Re: How are Subscription Costs for Engineering Software and CAD affecting your bottom line?

Conrad,

Very good posting. Thank you for taking the time to do it.

Regards,

H. Daryl Richardson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Conrad Harrison" <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:39 AM
Subject: RE: How are Subscription Costs for Engineering Software and CAD
affecting your bottom line?

> Dennis
>
> My view is that a computer is just an alternative to a pencil and paper: I
> want it to do what I want to do. Acad LT 2000 is just fine for the
> drafting
> activity, and MS Excel for calculations, with MS Word for reports. Then
> all
> can be automated and integrated using VBA, Acad LT doesn't support COM
> automation, but it does have script files (*.scr), these can be generated
> by
> VBA. Most AutoLISP routines simply generate script command language in any
> case (command ...). So unless have to interrogate and extract data from an
> object LISP is not really required, even then may be possible to find a
> way
> using attribute extract for some things.
>
> By using Excel I determine the presentation of the calculations, and the
> inputs and outputs. If lucky can be a step ahead of code changes, making
> use
> of new research and impending code changes ahead of time. Also I cannot
> automatically generate graphs, tables, or iterative solutions using
> off-the-shelf engineering software. And engineering software companies are
> not suppliers they are competition: why finance them to write more user
> friendly software which enables builders and drafters? And if you use
> their
> software then your clients also know what software to use. The preference
> should be that builders, architects, look to you for assistance not
> software. So I consider it better to stick to general purpose tools.
>
> It is not necessary to keep upgrading. I get building designers to save
> drawings in older formats. Here in SA most of those that keep Acad up to
> date would be lucky if they could use the full capabilities of Autosketch.
>
> As for codes of practice the building code of Australia (BCA) is revised
> each and every year. The codes it references however are revised at 5 to
> 10
> year intervals. Plus there are interim periods where old and revised codes
> are acceptable. So currently our earthquake code has been revised, but
> only
> the residential volume of the BCA makes the new code mandatory this year,
> other buildings can be designed to the older code until May next year. If
> there are problems further time may be permitted when the BCA is revised.
> For the most part however, engineers don't use or need the BCA: the
> Australian standards it references are fairly obvious. Engineers simply
> revise the standards they use not the 1000 or more standards referenced by
> the BCA.
>
> It seems that in the US there is a push away from using an apparently
> single
> reference like UBC:1997, with IBC referring to dependent
> codes/specifications like ASCE7-05, AISC, AISI, NDS etc... The change over
> may be expensive if need all material codes at once, but that unlikely and
> the codes obtained on an as needs basis: though that may be one year.
> Those
> codes however likely to be revised at longer intervals than the IBC,
> further
> the changes which do occur should only have minor impact on the way things
> are done. Here the last major change was the change over from permissible
> stress design to limit state: I think limit state finally became the only
> method in 2000. In terms of steelwork, those who complained mainly used
> safe
> load tables, and didn't do calculations direct to the code, once limit
> state
> design capacity tables were released, there was more acceptance. For
> those
> doing calculations the difference was minor.
>
> I don't see engineering libraries or specialised engineering software as a
> productivity tool or competitive advantage. Enercalc may be a good
> program,
> but look at the debate that occurred on the listserver about the delays of
> the update to the new codes. Then there are debates about people checking
> such software to see if it gives the right answers. If create own software
> don't get such delays, and for me the best way to check off-the-shelf
> software is to set up the calculations in Excel. I have frame analysis
> software, but Kleinlogel formulae once setup in Excel are way faster:
> calculate dimension & geometry, load actions, action-effects and check
> member and connection design. Frame analysis software can only determine
> action-effects and check members.
>
> I have a rough policy: first time do with pencil and paper, second time
> copy
> and improve on format of first instance, third time setup in Excel, and
> fourth time put in an iterative loop and determine limitations of
> available
> sections and produce design-curves and tables. The latter once printed out
> removes need for computer, and gets answers far faster. Not everything
> suits
> such approach and some things need individual calculation.
>
> From my viewpoint I have more time than money: if I offer a service I can
> do
> it with pencil and paper, I look to the computer to do it faster. Using
> simple tools I build my own elementary BIM system, it is not as if the
> commercial systems actually have a common file format: and they need to
> export data to other file formats for interfacing with machine tools and
