What's that noise? It's a delicate, almost musical sound, like a light falling of rain, only slightly more metallic. Could it be the sound of pennies dropping in boardrooms across the AEC industry?
For too long, CAD has been seen as a bit of a pariah within many architectural & engineering firms. The poor cousin; the whinging child in the corner. CAD 'Managers' are dismissed as slightly odd creatures, always working late (unpaid), often crawling around under desks with a pen or mini-screwdriver firmly planted behind one ear, slightly dishevelled, with odd socks and bits of network cable dangling around their necks like ill-conceived costume jewellery. And I use the term 'Manager' lightly, because how many firms actually extend their CAD leaders the courtesy of a senior management position? And yet, they are often the unsung heroes (or heroines) of their firm. Try being without them for a week and see what anarchy ensues!
But lately, it would seem, perhaps as a necessity brought about by the decline in our collective economic fortunes, that things are starting to change. There is a shift in the breeze and senior AEC management are waking up to the idea that CAD (and more likely BIM) might actually be a bit more relevant than they first thought. And furthermore, it might even be the very thing that keeps them in business long enough to enjoy the inevitable upswing in the economy.
Because what is the main deliverable of an architectural firm? Designing buildings, you say? No! The chief deliverable for an architect - it's 'product', if you will - is working drawings, production information, models! Ditto for engineers. And what medium do they use to create said products? That's right - CAD (or latterly BIM) software.
So the firms who have had their lightbulb moment, their penny dropping experience if you will, are now involving CAD & BIM not just at the periphery of their offices - but at the very heart of their enterprise. Not just as another costly, balance-sheet-sucking IT resource, but as a business critical investment that can be the difference between bids won and lost.
Take, for example, clients such as ASDA or the Army Corps, who are now specifying BIM tools as part of their project briefs. Without the ability to demonstrate proficiency in these tools, firms won't even make the long-list, let alone the short-list for future work.
CADsmart finds itself at the heart of this technology debate. Consider the following testimonial from one of our large customers (400+ users, multiple offices, mix of Autodesk & Bentley tools);
“CADsmart is fundamental in the assessment of CAD abilities for existing and potential staff. It provides increased business awareness of current skill-sets, records valuable cross office KPIs and enables management to better resource and deliver training within budgets. It improves business efficiency, productivity and profitability, enabling staff to gain skills and confidence to the mutual benefit of all concerned. It enables line managers to better assess their teams’ skills and contributes to annual staff reviews. The business is able to recognise and reward the best staff whilst encouraging them to become mentors to others. It fosters a healthy competitive environment amongst staff and establishes a desire for self improvement. CADsmart drives capital investment in CAD/BIM technologies and has become an important business management, analysis and ROI tool.”
Not surprisingly, this firm has posted some of the highest test scores amongst our large customers. It has a well managed CAD & BIM resource, which sits at the heart of the business - and which has the attention of senior management.
Could this be the model for all firms to follow, as we head down the road to BIM? How seriously does your leadership take their commitment to CAD & BIM?
Rory
Friday, 20 February 2009
Monday, 2 February 2009
Recession - a good time for CAD & BIM training?
As the recessionary typhoon continues unabated, drawing us all into its swirling centre, the question of staff development crops up time and again.
It seems as if everyone is looking at their budgets to see how they can be reduced. In most firms, financial controllers are looking at training budgets and assessing the benefits of immediately using some of the funds elsewhere or removing them all together! It is a difficult situation and one that presents CAD & HR Managers, and others responsible for training staff, with a serious challenge. How can they reach their targets - and keep projects on track - if their workforce is under-developed?
In Britain, the Learning Skills Council is encouraging businesses to take advantage of government funding for training, which may increase motivation and productivity; "Those (businesses) that make the right investment in training and development will be in a much better place when we come out of the recession. Training is one of the cornerstones of any successful business today, as it makes the organisation adaptable to change and therefore more productive. The last thing you should do is cut your training; now is not the time to lose employees to competition."
Research from the Cranfield School of Management shows that it is cheaper and more effective to 'grow your own' employees rather than shop around for talent. Cranfield's 'Nurturing Talent' report, which canvassed the views of 1,200 training and recruitment decision makers, found that three quarters of employers would rather nurture and develop talent in-house than recruit externally.
Almost half of small and medium sized businesses that develop in-house talent noted a cost saving, 20% recorded improved staff motivation and 45% increased employee retention. The report concludes; "For employers, the nurturing talent concept means managing and developing employees to achieve business goals. This could include training, employee coaching, staff mentoring and job enrichment to stretch employees with new tasks."
A leading US business performance coach states simply; "Train intensively in tough times... and less so in good times. In good times you want employees to be working hard, setting new performance records and serving customers; taking advantage of the good times. Prepare for the good times with intense internal training in tough times - you won't get a better opportunity!"
From our experience at CADsmart, we see AEC firms falling into two distinct categories; those who 'get it' and those who don't. The ones who do understand these principles have a rolling, continuous improvement environment for their CAD & BIM teams, including regular assessment, targeted training, buddying & mentoring schemes - and a clear path from basic skills through to advanced CAD & BIM applications for projects.
