Let's Fix Construction
  • Blog
  • Why & Who?
  • Workshops
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • A & E Coordination
    • CDT Education Program
    • Let's Fix Construction
    • Social Media & AEC
    • Specifier/Product Rep
    • Specs 101
    • Young Professionals
    • Past Workshops
  • Contributors
  • Submit
  • Accolades
  • Donate
  • Contact

Where Did the Good Drawings Go?

2/17/2020

12 Comments

 
Picture
Contributed by Jeffrey Potter
I recently was listening to a construction podcast where one of the topics briefly discussed was how terrible drawings have become. More like copy and paste, drag and drop type documents. This isn’t the first I have heard this, but this time, I stopped to think why. Why has an industry that was known for perfection and being detailed oriented now being referred to by a Contractor of almost the opposite? Well, personally I think it comes down to several areas where Architecture has failed.
 
The first, and probably, the most unpopular, as I’ll get some disagreement across the board is with Architecture school programs. Note, I am addressing what I see comes out of the local college Architecture programs, not everyone single one. I also didn’t go through an Architecture program, but I see what it is and what it focuses on and what it doesn’t focus on. Architecture school focuses on design and theory where students are almost suffocated with the amount of work they have to do. All the interns and recent new hires I ask, say they get about one semester of professional practice, but that no one pays attention because it doesn’t matter, and they have to spend more time on their design classes. Now design is great, it needs to be taught, it needs to be understood, because design gets you the “W”. If a firm puts out crappy designs, they are not getting Work. So, design is a huge component.
 
However, I think the technical aspect of the profession is missing and contributing to the overall thought that construction drawings are terrible. These young students come out of school with no technical training. They are expected to learn this technical training, which is a huge part of the job, on the job from others. I have had conversations with PM level employees or employees who have been in this industry for a long time that don’t know what specs are, how to read them, or how they relate to their drawings!!! Are you kidding me!!!?? We expect these young professionals to be the production and the Project Architect to direct the technical aspects of the project, but what if the Project Architect has no idea either or is a poor teacher? How are these young professionals supposed to learn!? Many firms don’t invest in the training needed to learn and fully understand the implications of their Work. They have no idea that one simple mislabeled keynote could cost their firm thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
​Personally, I think Architecture school should have two tracts. Those who are more design driven, and those who are more technical. I didn’t consider Architecture school because I am no artist, I can’t draw, I am a technical person. Now that I know what Architecture is, I would have thrived on a technical path, if it existed. This would partially solve the problem. It would teach those technical aspects of the profession and make it more real world. Especially when it comes to risk management. Something they also don’t learn until they get burned.
 
Second, we are in a transition period where the baby boomers are retiring with all this knowledge. Once they are gone, that knowledge of 30+ years is gone forever. As a profession, I think we are stuck trying to find out how to capture that knowledge so it can be kept and passed down. The world is moving digital, so how do we get all of this information and knowledge from human minds and documents from the last thirty years? I believe it starts with an information management system. Where communication between people can occur, documents can be kept and tracked, and all of this is search for future generations. I am not sure how many firms have a system like this, but it is one that my firm is attempting to do. It’s tough to get people on board, because there is no immediate reward. It is a reward that comes later, and probably to someone else looking for the answer.
 
Without all this information stored from these career professionals, we could lose decades of it. That’s why, we as younger professionals need to engage and learn. It is on us to ask the questions, not for them to just give answers. We need to take the time to learn and understand, rather than be told the answer without understanding it. The younger professionals need to take advantage of these more knowledgeable people, because one day, they might not be there… and then what? Where do we go for information? GOOGLE!
 
GOOGLE, believe it or not, is an information storage system that is searchable. It has all the answers, right?!? Most times I am never let down by the power of GOOGLE. So, why are we younger professionals not setting up our own GOOGLE within our firms that is SPECIFIC to our firm and its’ history. GOOGLE doesn’t know why we don’t use a certain product, but someone at our firm does, and we need those answers. What if we use a product or detail that ends up in a lawsuit? In which, we have had history with that product or detail and didn’t use it for certain reasons. How are we supposed to know this? By capturing knowledge and information on a firm specific information management system.
 
Third, understanding the cost of a mistake. One simple word, such as “galvanized”, being omitted can have huge ramifications on a project. I think young professionals need to understand that the production work they are doing can have a huge negative cost attached to it if done incorrectly. Yes, QA/QC procedures are there for a reason, to check the work, but nobody is perfect.
 
If people don’t understand the costs of mistakes, then the thought process of, oh "they will just figure it out in the field as the contractors and tradesmen / tradeswomen are experts at putting it together, so they will know", or "they will ask an RFI". Let me tell you, if that is the case, figure it out on the field, it costs a lot more money to answer an RFI or receive and approve a Change Order, than figuring it out during DD (Design Development) or CD  (Construction Documents) and having it detailed and specified correctly.
 
Most production level professionals don’t see the bottom line, they don’t see the change order costs or the average cost to process an RFI. They should, so it scares them, and shows them the importance of their work and also gives them a sense of responsibility. It holds them and everyone on the project team accountable for a good set of contract documents.
 