> other specialist software.
>
> I have no intention of upgrading elementary tools. I changed from Quattro
> Pro to Excel 97 because I wanted VBA capability. We only use Excel 2003
> because it came with new computers. What I look for in software is
> increased
> levels of integration, performing more and more in the one package
> attached
> to a 3D graphical model: but I want it to do things my way, not the
> software
> developers way. So the software has to have an automation interface which
> allows me to do my job, my way: unless the software offers a better
> approach. Mostly however I find the reports from commercial software to be
> scrap paper: too much unnecessary information. Further 3D models tend to
> be
> a waste of time generating and analysing: there as to be added value
> inputting all the additional information.
>
> Put simply there are better ways to increase productivity and develop
> competitive advantage than buying off-the-shelf engineering software. For
> example light weight cold-formed steel structures when everyone else is
> using commercial software for heavy hot-rolled steel, or using design
> capacity tables. Cannot take a forklift truck or crane through an existing
> house to install heavy beam: lightweight manual handling is better. More
> detailed drawings making the builder aware of problems, before he gets
> into
> trouble on site.
>
> As for productivity: use less paper, less ink, and do less photocopying by
> producing more concise calculation reports. Don't waste time repeating
> calculations you already know the answer for. Loads are standardised, load
> combinations are standardised, and structural sections and fasteners are
> standardised, and structural form is relatively limited. So find ways to
> present required information to approving authority, in the most compact
> form possible. Allowing more time to spend dealing with real and unqiue
> problems of the current job: which in turn will probably become common
> place
> repetition.
>
> Your productivity also goes hand in hand with that of the builders.
> Unwarranted variety creeping in across designs, not only increases
> fabrication costs but also the cost of design and evaluation of
> suitability.
> By keeping as much as possible the same between projects, and knowing the
> limitations of suitability, time can be saved with assessment and
> detailing,
> and as I said more time is available to deal with the unique features and
> find improved solutions.
>
> In a market economy you always have to be adapting to changes in the
> business environment, noting everything you do changes that environment
> and
> therefore you have to adapt to the changes you yourself have induced as
> well
> as those induced by others.
>
> If you help your clients add value to what they supply, then they attract
> more work, and thus more work flows onto you.
>
> And from another perspective a CNC flexible machining centre is the
> inappropriate tool for machining and threading bolts. Flexible has more
> than
> one meaning, the least desirable is that the machine flexes: tighter
> tolerance bolts can be made faster and more reliably with simpler purpose
> made machines. And still another perspective: assembly lines are slow to
> adapt to new products compared to manufacturing cells. The assembly line
> is
> fine for satisfying initial demand/need as Ford did for cars, but
> eventually
> needs to be replaced by a system better suited to adapting to more
> customised needs to satisfy replacement level demand.
>
> The same goes with engineering software. Off-the-shelf software just makes
> the user like everyone else: buying the software may give you a head start
> in the first instance, but in the long term likely to fall behind. Make
> your
> own tools and you will adapt faster in the long term, but be behind at
> start
> up. It is all a matter of assessing the risks, and making the choices,
> business is a great experiment carried out in the real world: it often has
> unexpected and undesirable results.
>
> My point is don't look to somebody else to supply the tools which have an
> impact on your bottom line. That is if you purchased software to improve
> your bottom line, then any cost increases to maintaining that software
> will
> have an impact on your bottom line. As an engineer your skills should be
> having an impact on your bottom line: and such should achieve far greater
> benefits than somebody else's program.
>
> Of course in developing Multi-Lat you probably don't want this viewpoint:
> you prefer people to buy/use your product. After all selling Multi-Lat or
> other software gets one engineering team's perspective on design applied
> to
> many projects across the country and across the world: used on projects
> they
> wouldn't otherwise generate income from.
>
> Thus software development can be an extension of the engineering services
> provided, which is why software suppliers are competitors not suppliers.
>
> Whilst software with a programmable interface is updated by users way
> ahead
> of the developers, and by third parties, so upgrades only of real value if
> the developers have tweaked something beyond the reach of users and the
> programmable interface. New users are dwindling, and existing users
> choosing
> to upgrade are also dwindling, and entirely different products and
> approaches are available at much lower prices. The simple approach to
