TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: sourdough on April 08, 2014, 09:25:56 AM
-
Hi All,
I don't think there are many that have all the skills down for using Civil 3D, God knows I still have lots of room to keep learning. I would like to know how other companies keep up with training people for their organizations. The thing that get's me the most is when people are managers that don't have the experience to bring the rest of the company to an level of efficiency that makes sense. Where do you draw the line. I can't wait to hear your thoughts. Not using features in Civil 3D and replacing them with autocad only methods drives me crazy. Getting training from official, or friends is always a challenge either financially, or by just finding time to learn due to deadlines (that evil word we live by). Your thoughts.
Respectfully,
MJP
-
Interesting point of view considering how many times you and I have discussed the need for training........
Some companies get a person like myself to come in and do periodic training for all staff members.
They then work with the software for some time to assimilate that knowledge.
Evaluate where they are, and then commission so more training.
A company must be committed to improve their staff skills, and this then improves their competitive advantage and profits.
Otherwise they are content to just grind it out.
A funny thing about training; many companies focus on the cost of training
with little or no regard that it WILL return dividends on the investment.
However they have no way to measure how much money they lose to inefficiency,
lost technical advantage over competition. And no way to measure staff turnover
due to not investing in their employees and having them leave for a company that does ensure
that they get at least semi-annual access to skill training.
-
many companies focus on the cost of training with little or no regard that it WILL return dividends on the investment.
I would say most companies.
-
Unfortunately I think a lot of this has to do with too much
bad training from so many 'from the book' trainers out there.
This was a topic that came up in my latest discussion with a group planning
a training session with myself. There was expressed a bias against training
only from the book with limited or no ability to address real engineering or
survey project task.
Not to bang my own drum on this; part of the value that I bring to all of my classes
is the wide array of companies, projects and local conditions that I am exposed to.
This all translates into real usable application methods.
And as I make it clear to most, I don't start the training believing I have all of the answers.
However I do my homework for each client and group of students to provide working (workable)
solutions to their particular project(s) challenges.
-
Is a sensitive topic for me ... the small family owned company I was with when Civil 3D was emerging had a clearly stated policy of pursuing zero training, claiming that if they could not figure it out on their own it could never be useful to them. When I tried to broach the topic, I was informed by the family en mass that that was perhaps the most stupid suggestion ever made in their building. I took my own vacation time and piggybacked a training session from Michael with a company half a continent away all on my own nickle. I learned enough to to use the program for nearly all of my work but lacking any support from on high, further understanding suffered and new features introduced with later releases were adopted slowly if at all. It all ended mercifully with the housing crash and i have not opened the program since 2009. The "family business" was reduced to the owner and his son, using the design functions but stick building documents with pure vanilla just like they wanted ... better them than me.
-
That expensive "training" is only needed for people too lazy to read the Help Section and do the Tutorials. Anyone who won't exert some effort on his own time to continue learning about his craft is not worth hiring.
Dave
-
That expensive "training" is only needed for people too lazy to read the Help Section and do the Tutorials. Anyone who won't exert some effort on his own time to continue learning about his craft is not worth hiring.
Dave
Dave,
Your assertion that only 'lazy' people need training is a bit offensive.
Over the years I've met a great many very smart and motivated
people, that were still able to benefit from class.
The tutorials and the help file only go so far, and then you start needing
to do stuff that is beyond the scope of those tutorials; which are
at best only foundational.
Some of the people that have been in class have had years of working with Civil 3D,
yet there were still some remaining issues, or questions whose answered had eluded them.
Further the issue of time is not a commodity that all persons or companies have.
Their clients are not paying them to sit and read the help file, and after work ends
many have families and or other social engagements.
A project manager has far more cost effective things to do that read the help file.
And I would hate to hear the conversation should a person enter 40 hrs of non-billable
time under the entry of READING HELP FILE.
-
Your assertion that only 'lazy' people need training is a bit offensive.
Over the years I've met a great many very smart and motivated
people, that were still able to benefit from class.
The tutorials and the help file only go so far, and then you start needing
to do stuff that is beyond the scope of those tutorials; which are
at best only foundational.
Some of the people that have been in class have had years of working with Civil 3D,
yet there were still some remaining issues, or questions whose answered had eluded them.
Seconded.
While I am an avid believer in self-help when it comes to learning, people are wired differently. I performed poorly in a classroom setting, whereas others flourished. At the end of the day, the concepts are the same, it's just the delivery mechanism that is different.
-
That expensive "training" is only needed for people too lazy to read the Help Section and do the Tutorials. Anyone who won't exert some effort on his own time to continue learning about his craft is not worth hiring.
