Topic: Management: Bringing Managers and Drafter up to level of exceptable levels

[Jeff H]

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
 




 

[Pointdump]

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]

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?

[mjfarrell]

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

[Dinosaur]

... 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?

[mjfarrell]

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'.

[Bethrine]

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.

[cadtag]

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.

[cadtag]

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?

[mjfarrell]

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

This is where a knowledgeable instructor (mentor) comes in a saves a lot of fruitless searching.

[JNieman]

I wonder if one can get tennis elbow injuries from patting themselves on the back too frequently.

[MP]

Better?

[mjfarrell]

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.

[snownut2]

Well in their defense you did link to a post that you provided the answer to the issue for.   

[mjfarrell]

Well in their defense you did link to a post that you provided the answer to the issue for.   

Thanks for noticing, however it wasn't about me.
It was an example. Irrespective of who provided the answer.