Topic: NEW NATIONAL CADD STANDARDS

[mjfarrell]

Josh,

Here's my secret.  Don't tell anyone.  In my major construction specs, I add the clause, "Contractor shall have on the jobsite at all times, copies of all codes referenced in the construction documents.  In addition, Contractor shall furnish the Engineer with all copies of codes referenced in the construction documents.  A list of the code documents referenced in the contract documents shall be provided to the contractor and such codes shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to start of the work.  Purchase of code documents shall be considered as incidental to the cost of the work and no additional payment will be made for these documents." 

I haven't had to pay for a code book for years.  In the end, our clients pay the contractor for these code books.  Otherwise, their cost would be included in our fees so nothing's really different.

Bob G.

In the end you do not really want to pay for those codes then either, do you?

[Bob Garner]

As Josh notes, in the end, it's the cost of doing business.  Whether it is included in our overhead or in the construction cost, the owner pays, and ideally reaps the benefits of the application of these codes in a safe, reliable structure for his use.

I do pay personally for educational books - I just dropped $152 this morning for books on the application of the new 2006 wind and seismic codes.  So my Mr. Wallet doesn't ride for free in my pants.


Bob G.

[Matt__W]

...doesn't ride for free in my pants.

Insert joke here ^^

[mjfarrell]

I think we are overlooking a little thing here. Until a few year ago there was no organisation trying to force anyone to include this standard in their cost of business.  And lets be completely honest; if some nurb draws an element in a cad file on the wrong layer, with or without the wrong line type no one dies, the building doesn't collapse, and the clients check clears the bank.
As to those other standards drug into the fray, if one specifies the wrong joist on hangerrs, etc then the integrity of the building will suffer and someone might die. In regards MUTC even properly applied those barricade diagrams can STILL get people killed unless a lot of logic is applied on top of the guidelines listed for sign type, size, and spacing per design speeds.

The 'standard' in question does not serve any purpose than to forward the agenda of the committee involved in making it, and then selling it. This particular standard does little to serve health or safety of humanity, and that is what separates them.  In regards those other 'standards' they too should be free, so that they would encourage easier compliance, and inspection.  However as some or most of the money from the sale of those publications, goes back into safety research, and education, I'm OK with that.

[jnieman]

I think we are overlooking a little thing here. Until a few year ago there was no organisation trying to force anyone to include this standard in their cost of business. 

 This particular standard does little to serve health or safety of humanity, and that is what separates them.

So why have CAD standards... at all?  Ever?

[mjfarrell]

I think we are overlooking a little thing here. Until a few year ago there was no organisation trying to force anyone to include this standard in their cost of business. 

 This particular standard does little to serve health or safety of humanity, and that is what separates them.

So why have CAD standards... at all?  Ever?

That is a topic for a whole other discussion.

As we can hint at in this brief: Standards foster ease of use and or interoperability within an organisation.

However no one dies, and thus one should NOT be forced to buy in to follow this particular one.
In the OLD primitive days of cadd if one wanted to work well with another firm, you agreed to and shared a common standard for that job.  It works even today, and no one is forced to buy the standard to use it, because it is a given that using one is better than not.  Paying for such a standard that is not a life, or safety related burden on the cost of doing business is a waste.  Think about it, if I want our job to go smoothly together, we are going to discuss the standard we will use on that job, and i doubt you will be charging me for it, because you know the benefit of having me use your standard if that is the one we decide to use.

[jnieman]

I think we are overlooking a little thing here. Until a few year ago there was no organisation trying to force anyone to include this standard in their cost of business. 

 This particular standard does little to serve health or safety of humanity, and that is what separates them.

So why have CAD standards... at all?  Ever?

That is a topic for a whole other discussion.

As we can hint at in this brief: Standards foster ease of use and or interoperability within an organisation.

However no one dies, and thus one should NOT be forced to buy in to follow this particular one.
In the OLD primitive days of cadd if one wanted to work well with another firm, you agreed to and shared a common standard for that job.  It works even today, and no one is forced to buy the standard to use it, because it is a given that using one is better than not.  Paying for such a standard that is not a life, or safety related burden on the cost of doing business is a waste.  Think about it, if I want our job to go smoothly together, we are going to discuss the standard we will use on that job, and i doubt you will be charging me for it, because you know the benefit of having me use your standard if that is the one we decide to use.

Your life/death argument is ridiculous!  What the heck does that have to do with the origin of costs?  You think standards manuals grow on trees?  This is an independent organization that got together to formulate these standards as a product to sell because there's obviously a demand for it.  I can either spend hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars having a relatively high-wage employee formulate our OWN standards that we distribute freely, or I can spend $50 or whatever... and go by an already formulated and thorough standard that's already completely documented and easily transmitted for a minuscule fee.

It's business... not life or death.

Why life or death has ANYTHING to do with this topic, I have no idea.  It's just completely irrelevant.

[mjfarrell]

do you follow this particular standard?

[jnieman]

do you follow this particular standard?

Relevance?

[mjfarrell]

do you follow this particular standard?

Relevance?

At this point we ask that You be characterized as a hostile witness, and you must answer yes or no questions....with only Yes or No, and that sir is a simple yes or no question:

Do you or does your company strictly follow the standard in question?

[jnieman]

haha


no, we don't, though a couple company's that contract us, do, however, they never required us to follow it, for some reason.  Either they found our drawings to be of sufficient work-a-bility that they were ok with them, or .... I dunno.

Boss had me look into it briefly once, when we started work with those folks.

But we are required to work within all sorts of standards, of varying kinds, life/death and otherwise, and I just don't see this one as being any different.

[mjfarrell]

haha


no, we don't, though a couple company's that contract us, do, however, they never required us to follow it, for some reason.  Either they found our drawings to be of sufficient work-a-bility that they were ok with them, or .... I dunno.

Boss had me look into it briefly once, when we started work with those folks.

But we are required to work within all sorts of standards, of varying kinds, life/death and otherwise, and I just don't see this one as being any different.

So, whereas those other standards are designed and instituted to maintain public safety, and this one is pretty much irrelevant, you still want to pay for it, even though you do not follow it.


I think you make my case for me.

Someone throw the book at him......

[Birdy]

haha

no,

we don't, though a couple company's that contract us, do, however, they never required us to follow it, for some reason.  Either they found our drawings to be of sufficient work-a-bility that they were ok with them, or .... I dunno.

Boss had me look into it briefly once, when we started work with those folks.

But we are required to work within all sorts of standards, of varying kinds, life/death and otherwise, and I just don't see this one as being any different.

stricken from the record. 

<flinging book, thusly>

[jnieman]

Like usual, you fail to read.

Thanks though.

[mjfarrell]

Like usual, you fail to read.

Thanks though.

I read what you typed.

Through yours and your company's behavior you demonstrate the irrelevance of this particular thing that poses as a standard by that fact that you do not follow it.  Am I clear on that?


My argument, and I think you miss it is; this standard would be more widely used and adopted if one did not need to literally 'buy-in' to use it. And that is my argument against charging for it. Most notably due to the fact it does nothing to protect life or property, thus rendering it nonessential. And as you and that other company clearly demonstrate irrelevant, and unnecessary to doing business.

Thus IF autodesk would include full documentation for a standard they imply to support it would gain acceptance.