Autodesk Technology Managers Forum
Share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage with fellow CAD/BIM Managers.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Drawing Revision Standard?

38 REPLIES 38
Reply
Message 1 of 39
michael.coffman
56525 Views, 38 Replies

Drawing Revision Standard?

Greetings!

My design group is in the midst of a debate regarding drawing revision standards. Some argue that each sheet has an independent revision record (i.e. rev 1 on one drawing may be different than rev 1 on another). Another group argues that a rev is universal across a drawing set, but only affected drawings are marked with the revision. Still another group argues that the entire set should be marked with the revision so that it is known that the whole set is current to that revision.

When I refer to "marked with the revision", I'm referring to placing the revision number, note, and date into the title block (architectural style along the right side), not necessarliy clouding and adding the delta to each drawing area.

What do you all prefer?

Sincerely,
Michael Coffman
38 REPLIES 38
Message 2 of 39
jggerth1
in reply to: michael.coffman

Each sheet is revised individually, so Rev 1 on Sh 23 may be in response to Dept of Health comments made in April, and Rev 1 on Sh 54 may be done for Dept of Transportation in August.


seems to work -- but we're also adding an "Issue" chunk to the Title Block, which is uniform between sheets describing what that particular stack of paper was issued for, - Review, Bid, addendum, etc.
Message 3 of 39
Anonymous
in reply to: michael.coffman

Well I have always done "per package", that way there was never more than a
single "revision 1" in a set. Set gets reissued as Bob Subdivision Rev. 1,
instead of reissuing single sheets. Seems to cause less confusion.

Though I know plenty of places that do it per sheet also, as long as you are
consistent company wide and have good processes in place either is fine.

--

Lance W.



wrote in message
news:6267589@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Greetings!
>
> My design group is in the midst of a debate regarding drawing revision
> standards. Some argue that each sheet has an independent revision record
> (i.e. rev 1 on one drawing may be different than rev 1 on another).
> Another group argues that a rev is universal across a drawing set, but
> only affected drawings are marked with the revision. Still another group
> argues that the entire set should be marked with the revision so that it
> is known that the whole set is current to that revision.
>
> When I refer to "marked with the revision", I'm referring to placing the
> revision number, note, and date into the title block (architectural style
> along the right side), not necessarliy clouding and adding the delta to
> each drawing area.
>
> What do you all prefer?
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Coffman
Message 4 of 39
Anonymous
in reply to: michael.coffman

We do a by sheet, but update on the title sheet every time. By the index we
have a revision column with brief description next to sheets that were
revised.

--
Larry

"Lance W." wrote in message
news:6267669@discussion.autodesk.com...
Well I have always done "per package", that way there was never more than a
single "revision 1" in a set. Set gets reissued as Bob Subdivision Rev. 1,
instead of reissuing single sheets. Seems to cause less confusion.

Though I know plenty of places that do it per sheet also, as long as you are
consistent company wide and have good processes in place either is fine.

--

Lance W.



wrote in message
news:6267589@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Greetings!
>
> My design group is in the midst of a debate regarding drawing revision
> standards. Some argue that each sheet has an independent revision record
> (i.e. rev 1 on one drawing may be different than rev 1 on another).
> Another group argues that a rev is universal across a drawing set, but
> only affected drawings are marked with the revision. Still another group
> argues that the entire set should be marked with the revision so that it
> is known that the whole set is current to that revision.
>
> When I refer to "marked with the revision", I'm referring to placing the
> revision number, note, and date into the title block (architectural style
> along the right side), not necessarliy clouding and adding the delta to
> each drawing area.
>
> What do you all prefer?
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Coffman
Message 5 of 39

In relation to architectural drafting vs technical. Since you said design group, I'm assuming you're coming from the same realm.

I've seen all three but have seen the universal number with the revision number only on the sheets that changed the most often.

The argument I've heard against this method and for numbering each sheet in the set with the current revision number is the same as the one against tracking each sheet individually. You simply don't know if R5 of A2.10 is concurrent with R6 of 2.11 or if you're missing R6 of 2.1, so you should place the number on every sheet. The counter argument is that you're not going to be printing a full set each time you reissue a drawing - unless perhaps the set is very small - so this method falls down in the end. The field will have R5 and R6 in their hands anyway, so you may as well only number the sheets that changed.

