Topic: upgrading

[dbreigprobert]

sounds awesome!  the problem i have is not having a great leave-behind when i come in blind.  with a savvy group of good cad users (ie everyone knows what a surface is _in general_, etc) we can use their data and steam through quite a bit of material, but i always feel like 1) we are taking a gamble that we might not get to every topic we'd like to cover 2) i don't have a how-to to leave behind to remind them of what we did and how we did it.

i did one last week where i spent day one going through some moderately generic data getting everyone successful drawing _some kind_ of alignment, profile, etc. so they at least learned where the menu was, the toolbar functions, etc. then on day two we essentially repeated the process with their template and some linework from their potential pilot project and did some mock design work where everyone had to apply the knowledge they learned the day before and challenge me with "how would I do this".  that worked out really well and is a bit of a model for what i would like to do more often in the future.  the trick is that you really need "their" template, or at least something started.

And because I wanted to document some of the techiques we encountered so they weren't lost once i left, it worked out pretty well.  I'm really obsessive about leaving some kind of meaningful reminders.

[jpostlewait]

The real work begins when you guys leave Dana.
I'm sure you guys know it but that's really the tough part for the end user.
My training wheels have been removed and I can't keep myself upright is a really uncomfortable feeling for someone trying to make a living from their efforts.
This is one of the hardest transitions I've seen.
And I went from R14 LDT to MicroStation 5.5 and in my humble opinion that was easier.
You, Jason, James, Mark, Mike Farrell here along with sinc dino and all the rest are just invaluable in sharing the knowledge that it takes to get an organization to adopt this approach to project design.
Sorry I won't be going to AU this year but my guy's will.
So close your eyes and imagine you're huggin me not them. :kewl:

[Dinosaur]

Don't feel alone John, I won't be going either.  I would trade the trip there there any day for a good refresher training session but I don't see that in the future either.  I certainly hope Dana was taking a bit of descriptive license in her post about having to coax some attendees along that didn't know what a surface was.  If goobers that green are getting training and I am sitting 2 product versions behind in regular maintenance, it might be time to go fishing for a few years and come back when I can qualify as a classic.

[dbreigprobert]

i'm not kidding.  i get at least one per class that doesn't get TIN at all.

[Dinosaur]

i'm not kidding.  i get at least one per class that doesn't get TIN at all.

 
Then Dana, I owe you several apologies for some of my previous posts.  I never would have thought that "essential training" for Civil 3D also had to include remedial civil engineering design 001.  This would seem to me to be a disservice to you as the teacher, the students who actually KNOW what to do with the software after you teach them how to use it and even the aforementioned greenhorn who is thrown into water WAY over his head.

[sinc]

I am sitting 2 product versions behind in regular maintenance

So does that mean you're still using 2006?

Ouch.  2008 can be frustrating enough.   

[Dinosaur]

No, it means I have not received training for versions 2006 or 2007 and any features that appeared after the 2005 release.  I had to figure out pipes (at least 3/4 of my design responsibility) on my own by trolling the forums and just doing it.  The same goes for survey which I haven't had time to devote to so . . . , and any of the other new bells and whistles post 2005.  I have been using 2007 since its sp2 and have a 30 trial of 2008 with about a week left to play with.  The prevailing idea here (by the check writers anyway) is that if they can't figure it out on their own they don't need to use it and neither should I.

[mjfarrell]

I say why go to AU, just bring me to you and get a higher return on your investment by training everyone for nearly the same cost as sending one person there.  The training will not be in the abstract, and we will work on billable project data at the same time.

[jpostlewait]

I say why go to AU, just bring me to you and get a higher return on your investment by training everyone for nearly the same cost as sending one person there.  The training will not be in the abstract, and we will work on billable project data at the same time.

Mike thanks for the offer.
The ad vatages of establishing a corporate presence at AU are entirely different than having someone in house.
Short term you are probably correct but my job also involves taking a long term view of things and the networking availability at AU is invaluable.

[Cannon]

I say why go to AU, just bring me to you and get a higher return on your investment by training everyone for nearly the same cost as sending one person there.  The training will not be in the abstract, and we will work on billable project data at the same time.

Because AU is about more than classes. It's networking, it's meeting your peers, it's getting new ideas. As many times as I've been to AU, I still find some tidbit worth sharing, some new product I hadn't seen, some person that I'd like to know better.

For the cost of one day of training to get three days worth of ideas and networking seems like a good deal to me. I sell training, and I'd rather one of my clients send a person to AU than have me there for that same day. Bang for the buck, AU wins over the best trainers, hands down, Mike.

Now, excuse me as I go back to lurking.

[Dinosaur]

Well, if I have some vacation time squirreled away, I might be able to make it to the next AU held in Kansas City - IF I can afford to pony up the attendance fees.  This journeyman designer doesn't have a corporate presence to establish and spends arguably WAY too much time networking on line for all the good it has done him.  The classes may be worth the time and money, but then the last time augi had a CAD camp here, I drove right past the event twice each day without stopping in once.

[mjfarrell]

I don't know, as every year I peruse the class offerings at AU, and rarely do I see any class there that would justify my time of going there.  I get plenty of ideas associating with my peers, and students just trying to solve the challenges they face every day.

