We don't distinguish. When we say "standards" we mean the total quality of
the finished product, which in our case is the hard copy plots. Everything
concerning computers pertains to "standards" only insofar as it affects
quality. We spend a LOT more time on the hard copy issues than we do
computer issues.
We view the computer stuff purely as support for the larger goals. We try to
find ways to make it easier to draw correctly -- block libraries, lisps,
menus, you name it. We place a high importance on reusability of CAD files,
which means they must be highly consistent. We take care of this by
supplying drawing templates and other tools which make it much easier to
produce correct work than incorrect work. But we never look at computer
"standards" as an end in themselves.
We don't waste time on voluminous "standards" reference books. This was a
change I made when I took charge of what we call "standards" -- I threw away
the big fat hopelessly obsolete notebook and refused to make another one. My
reasons: these things are never used, they're never up to date, and thus
they're pure busy-work. I have more important things to do, like being
responsible for quality control, and I've been convinced by experience that
the fat book sitting on the shelf doesn't help.
We have a very well defined procedures, with "how-to" guidelines and
checklists for every phase of our work. These are each short docs, generally
a page or two, which are purely functional -- they relate to exactly what
you need to do, right now, to finish this phase of the work. At the
completion of a phase, the checklist is to be completed and added to the
paper trail accompanying the project. That's all the docs we need. These are
updated whenever there is a standards change, and made available on the
intranet, so any time you print a guideline or checklist it is current.
I suppose we'd have a big fat book if we ever took (wasted) the time to
stuff all of these into one big binder and name it The Standards Bible. But
we specifically DON'T want users keeping obsolete paper manuals around. We
want them to print out a fresh, newly updated checklist for each phase of
each project. We maintain an index of documents on the intranet, so they're
easily accessible. And again, the docs are short, to the point, easy to
follow, and focused on a specific task. You don't have to beat users over
the head with a Bible if you provide them with "cheat sheets" which *HELP*
them meet their production goals.
Another benefit of breaking things down this way is that different people
can be responsible for different docs. The person who checks one stage of
the work, for instance, maintains the checklist for that. We coordinate
these things at our regular "standards" meetings.
We don't document computer stuff at all, except to make available a list of
custom keyboard commands for newcomers. Nearly everything that's essential
to our work in on a self-explanatory menu. If you want to know what the
standard layers are, just start a new drawing -- you can't get it wrong. Why
write this up? Granted, our work is fairly simple in nature, but all of the
items you call "CAD standards" are either covered by our procedural
guidelines, or else they are so obvious and unavoidable that a user would
have to go way out of his way to deliberately mess up.
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")