Dave
Not an absolute but does ring of truth. Those without drive, determination and initiative cannot be saved by training.
-
I've been the CAD support for our group for 24 years now. the group is part of a large company with multi offices around the country. Our manager has let me train the team in multi CADD platforms. I not only out source the training but do a lot of in house training. The turnover is 0. I just hired a entry level CADD tech, the first in a long time and we expect to keep him for a long time. That said, during the years of the recession we were able to stay profitable and thrive because we were versatile and could work on any kind of job. Training pays....
-
the only thing more expensive than training your employees and having them leave, is NOT training your employees and having them stay.
the days when a reasonably astute person could pick up a professional level of CAD expertise by reading PC Magazine, computer shopper, Cadence, and Cadalyst have been history for a while. the level of complexity in the software, as well as the increases in complexity from OS, networks, SANs, VMs, hardware, etc, has gone far beyond what can be gleaned in ones spare time. No one knows it all, and no one ever will. One who claims that is either deceiving the listener, or deluding themselves.
-
the only thing more expensive than training your employees and having them leave, is NOT training your employees and having them stay.
the days when a reasonably astute person could pick up a professional level of CAD expertise by reading PC Magazine, computer shopper, Cadence, and Cadalyst have been history for a while. the level of complexity in the software, as well as the increases in complexity from OS, networks, SANs, VMs, hardware, etc, has gone far beyond what can be gleaned in ones spare time. No one knows it all, and no one ever will. One who claims that is either deceiving the listener, or deluding themselves.
Have to disagree I know it all.
-
Unless your working on a project by your self, everyone on the team has to have about the same level of expertize in the software or you playing to the lowest common denominator. As a simple example, if a person doesn't know how to change a dimension and explode it, Its a cost to the project, might be small but it adds up over time.
-
mjfarrell,
Anyone unwilling to do the tutorials and read the Help Section, and yes, I mean on their own time, fully deserves the "lazy" label.
Notice I mentioned people who "need" training. I never said that training wouldn't benefit them. More power to you if your company is flush with money and can afford those overpriced training sessions.
The best CAD people don't wait for training. They tuck in and get after it. I've got no use for lazy people who whine that their company won't train them.
Dave
-
< .. >
The best CAD people don't wait for training. They tuck in and get after it. I've got no use for lazy people who whine that their company won't train them.
Dave
I concur 100%
-
The best CAD people don't wait for training. They tuck in and get after it. I've got no use for lazy people who whine that their company won't train them.
Dave
I know many world class CADD folks, some managers, some programmers, some operators and every single one of them is a go getter, blaze their own trail, make it happen type.
-
Pointdump may be blunt and direct, but he ain't wrong. Not by a long shot.
I never had a single formal Autocad training class and everything I got I learned from the help file, online resources, and a great deal of help from this place in the archive of info and helpful responses to my desperate frustrations with <infomercial cry> "There HAS to BE A BETTER WAY!" </infomercial cry>
I'm not saying training is useless, but if someone can't learn on their own - having it told to them won't make much difference. I see training as a way to get someone /capable of learning/ up to a certain platform level so they can jump from a better vantage point... on their own. It's a time-issue, imo. One week of training might replace a month or two of occasional help-file searches and peer-support pleas.
ETA: That said, I'm up against NX and CATIA right now, for which I'm suggesting training for NX, and demanding training for CATIA (we all agree no one can be expected to function without it in CATIA) because we I'm already quite overwhelmed. I'm not a entry level person, either, who gets paid sub-billable wage in order to account for "learning curve".
-
ETA: That said, I'm up against NX and CATIA right now, for which I'm suggesting training for NX, and demanding training for CATIA (we all agree no one can be expected to function without it in CATIA) because we I'm already quite overwhelmed. I'm not a entry level person, either, who gets paid sub-billable wage in order to account for "learning curve".
This validates what I said about not having the luxury of time to waste valuable resources with reading help files or doing base level tutorials.
And if the training you are accustomed to is too expensive, that would be why I've been offering an alternative to 'expensive'
training for all these years.
-
Sorry, forgot this thread was about you. I was speaking in generalities of training and factors involved, and then about my position specifically! I'll step away, now.
-
You can hide the cost of training but it there. You can say I learned it on my own but, I bet a lot of it was on the job. someone paid for it. You, with time and a computer / internet connection or at work on company time.
-
You can hide the cost of training but it there. You can say I learned it on my own but, I bet a lot of it was on the job. someone paid for it. You, with time and a computer / internet connection or at work on company time.
Now wait a moment. Everyone is always learning something new while working on a job. Unless you go to work and sit in your chair and click the exact same button day after day, you are learning something new. What you are being paid for is to do your job. Not training.