I get more out of the day to day activity of seeing the problems others post, and trying to figure out a workable solution to them.  I doubt that AU presents the same number of problem solving opportunities in a week, as an average day of looking through the posts, here at The Swamp, and the newsgroups combined.

Sure there might be some benefits of having a presence there; as a reseller. Sure there might even be some interesting characters as well, luckily I get a chance to meet them all on the Internet.  Often, I even get to meet them in person when they are willing to meet me as I visit there city on some training mission.  Interestingly the average users jump at the chance to meet with me on these occasions, whereas the those most immersed in the body politic of augi steadfastly refuse to meet with me. I wish they weren't so skittish, really I don't bite. :kewl:

[mjfarrell]

A change of this magnitude isn't accomplished in a short time.
I don't want to scare anybody off but it takes years.

JP, from my experiences it does not need to take years to make this transition.  It requires the proper training of ALL individuals at the same time. In this manner everyone sees how the application should be applied to the engineering tasks that they face day to day. Piecemeal, top down, or bottom up training isn't going to cut.  This trickle down approach will not create the momentum required to overcome organizational inertia.

When the users get a really good example of how, when and where the program makes their life easier and the design process faster, most a quick to adopt it.  When the training they receive is too abstract, i.e. not their project data, it becomes an obstacle moving from the abstract to practical application.  For the best examples of this one need only look around here (The Swamp) at how well my students have progressed with C3D, and their willingness to continue to struggle with the applications inherent flaws, or omissions; exactly because they have seen how much it can do for them in spite of these challenges.

Conversely; I also have clients that have failed to successfully adopt C3D for a variety of reasons. Most of them have been instances where they have asked me to deviate from my normal plan of attack.  Two examples come to mind; one wherein the 'lead' designed failed to accept that his design methods would need to adjust to the toolkit and workflow that C3D presents.  The other was caused by the principal engineer deciding that various users would attend only bits and pieces of the classes resulting in most not seeing the package in its entirety and all not getting the complete picture of the processes or power of C3D.

This entire process could and should go a lot smoother, if only Autodesk would listen to the users and fix the problems in the application; not in the next release, or the next, but right now and at NO CHARGE to the customers who have already paid (and suffered) enough with the idiosyncrasies of Civil 3D from the beginning.  However, this is probably very unlikely, when they and their puppets over at augi, censor (delete) any post there or the newsgroups that no matter how true they find objectionable.  They fail to understand that the truth is immutable.  Thank goodness that The Swamp isn't adversely affected by any corporate affiliation with Autodesk, or SolidVapour.

[jpostlewait]

Let's start with something we can agree on.
>>This entire process could and should go a lot smoother, if only Autodesk would listen to the users and fix the problems in the application; not in the next release, or the next, but right now and at NO CHARGE to the customers who have already paid (and suffered) enough with the idiosyncrasies of Civil 3D from the beginning. << And I also agree this ain't gonna happen.

Now for the other stuff.
>>It requires the proper training of ALL individuals at the same time. <<
You good with a class of 50?
Who takes care of Wednesday's submittals when everyone is in class?

>> When the training they receive is too abstract, i.e. not their project data, it becomes an obstacle moving from the abstract to practical application. <<

This arguement about who's data to use is nuts.
If you are teaching tools you can use Florida data in Leadville Colorado and get the lesson across.

The application of the tools in your own environment is the second stage of training. It's much longer and much more hands on.
Very dependent on attitude and aptitude and this phase takes some time.


>> For the best examples of this one need only look around here (The Swamp) at how well my students have progressed with C3D,<<

Participants in the Swamp are hardly a representative cross section of the average Engineering company employee.

>> However, this is probably very unlikely, when they and their puppets over at augi, censor (delete) any post there or the newsgroups that no matter how true they find objectionable.<<

Curious about the AUGI beef. I check there occasionally but refer to it as the shallow end of the pool.

>>They fail to understand that the truth is immutable. <<

Nah. Everybody's truth is a little bit different. No that's not right. Let's say everybody's truth is different.

[mjfarrell]

Yes, I am fine with a class of 50.  We just break it down into three or four manageable groups. This allows someone to get those submittals out, while the others are in class.  Under these condition I even extend a prorated fee to ensure that it is affordable for all to attend.  I have found that the wider the mix of users in the class presents the greatest opportunity for learning.The goal is to get all users applying the product as soon as possible.

When I say that the truth is immutable; the best example that comes to mind is Galileo, and the Inquisition.  In the end it has come to be accepted that the Earth is not the center of the universe now matter how hard they tried to silence him, or oppress scientific enquiry.

My focus on using the clients data is mostly because
A) It tends to bring the lessons closer to home.
B) Towards the end of the lessons, we can actually start applying the information to billable work on said project data.

Item B, tends to change Attitudes. 
As to aptitude, we all learn at different rates and in different ways. This is why I include lots of repetitions of the process, and as many varied applications of the tools as is possible in the time I spend with the students.  Interestingly the more time I get to spend with a group the more I am able to adjust the lessons to their needs.

In this manner the lessons are both reinforced, and made profitable.