People seem to pick up the bad habits and not the good habits.  Some get the good habits and define the bad ones that they do not want to mimic.  Which ones are you passing on to others – the good or the bad?

What defines a bad habit?  Is is just something that you like doing that others cannot see the productivity in?  Is it the old way of doing things that is not wrong, just “older” than some of the new methods?  Is a bad habit wrong if it gets the job done?  When do bad habits move from just annoying to being productivity killers?

I have learned a few things along the road of CAD and have jettisoned some bad habits as well as picked up good ones.  My bad habits, as defined by you, may differ from my definitions.  Using outdated dialog boxes or avoiding the ribbon – bad habit or dangerous?  Using the command line in place of the a screen menu – bad habit or productivity drain.

I have specific ways of getting my job done in CAD.  I learned them from others, or tutorials or books or screen casts or wherever.   I have settled into doing things a specific way and it may differ from your work patterns.  I think I am being efficient and you may think I am missing the point.  Either way, we both get the job done and the product meets the CAD Standard.  So we are all good – correct?  My way or your way does not matter as long as we produce the output needed.

If it we on a construction site, I could say that using a screwdriver as a chisel is not acceptable.  Using a hammer to drive in a screw might force the screw head to be level with the wood surface, but it might not hold for long.  But who is to say that some CAD Habits are bad and some are good.

Let me take a stab at it…

When do CAD Habits become Bad Habits?

When they impact others in a negative way.

You may be very comfortable having layer names like Front1, Front2, Wall2, A25, A26 or whatever.  I have seen people name their layers after their kids or dog or whatever, thinking that they are temporary and will be changed later but never come back to change them.  When someone else looks at the file, they cannot figure it our and spend time renaming the layer to be something standard.  You have moved into the bad habit zone.

When they cause files to become corrupt.

Bad hatch patterning, multiple dimension overrides, creating in-place linestyles, fancy xref rotation, attachments from nowhere, and on and on.  Compounding creative creations can cause conundrums.  When you are focused too much on the look of an object and fail to think of the method of creation, it becomes a bad habit.

When a file cannot be output by everyone (only you can get it right).

If you are in the habit of adjusting your personal pentable to get perfect plots then that is a bad habit.  Making fine tuned pentables that may only work on your machine or your office or your hardware impacts the next person down the line.  Don’t do it.  Break the habit.

There may be more that I have not thought of yet, but you get the picture.  Generally when it hurts someone else – it is a bad habit.  even if others are not impacted – it still might be a bad habit.  Think before you act.

But some things need to float free for a while until you have enough information to make a call on the best practice.  When a new tool or feature presents itself, let users fiddle with it until they figure out some optional ways of using it.  Let them play around and try it out.  Work it through a few files or even a project or two.

Once you have a few people who have tried a few ways at doing one thing, get them together for a discussion.  Ask them what method should be used by all.  Let them defend or sell their way.  Let them knock off the rough edges and come away with a unified method.  Have them all test it out and then if they all agree – put it into the standard.

There will be a time when no rule applies to new tools.  Embrace that time and use it to your firms advantage.

Table of contents for Four T's of CAD

1. Four T’s of CAD
2. First “T” of CAD – Tools
3. Second “T” of CAD – Talent
4. Third “T” of CAD – Technology
5. Fourth “T” of CAD – Training
6. Four T’s of CAD – Review
7. The Fifth “T” – Time

Tools – Talent – Technology – Training

These four T’s can be used to define your efforts in you job. Combine these four and you get a balanced approach to CAD.

Turning now to the technology of CAD

Technology is your approach to using the tools and the talent. Who gets to use what? What mix can they have? When do they select the tools? When do you push toward the next great tech tool.

In the Tools post we talked about selecting individual tools.  Now we will turn to the mix of tools that you have and how you effectively blend that mix.

If you are like most firms, you have several tools that you use.  Some of them are focused on one area and doing one function.  Some are broader and can be used for just about everything.  Your selection of what tool to use for what job falls under your use of technology.

Merriam-Webster defines technology as “a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge”.  Within this definition is the concept of what processes and methods and tools you use.

The CAD Manager is in a perfect position to suggest how best to use the tools.  What tools are used for early conceptual design?  What ones are best suited for rendering?  Which ones do the best at producing hardcopy output?  Some of the tools overlap.  They do multiple phases of work.

Defining the mix of tools allows the end user to not have to struggle through selecting them themselves. You should have a preferred selection of which on to use for each step.  Make a list of all the software and what phases of work it can cover.  Then select the preferred one for each phase.  Seek to have everyone use the preferred tool.

Since I am involved in developing the NCS…

Alexandria, Va., Bentley Systems Inc., makers of MicroStation, are getting ready to develop an “NCS plug-in” for their products. Bentley Systems, Inc. is the first CAD vendor to officially accept the July invitation issued by National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI), and the American Institute of Architects (AIA), to include the National CAD Standard in their software.

The rest of the story…