-
I'll chime in here and add my current experience:
I was hired at "sub-level" wages and allowed to learn what I didn't know. Partly because of that, I have gone out of my way to learn as much as I can as quickly as I can.
The other part is just because I want to be excellent at my job and appreciated. I want to be the person in the office everyone is glad to see every morning. Only part of that is personality, most of it is if you make other people's jobs easier for them and that means pulling my own weight at the very least.
Being self taught, there is no reason I cannot be successful that way however, I would point out that after a certain point, the help file is no longer helpful and outside assistance of some sort is necessary. The people here are an excellent resource and, in my opinion, a rare one! I did learn more from the help file than out of the book from my local community college (I didn't go to classes, just read the book). I also got more out of an Autodesk training manual than I did from the help file. Because of those two experiences, I would love to go to an Autodesk gathering of some sort and see what I could glean from that but as far as getting my Associates locally, I am thinking that if the teacher isn't any better than the material, it may not be worth the paper it's printed on.
IMO: It depends on the training as well as the employee and the right training along with the right employee will be worth every penny. The right training with the wrong employee is pointless.
-
From a management point of view, you want to start with the right person. From a personal point of view I like being vary good at what I do. I go out of my way to learn as much as I can to do my job well. All I'm saying about training is to formalize it, Put a cost to it and put in to the overhead cost. I'm not only taking about getting outside training but, if you need to go to a online training video from say Autodesk University that cost go to overhead not the job.
-
Bethrine,
"...after a certain point, the help file is no longer helpful and outside assistance of some sort is necessary."
I disagree. How do you think the trainers learned it all? Trusting training to spoon-feed you exactly what you might need to know is not a good way to learn.
Dave
-
Tortiz,
"You can hide the cost of training but it there. You can say I learned it on my own but, I bet a lot of it was on the job. someone paid for it. You, with time and a computer / internet connection or at work on company time."
Can I share something with you? I've been out of work for almost 2 years. (I'm a carpenter.) Office survey is the direction I want to go. Should I wait until an employer is willing to train me, or should I dig into the Help Section, so that the next job that comes up, I can say, "Hell yeah, I can do that!" Which sort of employee would you want to hire?
Dave
-
Bethrine,
"...after a certain point, the help file is no longer helpful and outside assistance of some sort is necessary."
I disagree. How do you think the trainers learned it all? Trusting training to spoon-feed you exactly what you might need to know is not a good way to learn.
Dave
I agree in the sense that one should not use only one method as a learning resource.
I am guessing that Autodesk trainers have an inside ear to the developers as well as the directions the software is going and an eye toward what users (or maybe purchasers) want to get out of the program.
Where I really wanted assistance, in addition to reading, is on the file systems between using Windows, Inventor Project Tree or Vault for a combined AutoCAD-Inventor system. Also, finding lisp/VBA information is not easy unless you are willing to pay for it or get lucky. (Unless I am missing something here and it is offered in programming classes but not CAD classes?)
-
There is a BOAT LOAD of great LISP information out there, and theSwamp is a FANTASTIC gaggle of experts.
AfroLISP is where I managed to acquire my humble meager knowledge of LISP, while voyeur'ing the LISP threads that pop up here.
-
Bethrine,
"...after a certain point, the help file is no longer helpful and outside assistance of some sort is necessary."
I disagree. How do you think the trainers learned it all? Trusting training to spoon-feed you exactly what you might need to know is not a good way to learn.
Dave
The bad news; many of those 'trainers' are no better than the book they are reading from.
A few have real world experience.
And a thinner slice have not only real world experience, they also have numerous consulting experiences behind them.
Where they learn not only what is actually possible to do with the software, and or how to force it to deliver what
the users expect out of it.
There is a galaxy of difference between the first and the last type.
-
There is a BOAT LOAD of great LISP information out there, and theSwamp is a FANTASTIC gaggle of experts.
AfroLISP is where I managed to acquire my humble meager knowledge of LISP, while voyeur'ing the LISP threads that pop up here.
Awesome! That's the second link I've come across, thank you!! Both links were suggested here. ;-)
Btw, it's AfraLISP :laugh:
The bad news; many of those 'trainers' are no better than the book they are reading from.
.....
There is a galaxy of difference between the first and the last type.
What are the first and last type? ...What's possible with the software vs. how to force it to deliver?
(Side note: I am going to get my Asso. degree in this either way, especially as I already have all of the classes complete except the CAD ones and in the long run the paper looks good if ever I need it as well as being a personal accomplishment for me.)
-
The first type; and I worked with this guy in South Africa
literally reads directly from the courseware and has little if any real world experience.
