technical graphics, many technical graphics courses have evolved into nothing more than glorified software-training sessions.
"Second, I'd like to point to the larger social trend of the 'software era.' This era is represented by economic buyers and sellers that consistently value cost-speed over quality; and the acceptability of shipping 'beta' product in fulfillment of economic contracts. In such an environment, it follows that it is also acceptable to use 'beta' drawings to fulfill contracts in the A/E/C and manufacturing industries."
- Eric Wiebe, North Carolina State University
"Let's look at three other issues that arise:
"First, CAD has increased the productivity level in the number of drawings people can do over time, but is that the goal? I sometimes wonder if CAD isn't plagued with the same problem as e-mail -- very quick and sometimes writing off-the-cuff without any true thought process placed in the writing or drawing. But that is not the fault of the software; it's the people using it.
"Second, with CAD comes other areas that designers need to consider when drawing, ie. CAM, CIM, and DM. No longer does the CAD person deal with just working drawings, but other areas linked to the drawing with a holistic understanding of the entire production process.
"Finally, from what I see in the newspapers and dealing with professionals in industry, most CAD operators are either engineers with limited training in engineering graphics, or someone trained on just one specific software, and not visualization as related to engineering/ design graphics."
- Aaron Clark, North Carolina State University
"CAD doesn't degrade the quality of drawing. On its own CAD, does nothing without an operator -- neither does a drawing board.
"We are devaluing the skills of tradespeople, not only within countries but globally. Long gone are the development growth paths that allowed good tradespeople to progress up the ladder and be valued. Today we send our young people to college to teach them the theory about CAD and its applications. When they graduate, they want the earth (well, heaven and soul anyway) for their services.
"It all boils down to $$$ and how cheaply we can produce drawings because they are seen to be a unnecessary overhead. Little do we realize that cutting corners in the design / drafting phase costs many hours in the manufacturing/ construction phase.
"Everyone is out to screw the best price for a project, at the expense of quality of the whole process. I live in hope that some will appreciate the implications, however I doubt that I will see it in my lifetime."
- Chris Ainsworth The CAD Centre, Australia
Replies from Readers React: Does CAD Degrade Drawing Quality (17 July 2001)?
Here are several more letters responding to Leo Schlosberg's guest editorial that asked if CAD software worsening the quality of construction drawings.
"I know many people who use CAD and are of the mentality that 'CAD can't be wrong.' I also know many users who do not know the fine points of their CAD system, and unknowingly create bad drawings and bad parts.
"Having been an instructor of five different CAD systems, I blame the CAD instructors for not passing on the little-known fine points of how to properly create drawings and parts."
- Ken Dellenbach
"The problem is at the Technical schools, and Community Colleges which should teach the fundamentals before venturing into CAD."
- Rocco Lanzetti
"I disagree with Mr. Ainsworth's comment that CAD alone isn't a factor in the quality of drawing output. For years, software has tied our hands with limited features that we _had_ to work around or simply live with.
"I have worked with over a dozen CAD/CAM products. and all have limitations that defy most 101-level drafting courses. Even today, they have limitations. What do you do when the software cannot follow the rules of your industry's historical practices? You can't easily drop one product for another after years of investment and training. It's worse if you work in an industry that gets little attention from the vendors (e.g. shipbuilding).
"We're hostage to the software industry; the only tangible differentiation is provided by the willingness (real, not fluff) of vendors to listen to user needs and respond to them properly. All too often though, the vendor's marketing folks overpower the technical folks and the results suffer. All in the name of revenue and stock prices."
- David Stein, SAIC-AMSEC LLC
"There may be benefits to using CAD (I'm not yet convinced). But improved productivity isn't one of them. The US Army Corps of Engineers funded research to determine why spending 100s of millions of dollars over many years didn't boost productivity. The results of the research are intigruing. Here's a link:
"Exploring the Unrealized Potential of Computer-Aided Drafting"
"Between declining quality and flat productivity, one wonders why we use CAD at all. One explanation may be that our ambitions are ever greater. Consider spreadsheets. Studies show that choosing Excel over manual calculation doesn't result in more spreadsheets, but Excel does enable superior analysis.
