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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Access a broad range of knowledge to help get the most out of your products and services.