The Last type - someone with good class room skills, ability to show the tools and
what they do in more than one way. And many consulting experiences from which
they have learned much more than can be gained from a book, or the help files alone.
-
Michael,
I'm sure you are a perfectly fine teacher, but you are starting to sound like a used car salesman which is turning me right off.
-
Michael,
I'm sure you are a perfectly fine teacher, but you are starting to sound like a used car salesman which is turning me right off.
I was answering a question.
Should I ignore a legitimate question?
-
Michael,
I'm sure you are a perfectly fine teacher, but you are starting to sound like a used car salesman which is turning me right off.
I was answering a question.
Should I ignore a legitimate question?
Perhaps, perhaps not, but sometimes trying to win every battle will lose you the war.
-
Interesting set of comments here. So let me drop in a couple of euros worth...
"The thing to remember about a self-made man is that he's the result of unskilled labor."
What one learns on their own is limited to their own experience. This is not to downplay in any sense the initiative and drive that brings people to the fore, but a simple observation. What a person has no exposure to is not something they can learn. To paraphrase Rumsfield, it's an unknown unknown. What one knows about, but doesn't know how to do, is the known unknown.
A training program that takes into account the specific environment, skills, and discipline of the trainees can mitigate that effect to a degree. And having a live human being with experience with the software and the industry is pretty important too. an online html page really is not the same thing as an experienced instructor who can clarify, explain, and expand on the docs.
Bethrine,
"...after a certain point, the help file is no longer helpful and outside assistance of some sort is necessary."
I disagree. How do you think the trainers learned it all? Trusting training to spoon-feed you exactly what you might need to know is not a good way to learn.
Dave
Now it's my turn to disagree. the help files for any software package are inherently limited in what they can accomplish. Remember that the software documentation is generally developed pretty late in the game, when budgets are running down and qa/qc time is limited. That's sorta the nature of the beast -- it can't be documented until it's done. or as close to done as makes no matter. Far to often I've run into vendor documentation that offers a vague description if a feature, and links to another page int eh docs, that offers an equally vague sentence, and then links back to the original page. With AutoCAD online help being 'search drive', the problem is compounded, as one needs to get the right search term, which often requires one to know the answer before asking the question. Just take a look at the Autodesk discussion forums, and see how many posts talk about missing dialogs. But doing a search returns nothing relevant, and none of the responses mention FILEDIA.
Further, the Help can only describe what's in the software. The docs can't offer value judgments or exhaustively describe the benefits/disadvantages of method A vs method B. And I've yet to see CAD documentation from any vendor that really gets into the valuable stuff one has to learn to use the software effectively in a multi-organization multi-discipline scenario, or discuss adapting features to client/agency requirement. They can't get into that level of detail.
But a competent trainer can. An incompetent trainer who's limited to 'learning it all from the help files'can't. CAD Training sessions that are limited to regurgitation of the on-line documentation is really not training worth having. Neither is relying on the vendor docs to 'spoon feed you exactly what you might need to know'.
Tortiz,
"You can hide the cost of training but it there. You can say I learned it on my own but, I bet a lot of it was on the job. someone paid for it. You, with time and a computer / internet connection or at work on company time."
Can I share something with you? I've been out of work for almost 2 years. (I'm a carpenter.) Office survey is the direction I want to go. Should I wait until an employer is willing to train me, or should I dig into the Help Section, so that the next job that comes up, I can say, "Hell yeah, I can do that!" Which sort of employee would you want to hire?
Dave
While I applaud your initiative in proactively digging in and learning what you can on your own, please don't assume that will make you an expert in delivering the end product required. Especially given your current employment status, it's very much worth your time and effort to do that, and yes, I'd much rather hire a go-getter than a chair warmer. But the Help files will not make you an expert in ALTA surveys, nor will they educate you into the 'best' deliverables to hand off to the civil engineers doing the design.
Training will help, experience will help more -- at least in the arena of practice that the survey company deals with. If they primarily focus on ALTA work - it's not going to educate you in FAA requirements or machine control.
Bottom line. in my opinion, go-getters who dig in and learn as much as they can are definitely ahead of the game. But a trainer who offers a broader perspective in the industry as a whole is very worthwhile. And a company that rejects training completely is not a company that cares about their staff member success.
Then again, I haven't had a job since the mid 80s. I've had a career since then so perhaps my perspective is somewhat different from yours.
-
How do the trainers gain their knowledge?
-
How do the trainers gain their knowledge?
The Autodesk vendors literally are given 'course ware' to read from.
However there is no experience to drive them to full and comprehensive understanding of best practices, etc.
As I said before often no better than the book they read from.
Others through a combination of studying the software, and applying it in the wild.
