National Cad Standards Adoption

[Anonymous]

How are your firms providing documentation to your users regarding your
"adoption/interpretation" of the National Cad Standards? Specifically, can
the documentation be presented on your corporate intranet, or did you have
to reproduce the documentation and provide hardcopies? (Dust collectors - I
don't think average users will read them). I was reading the previous
threads on NCS, and someone mentioned a url link to licence someone's cad
standard instead of recreating it, but I couldn't find the link listed
anywhere.

Thanks,

--
Richard Binning
rlbinnin@thehaskellco.com
"America's Design-Build Leader"

[Anonymous]

Very good point. Standardization through automation is the best way to go. If users have
to do additional work to comply with the standards the standards generally won't be
complied with. (I don't know why, but we do have some users who will do additional work
not to comply with the standard???). This approach is a lot more work on the cad manager
but overall is much more efficient for the company.

jason martin.
Michael Willette" wrote in message
news:5E7E0FDC762F24F590371BF1C45E6948@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> We're of the theory that if it isn't automated it isn't a standard. Office
> standards should be seamless. We believe that the users have more important
> things to concentrate their efforts on than worrying about what layer a
> demolished wall goes on. Our Standards manual (based on the NCS) is posted
> on our intranet for all to see, but again, the idea here is to refer to it
> as little as possible and set the software up in such a way to make that
> happen. I'm not saying we're 100% to this point yet, but we're getting
> there.
>
> Michael Willette
> mwillette@henv.com
>
> Hanbury Evans Newill Vlattas & Co.
> Architecture . Interiors . Planning . Landscape
>
> 120 Atlantic Street
> Norfolk, Virginia 23510
>
> P: 757-321-9600
> F: 757-321-9601

[Anonymous]

I've moved the file attached to the message below to the Customer
Files group. Please do not post attachments in this newsgroup.
I'm copying back the text in the message to keep it in context.
--
Anne Brown
Manager, Moderator
Autodesk Product Support discussion groups
Discussion Q&A: http://www.autodesk.com/discussion

****

Subject:
Re: National Cad Standards Adoption
Date:
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:06:33 -0800
From:
"stuart nathan"
Organization:
sn associates
Newsgroups:
pn.cadmanager

The discussion so far seems to be about American standards, and
if I may, I
would like to add my bit from the UK.

I am attaching a zip file containing a document BS1192.DOC which
is the
layering standard used in the UK and was promoted by AutoDesk in
the UK. I
believe it is also used in Europe. It is incorporated within the
UK version
of ADT.

I believe this is an undererrated layering standard and certainly
misunderstood. Clearly layer names are a part of a standard, but
my
experience has been that it was very difficult to persuade anyone
to agree
standards for block naming. Line weights are pretty well
understood at least
before the advent of colour plotters. Then we mapped colours to
line weights
using the colours of the Rotring (you remember them?) pen tops.

I am glad there is a discussion, if only to prove that the CAD
community is
ready to move on from the technical issues of using CAD
programmes.

--
Stuart Nathan @
http://www.office-manager.co.uk

attachment: BS1192.zip

Kurt Westerlund wrote:
>
> We only have 6 users, so my dissemination will be something like "See the
> NCS on the reference shelf" in our cad manual. (snip)

[Anonymous]

Thanks Michael,
I am assuming that you reference the NCS or did you rewrite the information
to put it on the intranet?

Thanks,

--
Richard Binning
rlbinnin@thehaskellco.com
"America's Design-Build Leader"
"Michael Willette" wrote in message
news:5E7E0FDC762F24F590371BF1C45E6948@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> We're of the theory that if it isn't automated it isn't a standard.
Office
> standards should be seamless. We believe that the users have more
important
> things to concentrate their efforts on than worrying about what layer a
> demolished wall goes on. Our Standards manual (based on the NCS) is
posted
> on our intranet for all to see, but again, the idea here is to refer to it
> as little as possible and set the software up in such a way to make that
> happen. I'm not saying we're 100% to this point yet, but we're getting
> there.
>
> Michael Willette
> mwillette@henv.com
>
> Hanbury Evans Newill Vlattas & Co.
> Architecture . Interiors . Planning . Landscape
>
> 120 Atlantic Street
> Norfolk, Virginia 23510
>
> P: 757-321-9600
> F: 757-321-9601
>
> "Richard Binning" wrote in message
> news:E625F357AF0302901E52DC25C527E86B@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> > While I appreciate all the responses, our decision has already been made
> to
> > adopt "portions" of the standard. I am specifically interested in how
you
> > have disseminated the information in the NCS to your employees....
> >
> > Can I redirect this back to my initial question?
> >
> > If you have adopted the NCS?....How are your firms providing
documentation
> > to your users regarding your "adoption/interpretation" of the National
Cad
> > Standards?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Richard Binning
> > rlbinnin@thehaskellco.com
> > "America's Design-Build Leader"
> > "Evan Larson" wrote in message
> > news:3A554038.C397FE17@gltarchitects.com...
> > > Matt,
> > >
> > > Good one!
> > >
> > > I would agree that the concept of a national cadd standard is good in
> > > theory but in reality 75% compliance or so is about the highest that
can
> > > be expected. Some here say we should adopt it blindly, don't reinvent
> > > the wheel, etc. but really it has some good ideas but I consider it a
> > > guideline to set up your standards not the end all be all.
> > >
> > > ADT really reinforces this. For instance we based our layers on AIA
but
> > > ADT has some unique requirements that forced changes. Not to mention
> > > some of those layers are just plain out of control.
> > >
> > > Evan
> > >
> > > Matt Stachoni wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The idea of a "National CAD Standard" ranks right up there with
> "Public
> > Toilet,"
> > > > in terms of my desire to use one on a daily basis.
> >
>

[Anonymous]

We're in the process of re-writing the parts we need. It would defeat the
purpose of having the standard accessible from our intranet if we referred
back to a paper bound entity. We haven't found the need to reproduce the
entire manual. We're solely concentrating on the variables that matter to
the masses. No one really wants to read through all the mundane to arrive
at the relevant. The standards manual should follow the same ideology as
the standards themselves. If it's not easy no one will use it.