"This quirk may be true with CAD. So while 2D CAD was a bust (return on investment), designing to satisfy today's expectations without tools like Rhino, SolidWorks, and 3DStudio/MAX is nearly unimaginable."
- Jason Osgood
Replies from Readers React: Does CAD Degrade Drawing Quality (24 July 2001)?Here are several more letters responding to Leo Schlosberg's guest editorial that asked if CAD software is worsening the quality of construction drawings -- as well as readers responding to readers, and the viewpoint from a dealer.
"The continuing banter on the integrity of CAD is intriguing. The issue relates to a hurdle that us CAD sales guys face: is the continuing push for new software really worth it?
"Do companies like Autodesk, PTC, Dassault really have the CEOs of the world fooled into believing that their respective tools can assist in delivering faster cycle times, reduced manufacturing errors, increased innovation -- among many other positive benefits? And at what cost?
"I hope that the 21st-century client has enough sense to put the appropriate amount of time into investigating a return-on-investment before embarking into a new world of design. But there is nothing more gratifying than to hear from a client, 'I have reduced my time for change on iteration 2-15 by somewhere between 50-70%' or 'I have reduced my manufacturing errors from many per month to nearly zero' by using one of the latest 3D tools.
"Maybe time is not important in the manufacturing environment anymore. The integrity issue will always remain: garbage in, garbage out. There is a tremendous amount of precision available in CAD to the client who, if he does not take advantage of it, will probably suffer in the long run and wonder why his 2D drawings take days, weeks, or months of cleanup to use in his new 3D tool.
"On the board or on CAD, the naked eye is quite the fool. Don't buy the software to be compatible with your clients and suppliers, share files with them, eliminate the mailing and faxing of drawings, collaborate (yes, the C-word) with them almost instantaneously over the web, give your employees growing skill sets, leverage and re-use data over and over and over.
"What do you do when your competitor changes a dimension and updates his whole drawing package while you crack out the electric eraser for hours?"
- Greg Bau, Ketiv Technologies
"I read "Exploring the Unrealized Potential of Computer-Aided Drafting" and had to agree with some of the info, but had to shake my head because of two issues that were completely overlooked.
"The article addresses only the initial drawing and drafter technique. I have never worked on a set of drawings where there was not an modification, addition, or correction and this is where CAD shines. The initial drawing may take as much time, but the changes are achieved much more quickly than hand-drafted.
"One project we produced in 1975 using pencil-paper required the services of one design engineer and 6 draftsman to deliver a 28-sheet set of plans. A similar project in 1995 required one engineer, 1 full-time draftsman, and 1 part-time draftsman. The 1995 project was drafted in two drawings and plotted with paperspace and xrefs to deliver a 25-sheet set of plans.
"There appears to be progress here. Computer-aided drafting is a tool that aids drafting. Anybody who says it is not productive is not seeing the big picture. Let them go buy a T-square, triangles, protractor, pencils, pens and go back to the way it was before. Let's see how they long they stay in business."
- Rick Howell, Santa Barbara County Flood Control District
"In reference to 'Exploring the Unrealized Potential of Computer-Aided Drafting,' the author is a bit out of date. References are made to publication between 1975 to 1994. I am sure a lot of CAD personal are now working in 3D, and I would not want to go back to the drafting board.
"Enjoying your publication, keep up the well-defined information."
- Wolfe Derle
"I have had 15 years on the drawing board with the old sets squares, tracing paper, and ink pens before jumping over to CAD. I feel this gave me the insight to provide reasonable looking drawings, easily read, and with the appropriate information needed.
"I believe people that have not had the opportunity of being on the board, but have gone straight onto CAD have developed a heavier reliance on CAD and at times readily accept what it produces.
"But I do remember that I produced some shocking-looking hand-drawn stuff that I'm not proud off. Just being lazy I guess!"