I'll stop before more accusations are cast my way.
-
What one learns on their own is limited to their own experience.
That's such a non-statement that it really erases the foundation of your point. When does anyone learn something that isn't limited to what they experience? Why would self-improvement exclude one from learning from others' experience? Ever read a book you didn't write?
Then again, I haven't had a job since the mid 80s. I've had a career since then
:roll:
-
How do the trainers gain their knowledge?
That depends entirely on the individual trainer and who writes his paycheck. I call two of the biggest names in Autodesk product training friends ... close enough to have at least shared an evening worth of refreshment and discussion over the then current version of Civil 3D ... in different rooms and different times ... cities even ... still one of my best judgement calls ever. One of these gentlemen, while an independent trainer, had participated on the product development team. His depth of knowledge of the product is not in question nor is his ability to share that knowledge with his clients, students and the group of trainers he had brought into his company. My other friend had spent a number of years bending Land Desktop to his will and when the 2004 pre-release of Civil 3D hit the mail boxes, he grabbed his disc and locked himself in his room with it. After the dust had settled, he emerged with proof that to some degree the fool thing worked, what absolutely did NOT worked, which operations would throw an error and what might work to attempt recovery from the various errors ... yes, there were many.
My first friend while technically independent still was tied to the Autodesk corporate desire to go forth with dispensing only certain gems of wisdom with the various levels of training and support purchased and using the approved course ware with designed data sets proven to generate the prescribed results with the given procedure. The second trainer would ask for a set of raw data from a representative project from his client well in advance of the scheduled classes. Any necessary workflow changes were identified straight away. Any known "gotcha"s likely to give surprising results were covered along with how to avoid or recover from with only minimal disruption. I am not sure how my first friend dealt with these issues but I am sure he had some success doing so given his number of satisfied customers. The trouble is there being several corporate teams based with Autodesk vendors not privy to this knowledge and would just recite the course ware script verbatim along with the price list for the next levels of training and support.
-
Cadtag,
"...the help files for any software package are inherently limited..."
Really? And how, exactly, would you know that?
"an online html page really is not the same thing as an experienced instructor who can clarify, explain, and expand on the docs."
Sniff! And when Cadtag looked upon the breadth of his CAD domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.
Dave
-
How do the trainers gain their knowledge?
That depends entirely on the individual trainer and who writes his paycheck. I call two of the biggest names in Autodesk product training friends ... close enough to have at least shared an evening worth of refreshment and discussion over the then current version of Civil 3D ... in different rooms and different times ... cities even ... still one of my best judgement calls ever. One of these gentlemen, while an independent trainer, had participated on the product development team. His depth of knowledge of the product is not in question nor is his ability to share that knowledge with his clients, students and the group of trainers he had brought into his company. My other friend had spent a number of years bending Land Desktop to his will and when the 2004 pre-release of Civil 3D hit the mail boxes, he grabbed his disc and locked himself in his room with it. After the dust had settled, he emerged with proof that to some degree the fool thing worked, what absolutely did NOT worked, which operations would throw an error and what might work to attempt recovery from the various errors ... yes, there were many.
My first friend while technically independent still was tied to the Autodesk corporate desire to go forth with dispensing only certain gems of wisdom with the various levels of training and support purchased and using the approved course ware with designed data sets proven to generate the prescribed results with the given procedure. The second trainer would ask for a set of raw data from a representative project from his client well in advance of the scheduled classes. Any necessary workflow changes were identified straight away. Any known "gotcha"s likely to give surprising results were covered along with how to avoid or recover from with only minimal disruption. I am not sure how my first friend dealt with these issues but I am sure he had some success doing so given his number of satisfied customers. The trouble is there being several corporate teams based with Autodesk vendors not privy to this knowledge and would just recite the course ware script verbatim along with the price list for the next levels of training and support.
How do the trainers gain their knowledge?
The Autodesk vendors literally are given 'course ware' to read from.
However there is no experience to drive them to full and comprehensive understanding of best practices, etc.
As I said before often no better than the book they read from.
Others through a combination of studying the software, and applying it in the wild.
I'll stop before more accusations are cast my way.
So these trainers took written material and basically did self training while working on the system to gain knowledge that they then pass along to other people (for a price).
I see NOTHING wrong with trainers, BUT if they can learn the software to that degree without being trained themselves, then anyone that wants to can do the same thing without needing trainers. This has been stated before in this thread.
Help files, manuals, online courses, trainers, books. They are all viable options to learn more about the software.
-
Problem is you are assuming they have 'learned' the software.
When in fact the only skill they may be demonstrating is the ability
to read and follow directions.
Knowledge and ability to apply it in different cases is a completely different paradigm.
