Establishing CAD Standards – The Road to Success Is a Rocky One

[#1]

Defining a CAD standard

The term “CAD standard” is often associated only with a document (CAD drawing), when the final product is just the tip of the iceberg. There is much planning and execution that must go on in the background to facilitate the process of consistently and correctly creating product support documentation.

The true value of CAD standards

The value of clear and accurate product documentation cannot be understated. The product produced by an organization not only represents its design capabilities, but it is also the face of the corporate brand. A key factor in the success of any product is the supporting documentation developed to support said product.

An organization needs to have a well-established and tested protocol in place to ensure that its product documentation is accurate and consistent across its entire product line.

Working with the good, the bad and the ugly

Being a CAD designer for many years, I have reviewed and edited numerous CAD drawings. I quickly learned how to identify a quality document versus one that needs improvement.

As a business grows, its customer base expands. Potential new customers will often contact current customers before doing business with an organization. The company's reputation with existing customers can attract or repel a potential new customer.

An often-overlooked aspect of a product is its supporting documentation. This is a key to customer success. A customer’s maintenance department must rely on documentation supplied with a product. If the documentation is inaccurate, there is a likelihood of mistakes occurring and additional time being required to complete a task. This will complicate issues for said customer, as well as cut into their productivity. This may seem like a minor detail, but it can (and often does) become a bigger issue.

The devil is in the details

One might not think to give high priority to documentation concerns when there are “real” deadlines and issues impacting the shipment of a product. Certainly, you can clean up the documentation and red lines well enough to ship the product. What happens when you get multiple events happening in a tight time frame? The last thing being considered when a customer is pushing you is the quality of the drawings. Management wants you to ship and meet their timeline as a priority. They can then bill the customer and get the job on the books.

I have worked in the environment described above with previous employers. At the time, my functional duties only included CAD design, as there were many products to ship and a very tight schedule. A major concern raised with my manager at the time was reusing outdated design documents. Poor CAD work done once is bad; reusing it, even worse.

When the issue of standards was raised, I was told that there was no need to investigate such matters. We were in the process of shipping ten machines to the same customer on a tight schedule and working sixty hours a week. I found ten different styles of CAD work and many inaccuracies, which should have been corrected long ago.

The result of not establishing standards

We shipped and billed all ten machines, and management met their targets as planned. When there was a bit of time, I reapproached my manager about standards. He responded that it was a possibility to look into the subject. I took some time and researched what protocols and policies were in place. There was nothing established that I could point to as a good start.

When I presented my findings, he took them to the bean counters for consideration. I was ready to start diving into the challenge. The process of developing standards and protocols was (and usually still is today) considered overhead.

As my task would be considered overhead, this shut my efforts down, as overhead was not a money maker. However much backup data I had, or case studies, no one saw the task as justified. I was back to using obsolete data and incorrect CAD data to work with upcoming designs.

Fast forward a few years, and new management was established. There was an effort to establish some protocol and standard CAD design procedures. However, the approach was committee-based with at least ten people involved. There was some progress; we tried to establish goals and real milestones to shoot for. The effort ended up failing because of the number of people involved and their preferences in setting the milestones and goals. No clear definition of how to proceed was created.

We were back to square one and had charged many expensive overhead hours for ten-plus management-level people. This is where most organizations stop. No standards or protocols, and still working the same as they did all along, with the same results.

The end result

The result of our efforts was predictable. No progress was made on the issue. When management saw the cost of the failed effort, they shut down any further efforts to pursue the development of standards, which were deemed a failure based on the prior efforts.

The use of inaccurate, obsolete data continued to be the norm for the department. As I was the CAD monkey for the group, my concerns were disregarded.

When I would get a repeat machine design for an existing customer, I would typically use the legacy data from an old job. There would be minor updates and changes, as one would expect with any reissue of an old job. The changes, however “minor”, were time-consuming because of poorly created drawings. As this happened frequently, I got questioned on why it took so long to reuse the existing data and just get it done. Non-CAD people do not see the intricacies of working on a drawing, as it is not their task. I would usually end up doing the minimum work necessary and nothing more.

If I started a new project, I would also need to use legacy data as a base, as new work never included time to clean up documentation.

Many reorganizations later, we were still at the same place, with no push for standards or protocols.

A path forward

I would bet that the company is still without standards or established protocols for its documentation. For forward growth and successful business growth, this situation will need to change. Industry conditions have changed, and businesses must develop streamlined policies to stay competitive.

This must be a living process, as CAD operators will be added or move to other positions, thus the task requirements will need to support these changes.

Too often, after the “team concept” is tried and fails, the task is abandoned because of the time and expense involved. Any process you attempt to sell to management will need to have solid backing. ROI will be what bean counters and management care about, as well as the time from implementation to when visible results are achieved.

Management must see the value of investing in quality documentation, consistently created within the organization as a saleable asset for their customers. Some organizations will be easier to prove this point to than others. Do your research into the corporate mindset early, and plan your attack around what points are of interest to management.

Have a solid plan, be ready to change it on the fly, and document everything, even the details that may seem unimportant (they are to someone in the process). With this plan of attack, you stand a much better chance of succeeding.

Final thoughts

Selling corporate on procedural changes or policy changes is always an uphill task. Do your research early and keep pushing!