The argument I've heard for tracking each sheet individually never made much sense to me, which probably explains why I've only seen one guy advocating for it in the last 15 years. His argument was that it keeps the revision numbers for the set lower. However, if you're up to R12 on a single sheet, you've still issued 12 revisions even if it is only for one sheet.

Perhaps it's something that comes from parts drawings and technical drafting rather than architectural so it makes more sense there. In the architectural realm, tracking of this method makes sense for Disciplines, IMO, but not individual sheets.
Message 6 of 39
strodeb
in reply to: michael.coffman

In UK architecture the most used method is to change the revision only on the sheets that have changed.

You run an issue sheet for the project so it contains what the current revision should be for each drawing. Some issue sheets show all project drawings & highlights the ones you have sent for the recipient, this helps to identify if there is a new version of a layout & that you haven’t sent it to them. Others only show the drawings sent on that issue.

When you get to the end of the project you will have different layouts at different revisions. What you then do is check the last revision of each layout against the building that was built (there’s always a discrepancy somewhere). After correcting the layouts you revise every one of them to "AsBuilt" & then issue them as the final version ready for the O&M manuals, any ongoing FM, etc.
----------------------------------------------
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so
Message 7 of 39
Anonymous
in reply to: michael.coffman

This is a perfect use of RSS web feeds which update in near real-time and
recent developments supporting actual real time updates. Furthermore, the
updates should appear on the cover sheet which functions like the index in a
book.

Can you imagine any reliable and trustworthy publishing resource that
refused to provide an index to their product?

The problem as I've seen it is as you point out Michael. Fundamentally,
architects are idiots and cannot manage much of anything efficiently as they
are always too concerned with what they think is best when the rest of us
have already figured it out.

As opposed to the licensed frauds that pose as architects, a genuine
professional would impose a zero tolerance for slop; quality beng the most
persued objective. Thus every page in a drawing set must contain notation
regarding revisions whether such are present on that particular page or not
and each page must be linked or notated to master index which in this
context exists on the so-called cover page.


wrote in message
news:6267589@discussion.autodesk.com...
Greetings!

My design group is in the midst of a debate regarding drawing revision
standards. Some argue that each sheet has an independent revision record
(i.e. rev 1 on one drawing may be different than rev 1 on another). Another
group argues that a rev is universal across a drawing set, but only affected
drawings are marked with the revision. Still another group argues that the
entire set should be marked with the revision so that it is known that the
whole set is current to that revision.

When I refer to "marked with the revision", I'm referring to placing the
revision number, note, and date into the title block (architectural style
along the right side), not necessarliy clouding and adding the delta to each
drawing area.

What do you all prefer?

Sincerely,
Michael Coffman Edited by: Discussion_Admin on Oct 9, 2009 1:29 PM
Message 8 of 39
Anonymous
in reply to: michael.coffman

I agree....each sheet that HAS a revision is based on THAT sheets individual
revision

John Coon





wrote in message news:6267682@discussion.autodesk.com...
Each sheet is revised individually, so Rev 1 on Sh 23 may be in response to
Dept of Health comments made in April, and Rev 1 on Sh 54 may be done for
Dept of Transportation in August.


seems to work -- but we're also adding an "Issue" chunk to the Title Block,
which is uniform between sheets describing what that particular stack of
paper was issued for, - Review, Bid, addendum, etc.
Message 9 of 39
Anonymous
in reply to: michael.coffman

Ahem...

That would be "pursued".

Do you not own a spell-checker?

And what's "beng"?

Slop, indeed...

--

"clintonG" wrote in message
news:6268527@discussion.autodesk.com...
quality beng the most
persued objective. "

wrote in message
news:6267589@discussion.autodesk.com...
Greetings!