I know small children that can competently read to you from a book.
-
Problem is you are assuming they have 'learned' the software.
When in fact the only skill they may be demonstrating is the ability
to read and follow directions.
Knowledge and ability to apply it in different cases is a completely different paradigm.
I know small children that can competently read to you from a book.
Huh...so are you assuming that people are only competently reading information on how to use the software, but not using that information without someone holding their hands and carefully explaining everything?
-
The thing that get's me the most is when people are managers that don't have the experience to bring the rest of the company to an level of efficiency that makes sense.
Getting back to the OP. This quote is what gets me. Everyone's definition of what "makes sense" is different.
-
Problem is you are assuming they have 'learned' the software.
When in fact the only skill they may be demonstrating is the ability
to read and follow directions.
Knowledge and ability to apply it in different cases is a completely different paradigm.
I know small children that can competently read to you from a book.
Huh...so are you assuming that people are only competently reading information on how to use the software, but not using that information without someone holding their hands and carefully explaining everything?
Actually basing my comment on observations.
And a direct quote from last set of students in Botswana.
"We were very specific that the trainer have abilities like yours, that really knew how to use the software. Not like the last person they sent."
So they were sent someone, that was competent to read from a book, yet not knowledgeable enough about the software
to actually apply it beyond the scope of the book.
So yes I am making that generalization, as I have seen it in the wild. I know it happens, and I know those types of trainers exists.
-
The thing that get's me the most is when people are managers that don't have the experience to bring the rest of the company to an level of efficiency that makes sense.
Getting back to the OP. This quote is what gets me. Everyone's definition of what "makes sense" is different.
Suspecting what I think I know about Mr. Dough; I trust it sufficiently kacked that it must be one bizzarro wolrd he is trying to function in at this point for him to post such a comment.
-
Someone will argue this is not always true but typically reading is the most inefficient way to learn, although reading usually is a better learning tool if reading about a subject already familiar with and have experience with.
The best way to learn is by experimenting and experiencing the subject at matter yourself.
As learning anything you should set what your goals are and amount of time you want to invest.
Quick break down
Fundamentals
Information
Skills
Innovation
They pretty much describe themselves.
Fundamentals and information do not come in that order for example I had to do something once with a Civil3D file and it would be tardish of me to learn fundamentals, read the docs or hire a trainer when I just needed some information I can get quickly get from google or from asking here.
The documentation applies to 2 parts fundamentals and information.
As for getting people up to speed I think its best to do both.
They can read a book and follow tutorial to become familiar with user interface, general workflow, fundamentals of software and terms.
So a trainer does not have to spend time on basic fundamentals.
Lets face it a trainer is not going to push skills and innovation magically in 2 or 3 days,
but either you could read docs, learn yourself and experiment for a couple of years
or take advantage of someone who already has.
A good trainer is someone who has tried different approaches, wondered what happens if I do this, I think this will cause a problem but lets see, has seen many workflows and tested many different scenarios and he has insight on what works and doesn't etc...
I would not shy away from and would encourage doing the books training but absolutely no reason to pay someone to read it for you.(Have been in those courses and will add to your fundamental and information set), but learning from a good trainer will help for building skills and innovation.
Owners want a quick return and just following advice that comes from years experience is worth the investment.
No one can force knowledge in your head but just monkey see monkey do about handling real world projects will be worth the investment for non-motivated employees
-
Jeff H,
"...reading is the most inefficient way to learn"
In the absense of a full-time, affordable, spoon-feeding Mentor, what else is there? And if all the Chosen Ones Mentors are Mentor-ing, and not producing CAD work, then the world is deprived of the best CAD drafters.
I see a trend in this thread. The posters that think it's impossible to learn C3D without "Training" consider themselves to be that indispensable "Mentor". And that makes you stuffy, pedantic, and pompous.
Dave
-
Jeff H,
"...reading is the most inefficient way to learn"
In the absense of a full-time, affordable, spoon-feeding Mentor, what else is there? And if all the Chosen Ones Mentors are Mentor-ing, and not producing CAD work, then the world is deprived of the best CAD drafters.
I see a trend in this thread. The posters that think it's impossible to learn C3D without "Training" consider themselves to be that indispensable "Mentor". And that makes you stuffy, pedantic, and pompous.
Dave
Never said it was impossible.
Who is talking about hiring someone full time.
If someone on staff already has knowledge then why outsource training others?
I do not know if we are on the same page but if there are a group of inexperienced people about a subject training will have its benefit.
If your boss approached you or if your the boss and have many clients wanting projects done with Revit and no one is familiar with Revit.
How would you go about getting a team to a point to be able to produce a project?
