I mentioned that Ethereal CAD is an environment that is all talk and no action. This means that it would have a woefully under developed CAD Standard, if it had one at all. The CAD Standard would leave out critical items like file naming, folder structure, layer names, etc. By doing this it ends up to have everyone doing what they think is right, but none of them are actually coordinated.<\/p>\n
Ethereal CAD is where talk of being standardized is not really followed up with reality. When you look at one project compared to another, they do not match. In the worst case files do not match other files.<\/p>\n
What makes this different from Chaotic CAD is that everyone thinks they are standardized. They talk about it and everyone works hard at doing it, but they work with blinders on and focus only on the job at hand. They fail to take a long range look at what is needed.<\/p>\n
One definition states that Ethereal is “Characterized by lightness and insubstantiality; intangible.” This hits right on target at what I am saying. CAD files do not easily display a standard. When you open multiple files they each say something different, something intangible. You cannot figure out what the standard is because it is not obvious from the files or the Standards docs.<\/p>\n
Chaotic CAD is similar but differs based on the desire to standardize. Chaotic CAD does not have a standard, nor does it think it does, nor does it desire to have one.<\/p>\n
Despot CAD is the opposite of Ethereal CAD. It has an authoritarian CAD Standard (and possibly leadership) that locks down everything in site. No flex. No creative juices. No experimenting on the side.<\/p>\n
Ethereal CAD is tough to fix – but at least people care<\/p>\n
Chaotic CAD is tougher to fix – cause no one cares<\/p>\n
Despot CAD is toughest to fix – because it is usually driven by the culture of the firm. <\/p>\n
People are harder to change than standards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I mentioned that Ethereal CAD is an environment that is all talk and no action. This means that it would have a woefully under developed CAD Standard, if it had one at all. The CAD Standard would leave out critical items like file naming, folder structure, layer names, etc. By doing this it ends up […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,8],"tags":[],"series":[],"class_list":["post-319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cad-management","category-cad-standards"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t