My design group is in the midst of a debate regarding drawing revision
standards. Some argue that each sheet has an independent revision record
(i.e. rev 1 on one drawing may be different than rev 1 on another). Another
group argues that a rev is universal across a drawing set, but only affected
drawings are marked with the revision. Still another group argues that the
entire set should be marked with the revision so that it is known that the
whole set is current to that revision.

When I refer to "marked with the revision", I'm referring to placing the
revision number, note, and date into the title block (architectural style
along the right side), not necessarliy clouding and adding the delta to each
drawing area.

What do you all prefer?

Sincerely,
Michael Coffman

Edited by: Discussion_Admin on Oct 9, 2009 1:29 PM
Message 10 of 39
Anonymous
in reply to: michael.coffman

clintonG wrote:
>
> As opposed to the licensed frauds that pose as architects, a genuine
> professional would impose a zero tolerance for slop; quality beng the most
> persued objective.

you need to venture out into the real world...
Message 11 of 39

I'm a big believer that a revision number is universal across a project, but only affected sheets should be marked and reprinted. We do it for a number of reasons.

First, many times we will require a cost proposal for a revision prior to actually proceeding with the change. In these cases especially, keeping the same revision number across the multitude of affected disciplines helps reduce confusion with the design team and contractors. Plus, if a decision is made not to proceed, we only need nullify one revision number. This rarely happens, but it has occurred.

Second, two or more revision can be in the design stages concurrently. If revision 2, 3, and 4 are all started around the same time, and revision 2 gets held up for discussion, revision 3 and 4 can still go out the door. Obviously, we try best not to have this occur, but nothing in the universal system precludes it. Not so when using sheet independent revision records.

Lastly, when reviewing the set in the future, universal numbering just make it easier to make sense of a set of drawings. Say a revised toilet room arrangement causes changes across architectural, plumbing, and electrical sheets. Universal numbering allows us to see clearly how this one change affected all these disciplines. You don't have to go hunting through the set to understand the impact.

Jason
Message 12 of 39
Anonymous
in reply to: michael.coffman

Noooooooooooooo!

CG needs to stay in that little dark room so as not to self-destruct :))

--
Dean Saadallah
http://LTisACAD.blogspot.com
--
Message 13 of 39
Anonymous
in reply to: michael.coffman

No. Don't tell him to do that.

He's probably been living in his parents' basement for the last 20 years.

His head could explode.

That would be messy...

--

"K" wrote in message
news:6270847@discussion.autodesk.com...
clintonG wrote:
>
> As opposed to the licensed frauds that pose as architects, a genuine
> professional would impose a zero tolerance for slop; quality beng the most
> persued objective.

you need to venture out into the real world...
Message 14 of 39

> {quote:title=jlpeterson wrote:}{quote}
> I'm a big believer that a revision number is universal across a project, ....

depends on the project and industry ... we may have 3,000-20,000 drawings on a project, maintaining a constant revision numbers across those projects would just be silly, and VERY expensive.
Message 15 of 39
kwood
in reply to: michael.coffman

This indicision on each of the comments is basically rediculous. Catchup, the world is moving. You must go back to the days (And I've been there) of drawing on vellum with rapidigraph pins in ink. The reason we had a sheet activated revision control is simple... we did not want to reprint every d size vellum format to each subscribers. Therefore, we revised only the sheets with changes and sent out only the sheets we changed. Today, of course, we can send drawings to a plotter fast and easier than we did during the Ammonia days.

Get up to date, the drawing revision for every sheet as one is the way to go, why make it complicated.

I try to insure we stay abrest of top of the line software. The ASME standard calls for both.

 

Message 16 of 39
jggerth1
in reply to: kwood

Thread necromancy -- ressurecting a zombie that's been dead for half a decade.

 

Noting that it's easier to plot out a fresh sheet from CAD than draw a new one on mylar, the cost of a plotted set of drawings (110 sheets, 24x36) - going to a half dozen recipients because one item on one sheet has been revised is substantially higher than the running a half dozen bluelines on that sheet used to be.  for that matter, running 6 plots of that one changed sheet is sheaper and simpler than doing a halfdozen copies of the set.