Finally, better training. Young professionals coming out of school get training from more experienced staff, but what if this more experienced staff is not a good teacher or teaches bad habits? I firmly agree that all young professionals should have a mentor and go through a training program at their firm. The more experienced and knowledgeable staff need to step up and train the younger generations to be just as capable as they are.
 
My firm recognized this and has invested in training programs. It’s something that every firm should do, if it can afford to. We want to fix this industry, but we can't do it if we don’t train. Otherwise, Architects will lose their grip even more, and Contractors will take advantage of our mistakes more often with greater cost.
 
Are there other reasons why drawings suck? Yes, most likely, but I firmly believe in these four. These four contribute in some capacity, no doubt in my mind. No matter how popular or unpopular some of my thoughts are above, we all have to recognize that drawings or simply contract document are not what they used to be. It will take time, but together, as an industry, we can change this perception.

(Editor's Note: You can view this blog and more on Jeffrey Potter's blog, In My Element.)
12 Comments
Roy Schauffele
2/18/2020 07:52:55 am

Jeffrey, great article! Last April I was asked to be a substitute lecturer at a local university and speak to those seniors that would graduate that May. As I began my lecture I realized that my audience had no idea what I was talking about, i.e., continuous insulation, thru-wall flashing, window flashing, air barriers, waterproofing.
I polled the audience as to what they knew and was promptly advised that their university was very proudly a theoretical design school.
As a consultant, I appreciate that university for creating many a client for me for years to come.

Reply
Adam Gill
2/18/2020 10:45:35 am

Job security Roy! I honestly don't see the trend of worsening drawings changing very quickly. Each of the 4 reasons above are correct. But there is another major factor to why drawings are bad lately and that is competition between architects to meet modern clients' demand for bottom dollar pricing. As the project fees are driven lower, the average architect needs to spend less time on the project to make a profit and keep the doors open.

The average clients often have no clue how much work is involved in producing a great design along with a solid set of construction drawings and they could care less when they are comparing fee proposals between architects. And architects increasingly don't know or take the time to find a good way to communicate why their services take the time they do and why that is a value to the client in today's world.

The average architecture firm that insists on putting the time and detail into the plans that should be there is forced to make minimal profit on projects because they still need to do it for a low enough fee to get the job in the first place over other firms that are providing low ball fees and don't put the detail into the plans.

Reply
Richard Price
2/20/2020 04:39:23 pm

Great article, and yes, Adam, you identified another critical aspect of the problem. Our industry is becoming increasingly commoditized, especially with more Design/Build and CM firms becoming our 'clients', and as true owners/agencies become less informed about what we do and the liability we have to shoulder.
Oh, and let's not forget what the IBC codebook looked like from, say, 1982. A single volume book. And look at what the IBC looks like now! Not to mention what a LEED or ILFI guideline looks like, or local zoning codes...

Scott Raymond link
2/18/2020 11:47:41 am

This is a timely and oft-discussed subject. 95% of all projects need good construction documentation (drawings, specs) and not high-concept design. We do a lot of work for Theme Parks, so we're conversant with both. Most to all published projects seen online and in our magazines are in that 5%, but the heart of any project is good documentation.

Problem #1 is poor construction education, as there is too much 'concept' and not enough real-world application. #2 is not enough hands-on construction experience. #3 is wasted time in school on 'rounding out' the students. You could easily replace 40+ credits of useless electives with learning to detail, weld, estimate, schedule, etc.

Schools should offer two paths. both licensed: The first is the 'design' Architect path where concept, theory and design is the focus. Two should be an Architectural Technologist path where Life Safety, function, drawings, details, specs and Building Science are the focus.

I guarantee you that 95% of the GCs out there are looking for the latter.

Reply
Morana Medved
2/27/2020 08:52:47 pm

I'm a technical design professional and have been teaching construction documents in a design program for the past ten years. I have to disagree with the idea of the two track system, because we already have a similar system in many offices and it's not working - the "big D" design team that creates design without considering practicalities and "not-good-enough-to-design" production team to produce drawings without understanding the design. Add lack of communication and you get bad drawings. We don't need further separation of the architecture/design industry, we need better integration where we expect "design staff" to understand technical issues and "technical staff" to understand design process. Technical side is somehow perceived as "lesser" and I'm frequently faced with demands to cut back my technical classes, because the projects from my classes don't look as cool in portfolios as conceptual projects. There is no design without figuring out technical side, so why can't we all just be technically versed designers and train the students to achieve the same?

Reply
Sheldon Wolfe link
2/19/2020 03:00:11 pm

Good points all, though I doubt that "[architecture] was known for perfection and being detailed oriented" at any time.

I have always been critical of our architecture schools. My personal experience is limited, but it seems that for most, bid D design is emphasized almost to the exclusion of material properties and compatibility, constructability, and performance. I had once suggested a two-track school, or perhaps separate schools, but I doubt that anyone interested in architecture would go to the technical side. As long as design architects are the ones who decide what is taught, and what experience and testing are required for licensure, architecture will be mostly about appearance.