Regards,

Mike

"Richard Binning" wrote in message
news:235CFDA3ABAA4CABB7220C4A22C76497@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> Thanks Michael,
> I am assuming that you reference the NCS or did you rewrite the
information
> to put it on the intranet?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Richard Binning
> rlbinnin@thehaskellco.com
> "America's Design-Build Leader"
> "Michael Willette" wrote in message
> news:5E7E0FDC762F24F590371BF1C45E6948@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> > We're of the theory that if it isn't automated it isn't a standard.
> Office
> > standards should be seamless. We believe that the users have more
> important
> > things to concentrate their efforts on than worrying about what layer a
> > demolished wall goes on. Our Standards manual (based on the NCS) is
> posted
> > on our intranet for all to see, but again, the idea here is to refer to
it
> > as little as possible and set the software up in such a way to make that
> > happen. I'm not saying we're 100% to this point yet, but we're getting
> > there.
> >
> > Michael Willette
> > mwillette@henv.com
> >
> > Hanbury Evans Newill Vlattas & Co.
> > Architecture . Interiors . Planning . Landscape
> >
> > 120 Atlantic Street
> > Norfolk, Virginia 23510
> >
> > P: 757-321-9600
> > F: 757-321-9601
> >
> > "Richard Binning" wrote in message
> > news:E625F357AF0302901E52DC25C527E86B@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> > > While I appreciate all the responses, our decision has already been
made
> > to
> > > adopt "portions" of the standard. I am specifically interested in how
> you
> > > have disseminated the information in the NCS to your employees....
> > >
> > > Can I redirect this back to my initial question?
> > >
> > > If you have adopted the NCS?....How are your firms providing
> documentation
> > > to your users regarding your "adoption/interpretation" of the National
> Cad
> > > Standards?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --
> > > Richard Binning
> > > rlbinnin@thehaskellco.com
> > > "America's Design-Build Leader"
> > > "Evan Larson" wrote in message
> > > news:3A554038.C397FE17@gltarchitects.com...
> > > > Matt,
> > > >
> > > > Good one!
> > > >
> > > > I would agree that the concept of a national cadd standard is good
in
> > > > theory but in reality 75% compliance or so is about the highest that
> can
> > > > be expected. Some here say we should adopt it blindly, don't
reinvent
> > > > the wheel, etc. but really it has some good ideas but I consider it
a
> > > > guideline to set up your standards not the end all be all.
> > > >
> > > > ADT really reinforces this. For instance we based our layers on AIA
> but
> > > > ADT has some unique requirements that forced changes. Not to
mention
> > > > some of those layers are just plain out of control.
> > > >
> > > > Evan
> > > >
> > > > Matt Stachoni wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The idea of a "National CAD Standard" ranks right up there with
> > "Public
> > > Toilet,"
> > > > > in terms of my desire to use one on a daily basis.
> > >
> >
>

[Anonymous]

The discussion so far seems to be about American standards, and if I may, I
would like to add my bit from the UK.

I have attached a zip file containing a document BS1192.DOC (which can be
found in the autodesk.customer-files newsgroup) which is the
layering standard used in the UK and was promoted by AutoDesk in the UK. I
believe it is also used in Europe. It is incorporated within the UK version
of ADT.

I believe this is an undererrated layering standard and certainly
misunderstood. Clearly layer names are a part of a standard, but my
experience has been that it was very difficult to persuade anyone to agree
standards for block naming. Line weights are pretty well understood at least
before the advent of colour plotters. Then we mapped colours to line weights
using the colours of the Rotring (you remember them?) pen tops.

I am glad there is a discussion, if only to prove that the CAD community is
ready to move on from the technical issues of using CAD programmes.

--
Stuart Nathan @
http://www.office-manager.co.uk

[Anonymous]

I am finding at our client that there are actually certain critical issues
that must be adhered to and other issues that if not adhered to, do not make
much impact. So now I think that the Cad Standards need everything in
them...even a kitchen sink if possible, but all hell should only occur when
the critical areas are violated. Some flexibility has to be permitted or
the whole thing becomes impossible to enforce.

jack

"Kurt Westerlund" wrote in message
news:BE7622F89292CDDF457853B0A0E673FC@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> I know, I know. I am with you Jack. Even if it is a bunch of trouble,
it's
> nothing compared to the (EDITED) I get now from CE's, SE's and contract
> drafters. I'm willing to do it just so I can say "We use NCS and so do
you
> when you are contracting from us." Poof, no more trouble ... off to dream
> sequence..
>
> Ok, I'm back. I don't really think it's a scam but the buisness model of
> generating their opperating expenses from end users buying the standard
> makes me nervous. They need a buisness model that encourages
> standardization, not one that rewards them for an everchanging, modular,
> upgradeable standard. NCS is a collection of groups that do have an
> interest in standardizing cad work though so I guess $200 isn't too much
to
> pay for a standard. We'll just have to see what the upgrades total to
after
> 10 years.
>