 

so the economics haven't changed since 2009

Message 17 of 39

Updating the revision of every drawing, each time a minor change is made to one seems ridiculous. For those of us who often have hundreds of drawings in a set, the man hours required would be enough to send the company broke. We make revisions numerical, but the description describes the stage of the issue. For example, drawings in a set may have different numerical revisions, but the description next to the revision would be For Client Review, For Information, For Tender, For Contract, For Construction. Intermediate issues would be Revised as per Client Comments etc.
Message 18 of 39
jest2525
in reply to: michael.coffman

Most people in the industry don't understand Document Control 101.  I've seen many ideas of what "proper" document control should be.  What seems to be considered "proper" is what the P/A or P/M on a specific project thinks it should be.  That is THE worst reason to choose one reason over another.

 

Old school methodologies have always tracked drawings on an sheet-by-sheet basis.  This was a simple system that has worked for decades.  If it ain't broke...

 

A drawing's revision number should NOT change simply because another drawing in the set has changed.  That could conceivably imply that a specific sheet has been revised over and over when in actuality it has never been touched.

 

The method of "set" revisions leaves the ultimate end user, the contractor standing out in the field wondering why a drawing has been "revised" umphteen different times yet no obvious changes have occured.  That leaves them scratching their heads as they must now scrutinize each sheet to figure out what actually changed.

 

Never forget that the time the contractor spends scrutinizing drawing sets is far more valuable and expensive than the extra time the design team spends managing sheet-by-sheet revisions.  Anyone who chooses set revisions over sheet revisions is simply lazy.

Message 19 of 39
damo3
in reply to: jest2525

I googled this topic, hoping to find some answers to best practise regarding this topic. Some interesting info going around. The last regarding laziness was amusing. Since when is trying to be efficient with time, interpreted as lazy? Lazy is a lack of effort or care. So I find those looking to do things a little more efficiently hardly not caring! 

 

Anyway, I digress and throw a dilema into the mix. We are using Revit in our office. 100 sheet project, 30 or so of those sheets go out for regular coordination issue. About 20 - 30 minutes to get a set of revisions together each time. This is due to Revit not allowing revision updates through schedules. Stupidist thing ever. So its one sheet at a time. If this was a project set revision, I could use shared parameters and it would take me less than a minute to update sheets. So as one user wrote, why is moving with the times and going with a method that is more efficient seen as such a stupid thing? 

 

What difference does it matter if the sheet has A, B or C on it previoulsy issued or not? A revision is simply and indication that is preceeds another does it not? A reference that you are looking at the same revision as another individual ie builder & project architect coordinating.

I also put this forward, why if when a project set gets revised, must the assumption be all sheets get issued? Why not just send the sheets that are relevant to the issue? The other thing know-one has mentioned yet is drawing transmittals. Doesn't anyone use these? We send these out with every revision issue. It nominates how it was sent out, when it was sent out, to whom, which sheets and the associated revision. It is this register used as a master reference to track outgoing revisions and everyone gets a copy with each issue for record. So regardless of which process is used, doesn't this document clarify what is going on with the revisions for users? 

 

my two cents in an effort for a little further discussion. 


________________________________________________________________________________
If you find posts have solved your problem, please don't forget to mark them as 'SOLVED' to help others with similar questions. - Thank you.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Message 20 of 39
jggerth1
in reply to: damo3

Efficiency vs laziness:  If being efficient with my time in the climate controlled office, results in an increase in confusion and wasted time in the field, then I'm being lazy, not efficient.    It always costs more on the job site than it does in the office, and having a crew of laborers, carpenters, equipment operators, standing around waiting on the job site foreman  to figure out what, if anything, changed on Rev 6 set, Sh 35 of 111 is expensive.

 

On the flip side, having Sheet 35 of 111 as Rev 6, and issued only with other Rev 6 sheets, is rather indicative that sonmething did indeed change, (and hopefully revclouds and delta markers were used to indicate just what)

 

Transmittals are great - very helpful.  but --- they will ge lost and separated in the field.  When the office space available to the field guy is the hood of his pickup, random sheets of letter size paper get misplaced a whole lot faster than a 22x34 set of drawings.

 

 

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Administrator Productivity


Autodesk Design & Make Report