Article Archive Contact Features List 10

Media Pack Subscribe Privacy Policy

Construction Computing Online Training Map Recruitment

News

Feature

From CAD User AEC Magazine  Vol 22 No 7 - JULY/AUGUST 2009

David Chadwick looks at some of the results of the CAD Systems Survey undertaken by Excitech earlier this year

You might suggest that I should get out more, but I enjoy reading survey results, and get quite excited when I have to dig into one to find out what people are thinking or doing - wisely or unwisely. I remember one put out by the Beeb some years ago that, with some diligent extrapolation, suggested that we would have to cut down our remaining trees at the same rate that Henry VIII savaged our huge oak forests to build the first Royal Navy - purely to keep our baby's botties dry using disposable nappies.

And so, being presented with the latest survey from Excitech, which looks at the technologies and processes used in the construction industry, I looked forward to trying to get behind the figures. Actually, Bob Garrett of Excitech has done most of the work for me, analysing the results of the 45 questions that were asked, via the Internet, of 375 Managers, Directors and Partners of practices and companies in the construction industry.

The survey was also carried out at a difficult time for the industry, having to review every aspect of a business, looking at the organisation size, structures and methods, to focus on two key issues - survival and planning for the future.

The survey was carried out a mere three months ago, and covered a diverse range of design disciplines and company sizes. Many responses were much as you would suspect, reflecting the respondents backgrounds, but some surprising results turned up - or didn't turn up, as negative responses can sometimes be just as interesting.

Take the first response for instance, relating to the Need for Change - with 60% of companies reviewing or revising processes, workflows and technologies. All well and good, but that means that 40% of companies are quite happy to carry on much as before, ignoring the significant developments that are being made in CAD.

Bob Garrett makes the point that companies that employ CAD Managers understand the need for change, with their remit to investigate and implement design process improvement, and that those that don't will get less competitive in time. Smaller companies may not be able to afford to keep up with the latest developments, but, as he says, can they afford not to?

CAD STANDARDS

There was near equanimity across the board about the use of CAD standards, which cover everything from naming, model sheets files, layers, etc. to production and revision standards and detail level, such as the use of graphics and hatching - but again, it is the secondary result that is more interesting.

Respondees where asked whether they used - and regularly reviewed their CAD standards, a prerequisite for the accurate sharing of data and understanding what that data represents. The larger companies are more reliant on the use of standards and regularly review them, but the lack of diligence in regularly reviewing those standards is much more marked further down the line.

DESIGN COLLABORATION

This is the section that I found to be most interesting, as it highlights the large gap between technological capability and actual usage something we have always suspected within the construction industry. Simply put, we have the tools we need to improve collaboration with colleagues, yet we persist in using old working processes, or adapting the latest technology to the same ends.

Poor collaboration results in significant cost and time overruns. This can be avoided by linking design data between drawings and cutting out multiple data entry, minimising errors, and managing and avoiding clashes between architects and different design disciplines. The construction industry is still predominantly 2D oriented, even though, as Bob points out again, construction is always in 3D, and most architects are still reliant on offline review of drawings.

The design process is still being seen as a 2D process, and 78% of respondents co-ordinate designs in MEP and Structures, for example, by using 2D overlays. Only 7% use clash detection tools in conjunction with 3D overlays. Only 10% benefit from the full power of 3D BIM. Bob explained that the pace of uptake has been accelerating recently but there is, as you can see, still a long way to go.

The same trends are shown in the tools used for collaboration. Asked which formats are being used to publish design data for review, 40% still use paper output, and up to 90% publish drawings as PDF documents. Less than 10% publish as 3D DWFs. Both paper and PDF markups have to be manually transferred back into the original documents, with the consequent chance of errors.

A large number of documents are also published in DWG format, confirmed by

60% of respondents - obviously only to other CAD users - but the benefits of this are outweighed by the response to the next question that dealt with the receipt of marked up documents from review. The vast majority are, either, marked up on paper documents (68%), marked up PDFs (64%) or commented upon in emails and letters (just below 60%).

Although the majority of documents in every format are published mainly for access by third parties, the benefits of electronic distribution and mark-up are not being sought be many users who remain glued to the limitations of manual data transmission.

WHAT ABOUT 3D DESIGN?

If you are working on a design project with other teams, the common data format, for many years, has been DWG. That's only to be expected really, as the 2D format is still predominant in most practices - 40+% in the largest companies and around 80% in smaller practices (up to 10 seats). 3D design throughout is consistently around 20%.

Interestingly, the use of 3D CAD is still being seen as a 'visualisation' tool, rather than as a pure design tool; a means of communication and explanation of ideas. However, increasing numbers are using CAD derived data for quantity and area/volume scheduling, structural and sustainability analysis and documentation.

The survey also shows that the drive to improve co-ordination and collaboration is increasingly leading to the use of more advanced building modelling and management tools specifically BIM. Although 40% of respondents would disagree with this, over 30% concur that they perceive a need to produce drawings in a particular format (DWG, DGN). Nearly

as many are now reporting a need for 3D design, and 20% are seeing demands fort clients for either BIM or some other common data environment.

More relevant, though is the requirement from clients for changes in the design process, with 20% now expecting designs to be created in 3D, and 15%, expecting the use of BIM. A small proportion of building projects, you might say, need to be done using BIM, but I would suggest that it includes many more projects than the usual high profile ones we see in the press - and the trend is accelerating. It also reflects the influence that the client/owner of the project exerts on the project concerning the tools that should be used - after all, it's their money they could be wasting!

CONCLUSIONS

A survey such as this has to have a conclusion - otherwise there is no point in conducting it. Although some encouraging trends have been spotted,

the survey highlights that 'systems and processes for good co-ordination and collaboration in most organisations fall well short of best practice'. Bob also points out in his executive summary that a lack of investment in developing the right skills to improve productivity and quality - even without adopting new and better technologies - appears to be lacking.

He concedes that companies recognise that improvements are necessary, although it is the larger companies that appear to accept this, yet smaller companies may find it easier to adopt those changes.

A final significant point that Bob makes is that the role of the CAD Manager is more important than is currently recognised by higher management, in that it can be a focus for change within the design process, and also in the development of CAD skills within the organisation. www.excitech.co.uk

Feature

Click here for a Print Friendly Version

©2006 Business and Technical Communications Ltd. All rights reserved.
No part of this site may be reproduced without written permission of the owners.
www.CADUser.com