-
Jeff H,
"...reading is the most inefficient way to learn"
In the absense of a full-time, affordable, spoon-feeding Mentor, what else is there? And if all the Chosen Ones Mentors are Mentor-ing, and not producing CAD work, then the world is deprived of the best CAD drafters.
I see a trend in this thread. The posters that think it's impossible to learn C3D without "Training" consider themselves to be that indispensable "Mentor". And that makes you stuffy, pedantic, and pompous.
Dave
There is an alternative, as Jeff alluded to.
One can have a person whose role is to keep the company up to speed on what is new, and how best to
include those new things into the project work flow.
Not every company sees the value or can justify having this guy on staff at something like 30/70 split of
billable time. Where he can do billable work (test his ideas), and create training materials,
in the form of PDF's or screen grabs. However not all cad people are equally skilled at drafting as they are teaching.
I've worked with some that are awesome with CAD, however they are not good at teaching, and
sometimes just havel little or no people skills.
Not to take this to a personal level, but I'm wondering which camp you occupy?
The above question is rhetorical and needs no answer.
The next question is real; have you ever attended any autocad training or any other training?
Did you feel you learned something from it, or was it a waste of your time?
Trying to figure out if you hate all
A) training
B) trainers
C) or those you view as lazy
D) or incompetent.
E) All of the Above
-
... I see a trend in this thread. The posters that think it's impossible to learn C3D without "Training" consider themselves to be that indispensable "Mentor". And that makes you stuffy, pedantic, and pompous.
Dave
Exception, please ... exactly when, where and how did I portray myself as any kind mentor? I will give you the stuffy, pedantic and pompous part because it is probably accurate but I have not fired up Civil 3D with the intent to bill time for 6 years ... hence my silence on the boards for most of that time. I would be hard pressed to tell somebody how to turn the blasted thing on these days.
I wonder though, how enamored you would be with your help files and tutorials if you were fresh out of a couple years with Land Desktop or EaglePoint firing up r2005 for the first time and expecting to be productive or the plan production features with r2006 or the dismal pipe works introduced with r2007 with Part Builder famous for trashing your entire install with a simple mistake. Throughout those early years, these new program features were touted in the help and tutorial files with zero warnings or clues regarding what actions would possibly, likely or absolutely result in some calamity guaranteed to keep you busy recovering your model for the next couple hours.
Michael, remember the "save my ass" lisp we commissioned here scripting a save event every minute or two and preserving a series of the backup files in hopes of finding one not doomed by some errant move so as to not lose the entire session? My point is that there are never going to be help or tutorial files that tell you "X" feature does not work yet and will yield a nasty surprise if you try. When a program that is as unstable as early years Civil 3D, any number of things might be the reason hinging one grading object to another will send you into the infamous "power exit" were the prudent tech can access his shortcut to the autosave folder and complicating the diagnostic work searching for a solution. Did that one ever get fixed, Michael?
-
Grading can still be a major pain
IF
One doesn't use some prudent methods and a logical work flow.
Many the organization and student that treat grading like the Ebola virus, something to avoid at any cost.
However, as you might guess there is a way to use gradings in proscribed manner that will
not result in thrashing your file, and or driving you insane.
That isn't in the book, most cover exactly one grading example and move on.
For the South African market showing them how to grade a baseball field was as
relevant as me teaching anyone in the us how to grade a Cricket Field.
Further given the simplicity of the exercise there is much left to learn beyond the extent of that 'lesson'.
-
To me, it's the difference between knowledge of what the program will do and ability to apply that knowledge. I read the entire help file and learned as much as I could. This gave me the ability to do my job. I know what I need to know. However, it is my co-worker here who has given me pointers, that has improved my ability to use what I have learned, my ability to apply the "tool".
I can read books on how to build a house all day long. In the end, I would get the job done and can even get it done right. However, having someone show me how to streamline the work and avoid potential accidents and pitfalls and even add little touches, like cleaning soldered joints or how to get calk to "look clean", brings the work to a whole new level and speed.
Using a hammer will get the nail in the wood but the guy who knows how to use that hammer's weight to advantage gets it done faster and cleaner.
-
Jeff H,
"...reading is the most inefficient way to learn"
In the absense of a full-time, affordable, spoon-feeding Mentor, what else is there? And if all the Chosen Ones Mentors are Mentor-ing, and not producing CAD work, then the world is deprived of the best CAD drafters.
I see a trend in this thread. The posters that think it's impossible to learn C3D without "Training" consider themselves to be that indispensable "Mentor". And that makes you stuffy, pedantic, and pompous.