> reduced product sales is to increase upgrade pricing in an attempt to
> maintain expected income. It will in the main lead to further reduction in
> sales. Continuous improvement is a nonsense philosophy; a business needs
> to
> be capable of adapting. Products have limited lifecycles and the suppliers
> need to have new products to come online as demand for traditional
> products
> tapers off. The software developers need to produce more user friendly
> software, more customised to the needs of the users, or more flexible
> software more capable of being customised by the user. Drafters, builders,
> and building designers, fabricators, construction contractors and building
> owners represent a far bigger market than architects and engineers.
>
> Should not forget that engineering is a means to an end: and should never
> become an end in itself. The compliant you have about codes of practice
> and
> software, are similar to complaints held by builders: why do they need an
> engineer?
>
> Engineering exists to assist turn concept into reality safely. The
> division
> of labour between architect, engineer, drafter, and builder generates
> risk.
> Software which both constrains and enables the builder helps minimise the
> risk. For example software can simply flag problems requiring solution by
> an
> engineer, or for the builder or owner to adopt another approach compatible
> with the model supported by the software. Better for a builder to remove a
> beam in software and have floor fall on their head, rather than remove
> real
> beam. Software can push planning, and design into areas where it wasn't
> otherwise carried out. At the same time however, such software also
> decreases the demand for engineering services direct from engineers
> operating elsewhere. For example contractors may use ArchiCAD for material
> take-off even though receive paper drawings. Whilst department stores use
> the same software for store layout and walk through. These users fuel a
> demand for architects to be using such software at design time. But these
> other users, dealing with existing are greater in number than designers
> dealing with new. These alternative applications can also be taken more
> slowly, than the main intended application of design of new. In turn these
> new users will push more features into the software, such as evaluation of
> proposal through engineering calculation. But hidden in the background,
> the
> technical details of the calculations are irrelevant to the user: they
> just
> need to know whether their proposal does or does not work.
>
> And a word of warning things tend to grow exponentially. So each new
> software product introduced into the market, will spawn a variety of
> alternative competing forms, and each of those in turn will spawn more
> forms. Each decreasing the demand for architects and engineers, and the
> demand for the original product forms. Which by the way architects and
> engineers are manufactured artificial products. Just as a gas mantel
> fitter
> can be replaced by a machine churning out electric light bulbs/globes: so
> too can the engineer be replaced by a machine. Thinking you cannot be
> replaced won't stop it from happening.
>
> In a market driven economy every business is a higher more complex form of
> life, a highly specialised species with its own niche food supply: its
> market. To be an engineer is just to be one off many: little value. If an
> engineer is required then any will do. Only when Dennis Wish is the
> solution
> to the problem, is your business of value in its own right. But then sale
> of
> such business will result in it loosing its main value.
>
> The industrial food chain is massive and complex, analysing the
> interactions
> in such network to determine which pathways have the most flow would be
> interesting but difficult. Especially determining whether pushing prices
> up
> or down will generate more flow in a given direction. Higher prices can
> increase sales if value and quality is apparent. The cost of quality has
> to
> be appropriate to the needs of the individual. Often engineers perception
> of
> quality is an unrealistic ideal, beyond the reach of ordinary people.
>
> My advice is to apply your critical eye for timber design to your own
> business, and you will probably find a multitude of simple things you can
> do
> to eliminate unnecessary cost, improve quality, and add value, which also
> adds value to your client's products, which in turn increases their sales
> with flow on to yourself. The end-users want buildings, not documents,
> what
> the builder does is therefore more important than what engineers and
> architects do. The engineer's task is to assist the process of turning
> dreams into reality. Think more about how you can assist the builder, than
> keeping building officials happy.
>
> I should think your experience, and knowing the answers, is more value to
> your clients than any software you may or may not use.
>
> But that's just my disorderly perspective.
>
>
> Regards
> Conrad Harrison
> B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
> mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
> Adelaide
> South Australia
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *

http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*

http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********