I don't know that the retirement of baby-boomers is any more significant now than retirement has been in the past. We always get to the point where the people with the most knowledge leave. Perhaps, with the many new ways we have to record and access information, this will be less of a problem in the future.

The supposed decline in quality has been an issue as long as I can remember, but after considerable thought, I believe it's largely a matter of perception. It's the opposite of the "New! Improved!" we see in advertisements. If those products are continually improved as claimed, they would be virtually perfect by now, but in most cases, there isn't much change. For more thoughts on this issue, see https://swconstructivethoughts.blogspot.com/2018/02/construction-documents-are-they-worse.html. It it, I suggest that documents have actually improved over time, though that may be hidden by the sheer volume of current construction documents and the way we distribute and modify them. The article is followed by comments addressing increased number and size of addenda and the growing complexity of construction documents.

Reply
Jeffrey Pilus link
2/26/2020 03:46:12 pm

I saw the post on Linked In and couldn't resist the temptation to get a look at this post. I guess the photo of the mylars and the tile of the post got me curious. It didn't turn out the way I thought it might, expecting the common sort of nostalgia for the days gone by and decrying the advance of technologies as a denigration of the "art form".

I share Sheldon's opinion on this subject, drawings are far better than they ever were (in most cases). This is especially true where BIM is being used properly, and not as a "design tool". However, with its superior capabilities to provide accurate and coordinated graphics between disciplines a need to understand how the building elements and products are articulated is increased. Notes on drawings and schedules on sheets are not sufficient on complex structures, and they are too cumbersome to be effective when attempted.

I have been teaching graduate students in Architecture classes in Contract Documents for 20 years as a volunteer for the alumni association. This is my last year, my last class is Saturday. It is offered as a 1 credit hour elective class, but at least one class in hand drawing is required. I am weary of throwing 30 hours a year at this enterprise, but it has not been without some rewards.

I don't mean to sound like a disparager, but in my opinion the best thing that could happen in the various Colleges of Architecture is for the old guys to retire and get out of the way of progress. There has been a mythology that has been perpetrated for a long time in this industry: that students need to learn about "design" and when they are doing their internship they will be taught what they need to know about the business. There are so few qualified teachers there (in firms) and the mentoring is usually reserved for the young ones who have parents on the BOD of some development company.

There is little interest in promoting opportunities for young Architectural students to be exposed to Uniform Systems of Classification, it is not low hanging fruit. The efforts of CSI are centered elsewhere - trade schools, manufacturers, junior colleges and the like: based on marketing strategies. But lets face the facts...Architects and Engineers are in charge most of the time. The leaves are not healthy unless you feed the roots of the tree.

Reply
Rachel Brown
9/24/2020 09:36:41 am

A couple years ago I had to explain to a freshly graduated employee how to draft so that his roof was the same height between two elevation drawings in CAD. Asked if he knew Revit, he said yes. But the first project he was put on he didn't know how to change to a non-generic wall type. The education problem is real.
But also, I've noticed that as clients expedite more and more projects and want to pay less and less fee, the drawings suffer for that too. It is cheaper to copy paste a standard detail than it is to modify the detail to the specific function and think through how that details "turns the corner" or attaches to other details... It almost seems like a self-perpetuating problem: where we devalue our drawings, put out bad drawings, which makes them seem worthless, which devalues them further, which puts out worse drawings... etc. etc. Blaming the issue solely on education doesn't explain the fact that we still have very educated, experienced people who are allowing these drawings out the door and are accepting unrealistic time schedules and fee structures that produce them.

Reply
Liam jake link
8/24/2021 10:11:13 am

Great article! Thank you for sharing this informative post, and looking forward to the latest one.

Reply
Brianna link
9/2/2021 10:45:44 am

Very much appreciated. Thank you for this excellent article. Keep posting!

Reply
Composite Decking link
9/7/2021 06:39:11 pm

Great read. Thank you very much for this.

Reply
Georgia Highway Construction Association link
1/3/2023 07:03:35 am

Interesting, thank you for sharing such informative article. Looking forward to read more soon.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    About

    Let's Fix Construction is an avenue to offer creative solutions, separate myths from facts and erase misconceptions about the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry.


    Check out Cherise's latest podcast
    Picture


    Get blog post notifications here

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    RSS Feed


    Archives

    March 2022
    May 2021
    May 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016

    Categories

    All
    Architecture
    Certification
    Collaboration
    Communication
    Concrete
    Construction
    Construction Administration
    Contract Documents
    CSI
    Education
    Estimators
    Fabrication
    Fix
    Manufacturing
    Misconception
    Myths & Facts
    Podcast
    Refresh
    Specifications
    Subcontractors
    Technology
    Training

    Tweets by FixConstruction
© COPYRIGHT 2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • Blog
  • Why & Who?
  • Workshops
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • A & E Coordination
    • CDT Education Program
    • Let's Fix Construction
    • Social Media & AEC
    • Specifier/Product Rep
    • Specs 101
    • Young Professionals
    • Past Workshops
  • Contributors
  • Submit
  • Accolades
  • Donate
  • Contact