Dave
While everyone has a different learning style, and one size does not fit all, reading a vendor manual or perusing help docs is probably not the most effective method of learning a complex topic that covers multiple disciplines. Some people do ok with videos, others prefer 3rd party books, but all of the possibilities will work better at imparting knowledge if there's a knowledgeable human being available to intervene when needed. If skipping the human part of that formula is your preference -- fine.
And, while I can understand a level of frustration at being out of work for several years, and trying to get into a new field, there's not a lot of reason for hostility or bashing. The closest thing to an official 'chosen one' would probably be the Autodesk Expert Elites -- AFAIK there are at least 5 of them who browse the swamp, and none of them are deserving of the negativity. If you chose not to go for formal or other education in survey theory and practice, and instead rely on vendor Help, that's not their fault, and they will offer to answer questions and offer the lessons they've learned.
You're also making the elementary mistake that the ability to do something well somehow translates into the ability teach something well. Certainly a teacher needs subject matter expertise, but he needs to have some pedagolgical skill as well. Over the years I've known many good 'doers' who really really sucked at imparting knowledge downhill. And many instructors who taught the courseware and only the courseware. Instructors who can both do well, and teach well, are not always easy to find, but worth it.
I may sound pedantic, that's somewhat of a necessity in technical conversations, but stuffy and pompous? nahhhh...
Cadtag,
"...the help files for any software package are inherently limited..."
Really? And how, exactly, would you know that?
a) by having written a few.
b) by having read a _lot_ of them. good ones help and explain, bad one lead readers down a recursive rabbit hole. & even the best are written with gaps and rushed to get out the door. Just for fun try to learn the FDOT2014 C3D "Way" by using their Help, and see how long it takes to get a set of interchange plans produced.
"an online html page really is not the same thing as an experienced instructor who can clarify, explain, and expand on the docs."
Sniff! And when Cadtag looked upon the breadth of his CAD domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.
Dave
Good classical reference, but I'm no Alexandar -- I always have more to learn and try to understand. I'm hardly so blinded by my own brilliance that I can't see the known unknowns (QTO in C3D for an example of something I know I don't know). and there are always the unknown unknowns -- the thing you don't even know that you don't know. Perfect example: today I learned about a command to manage the display of PDF layers in an attached PDF. Help file would not have been of any use in that, simply because I would not have known to go looking for the command. That capability was an unknown unknown this morning; this afternoon it's a known known.
-
What one learns on their own is limited to their own experience.
That's such a non-statement that it really erases the foundation of your point. When does anyone learn something that isn't limited to what they experience? Why would self-improvement exclude one from learning from others' experience? Ever read a book you didn't write?
I'm perfectly happy to include reading about a topic as expanding the experiential base, as long as it's understood that reading about something is not the same as knowing it. It's the difference between reading a topographic map of Tate's Hell, and hiking across it. It takes actually doing something to incorporate the external information as internal knowledge.
Yo wouldn't expect to be hired as head chef for Emeril's new restaurant if your experience of the culinary arts was just reading the Betty Crocker Cookbook would you?
-
Here is a perfect example of where the 'help' file would fail a user no matter how diligent.
Imagine trying to search or ask help to help you with this question:
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=46835.0 (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=46835.0)
This is where a knowledgeable instructor (mentor) comes in a saves a lot of fruitless searching.
-
I wonder if one can get tennis elbow injuries from patting themselves on the back too frequently.
-
(http://i62.tinypic.com/e1dc77.jpg)
Better?
-
I'm thinking both MP and Josh should take a reading for comprehension class.
The comment I posted wasn't about me, yet somehow they decided it was.
Nowhere in that comment did I say "I am awesome", or "I am a great instructor".
What I was pointing out is that there are instances where the help file would not provide a ready or
easily searched for answer to a software question.
-
Well in their defense you did link to a post that you provided the answer to the issue for. :evil:
-
Well in their defense you did link to a post that you provided the answer to the issue for. :evil:
Thanks for noticing, however it wasn't about me.
It was an example. Irrespective of who provided the answer.
-
Well in their defense you did link to a post that you provided the answer to the issue for. :evil:
Thanks for noticing, however it wasn't about me.
It was an example. Irrespective of who provided the answer.
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=46835.0 (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=46835.0)
This is where a knowledgeable instructor (mentor) comes in a saves a lot of fruitless searching.
k.
-
And here's another example which I alluded to earlier in this discussion
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=46778.0 (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=46778.0)
So it isn't about me, it's about there being times when someone
ANYONE that has the knowledge and being able to impart that knowledge
being a better option to searching the help file.
Others have made the same case.
-
it's about there being times when someone
ANYONE that has the knowledge and being able to impart that knowledge
being a better option to searching the help file.
YES!
Lets leave it at that.