You may not know but, I am among the oldest private CAD users in the nation.
In the early 80’s, I read about a new program called “VersaCAD” that emerged from Huntington Beach, CA.
AutoCAD did not even exist for several more years.
Although commercial systems were being deployed, such as MicroStation, none addressed the small design studio.
I saw VersaCAD as a Godsend.
However, there wasn’t even a readily available computer to run it. The entire PC industry was in its infancy.
That didn’t stop me though.
I lived in Jax, FL with the regional headquarters for IBM. It took several months and many plane trips but, working with IBM’s new PC division, graphics card designers in Orlando, VersaCAD and some forward-thinking banks, we built 2 systems for $10K a pop.
A big deal back then.
I built a heck of a practice on that with 4 employees. It was fabulous, exciting, and cutting-edge.
AutoCAD came out a couple years later. It didn’t hold a candle to VersaCAD for several reasons. They nearly went bankrupt, several times, until they cut a marketing deal with Tandy Corp (Radio Shack). They then went public.
It was genius on their part as VersaCAD was privately held by a single family. AutoCAD simply out marketed them by slashing cost and putting it on racks in stores.
Hence, an inferior product slayed a superior competitor in my opinion. An unfortunate lesson. I have infinitely more detail I could share but, suffice to say it stuck with me until now.
So, I have literally seen this part of the industry evolve from the beginning. I have bought and tested multiple licenses, for 2-3 years each, including Chief Architect, CADsoft and SoftPlan. I have also bought and tested several minor products.
In conclusion, ALL Object-Based CAD system are essentially the same structure.
The only exceptions are AutoCAD products or offshoots that strive to adapt to residential design while keeping an eye to their dominant focus, commercial.
My long and tedious study has resulted in several solid axioms:
- If you understand the construct of “Object-Based CAD”, you can learn any program and be basically proficient as a drafter (employer cost neutral), using only tutorials, in 60 days or less, regardless.
- All Object-Based CAD has 2 functional hemispheres: design and working drawings.
- Of the two, one will generally be a dominant software focus pending the platform.
- Like comfortable shoes, the designer must choose which works best for their practice and preferences.
- For my practice I kept 1 license of the others to service past projects but kept Envisioneer as my primary tool. For my practice, it has the best balance of design and artistic flexibility with a well-balanced working drawing platform. I’m not pushing Envisioneer but simply stating how a choice for us rose from applied research.
- To orient an industry to a tool, based on popularity, is not wise or necessary. In fact, I strongly feel it to be detrimental.
Now let’s talk hiring.
Over the last seven years, we have expended significant resources in my practice analyzing how we traditionally hire, what does the tech pool look like, how software has affected the market, etc. It’s been interesting.
The experience gleaned from our analysis of the process has been priceless. We took that experience and employed it on 3 occasions to hire three different designers/drafters.
We systematically did the following:
- Evaluate each employment candidate’s very basic skillset. We already know there is a shortage of skilled personnel. We must draw from what is there, regardless.
- Do they have any on the job experience? It doesn’t necessarily matter what kind; residential, commercial or engineering.
- Do they want to be in the residential design and construction industry? (Critical)
- How early did they start architectural/mechanical drafting? Some started in high school, others after. CAD proficiency of any kind will serve as a solid base.
- Do they have any formal education? Again not necessary although, for example, Interior Design students generally have solid basic drafting skills and there are thousands of them out of work from a broken “for-profit” education system. They appreciate a way in. Also, foreign nationals are a surprising pool. People with architecture degrees from other countries that are finding no work in the states. Gold.
- The biggee; They must answer the question,” Will you invest in an opportunity for employment if it costs nothing more than time?” They need skin in the game. It matters significantly.
- Once you have a level of comfort that the candidate is malleable, make arrangements for them to access a trial version of your preferred software.
- Have them work the tutorials, on their own time, at their own pace without pay.
- They must check in weekly, on the same day and time, and present their progress by producing a very basic model from the platform tutorials within 4 weeks.
- Allow an additional 2 weeks if necessary but no more.
- If the candidate exhibits a solid level of base proficiency,
- offer them a paid, contract internship paying an appropriate hourly minimum. i.
- Guarantee a minimum work [week] of 20 hours.
- If they show progress producing at break-even for 90 days, employ them and elevate their pay as you see fit, pending their proficiency.
- Continually evaluate them for their personal strengths and adjust their task load to utilize them accordingly. They will become profitable faster and then you can expand their horizons.
- For their first merit raise, If they do not [have] benefits, suggest they join the exchange and reimburse their monthly premium. Usually less than $400.00. Very well received. In our case, 100% of the time.
- For their next merit raise, either increase their hourly or, offer them salary. My experience is salary always wins. However, the job becomes mission focused and performance increases, every time.
- offer them a paid, contract internship paying an appropriate hourly minimum. i.
This has worked without flaw on 3 consecutive occasions with a minimum retention of 2 years per employee thus far.
The point of all of this is simple.
The GPTC course was NOT designed to focus on any brand of software. That’s part of the mess we are in now as an industry. The intent is to focus on the structure and nature of Object-Based CAD.
Then, the graduate is flexible and has greater opportunity.
We should teach critical skills and the “nature” of the available tools.
Every state may teach a different software. However, if properly taught in terms of structure, it doesn’t matter.
Robert Platt is Robert W Platt the Senior Project Designer and Principal at Habitations, LLC, in Atlanta, Georgia. As you can tell by his writing, Robert is very passionate about Residential Design and Construction. Over the last century, this field has become an incredibly complex, costly, and highly regulated process. Truthfully, regulation is good. It has been born from the need to assure the health, safety, and welfare of the consumer considering numerous advances in technology and methodology. Robert seeks to provide consumers with attainable and objective guidance to navigate this process while keeping their best interests as the focus. To that end, he is launching the show, “Nuhaus Knows”, to broadcast via Amazon Fire, Roku, Apple TV, and Samsung Smart TV as well as common phones. The intent of the show is to “re-educate” the consumer about better practices in starting the process for any home building project, whether new construction or renovation. More directly, to reassert the professional Home Designer as the authoritative point of beginning in any such endeavor.