KUTC

Why is Our Drawing Quality Declining?

By Rande Robinson

I’ve been hearing complaints that the quality of construction drawing is declining. In his weekly newsletter called u p F r o n t . e Z i n e —The Business of CAD, Ralph Grabowski has been printing readers responses to the following question: Does CAD degrade drawing quality?

It is an interesting question, but not a new one. This one has been around for the last ten years or so. So—is CADD the problem? Or is it the scapegoat?

I have always considered CADD a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m lucky that I began my highway career when construction plans were created the old-fashioned way, with a pencil, mylar and calculators. After a stint in construction (where I learned how to read plans) I transferred to the structures division. The first thing they had me do was redraw old bridge plans. Back then I thought that was a waste of time, but it taught me a couple of important things. One—I learned what kinds of information needs to be in a set of plans. Two—I learned how plans should be drawn and laid out. These points may seem basic to the point of being trivial, but they’re not.

But what does this have to do with the question: “Does CADD degrade drawing quality?” I think it illustrates the answer to the question. It is not CADD that degrades drawings; it is the declining skills of the work force. Some engineers are not learning these basic skills.

When I was an undergraduate it wasn’t calculus or physics that weeded out would-be engineers, it was engineering graphics (i.e. drafting). I’ll bet we lost more brilliant people to the physics and math departments because of engineering graphics than any other class. Back then you had to have nine hours of drafting. Today students are lucky if they even have a chance to take a drafting course. This is a shame—because in today’s computerized design environment, drafting skills have become more important than ever.

I can hear the moaning now— drafting important??? Today’s computers and programs were designed so just about anyone can produce a set of plans. That may be true, but are the plans correct? There can be a big difference between good-looking plans and good plans.

I was lucky to work with a great draftsman who not only gave me valuable tips on how to draft plans but also caught and corrected the many “little” mistakes in my design sketches. I was also fortunate to have supervisors who loved to mark up things with red pens. Nothing is quite as humbling as getting the perfect set of bridge plans back covered in a sea of red ink. That level of scrutiny is something we are losing due to the “hurry-up and produce”attitude prevalent in engineering today. Couple that with young engineers possessing few, if any, drafting skills, relying on computers instead. Add project managers and supervisors who don’t know, or don’t remember how to use a CADD program. Is it any wonder that plan quality is declining?

The good news is: The solution is pretty simple. We just need to make the art of drafting a higher priority. First we need to make sure it survives. This means that if the colleges and universities aren’t going to teach drafting, the engineering profession is going to have to.

I’m not saying we need more CADD training—today’s young engineers know how to use CADD programs. (Some of the older ones could stand some CADD training, though.) What is needed is making sure that today’s engineers and technicians know the fundamentals of good, old-fashioned drafting.

Second, we need to make sure we are all working on the same page with the same set of tools. The prevalent mentality—that CADD is for “designers”—has got to end. Otherwise we’ll create a technology gap that will put a gaping hole in the way we do business.

Rande Robinson works for “a southern department of transportation” in CADD support, training and management. The views presented are Rande’s and are not necessarily those of any department of transportation, organization or pc-trans (although they probably should be).

What's New?

Article Extras