The ones who don't, seem to be taking more of a head-in-the-sand approach to their planning. They cut skills assessment from their priority list, along with training & development programs. Their rationale? We're not hiring, so we don't need skills evaluations. These same firms, when it comes to the unfortunate position of letting people go, have no real clue who their best - most productive - users are! They slice 5%, 10%, 20% from their payrolls - losing super-users alongside inefficient ones - without thought for the medium-term consequences!
Sensible business leaders are keen to keep staff motivated at all times. Good leadership is critical during times of fear, uncertainty and pessimism such as these. Companies need leaders who can manage their emotions, stay positive and show resolve. Providing development through internal mentoring, using senior users to mentor less experienced colleagues, can be very effective especially if salaries and promotion are temporarily pegged. The best CAD users will stay only if they are receiving development.
So, when faced with that budget challenge from your FD or CFO, make the case as strongly as you can that your training resources should take priority - and your training programs should be tailored and targeted. If you can achieve this - you can guarantee it will be effective.
Rory
It seems as if everyone is looking at their budgets to see how they can be reduced. In most firms, financial controllers are looking at training budgets and assessing the benefits of immediately using some of the funds elsewhere or removing them all together! It is a difficult situation and one that presents CAD & HR Managers, and others responsible for training staff, with a serious challenge. How can they reach their targets - and keep projects on track - if their workforce is under-developed?
In Britain, the Learning Skills Council is encouraging businesses to take advantage of government funding for training, which may increase motivation and productivity; "Those (businesses) that make the right investment in training and development will be in a much better place when we come out of the recession. Training is one of the cornerstones of any successful business today, as it makes the organisation adaptable to change and therefore more productive. The last thing you should do is cut your training; now is not the time to lose employees to competition."
Research from the Cranfield School of Management shows that it is cheaper and more effective to 'grow your own' employees rather than shop around for talent. Cranfield's 'Nurturing Talent' report, which canvassed the views of 1,200 training and recruitment decision makers, found that three quarters of employers would rather nurture and develop talent in-house than recruit externally.
Almost half of small and medium sized businesses that develop in-house talent noted a cost saving, 20% recorded improved staff motivation and 45% increased employee retention. The report concludes; "For employers, the nurturing talent concept means managing and developing employees to achieve business goals. This could include training, employee coaching, staff mentoring and job enrichment to stretch employees with new tasks."
A leading US business performance coach states simply; "Train intensively in tough times... and less so in good times. In good times you want employees to be working hard, setting new performance records and serving customers; taking advantage of the good times. Prepare for the good times with intense internal training in tough times - you won't get a better opportunity!"
From our experience at CADsmart, we see AEC firms falling into two distinct categories; those who 'get it' and those who don't. The ones who do understand these principles have a rolling, continuous improvement environment for their CAD & BIM teams, including regular assessment, targeted training, buddying & mentoring schemes - and a clear path from basic skills through to advanced CAD & BIM applications for projects.
The ones who don't, seem to be taking more of a head-in-the-sand approach to their planning. They cut skills assessment from their priority list, along with training & development programs. Their rationale? We're not hiring, so we don't need skills evaluations. These same firms, when it comes to the unfortunate position of letting people go, have no real clue who their best - most productive - users are! They slice 5%, 10%, 20% from their payrolls - losing super-users alongside inefficient ones - without thought for the medium-term consequences!
Sensible business leaders are keen to keep staff motivated at all times. Good leadership is critical during times of fear, uncertainty and pessimism such as these. Companies need leaders who can manage their emotions, stay positive and show resolve. Providing development through internal mentoring, using senior users to mentor less experienced colleagues, can be very effective especially if salaries and promotion are temporarily pegged. The best CAD users will stay only if they are receiving development.
So, when faced with that budget challenge from your FD or CFO, make the case as strongly as you can that your training resources should take priority - and your training programs should be tailored and targeted. If you can achieve this - you can guarantee it will be effective.
Rory
Monday, 26 January 2009
All things BIM
I just finished reading an interesting offering from McGraw Hill's Construction division; it's a 'SmartMarket' report on Building Information Modeling - and quite an insightful read!
The report has a number of commercial sponsors, notably Autodesk, but in fairness it does try to remain vendor neutral for the most part.
Having spent my $25 USD plus £27 USD postage (!) with ACEC for a hard copy, I noticed this morning that a full PDF copy is now available online.
Worth a look, I'd say.
http://nbims.opengeospatial.org/files/index.php?artifact_id=1692
Rory
The report has a number of commercial sponsors, notably Autodesk, but in fairness it does try to remain vendor neutral for the most part.
Having spent my $25 USD plus £27 USD postage (!) with ACEC for a hard copy, I noticed this morning that a full PDF copy is now available online.
Worth a look, I'd say.
http://nbims.opengeospatial.org/files/index.php?artifact_id=1692
Rory
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
The legacy of Empire
Imperial [im-peer-ee-uhl] : Of, like, or pertaining to an empire. Of or belonging to the British Imperial System of weights and measures.
I was disappointed to watch Mr Obama's inaugural speech yesterday to see he had missed something that would be high on my agenda, up there with the world financial crisis (which has its own logo on BBC news) and the war in Iraq (which thankfully doesn't).
I'm calling for the immediate abolishment of Imperial measurements. They are clunky, ugly, unintuitive, awkward, cumbersome and antiquated. Only a few weeks ago I was an opinionated bystander on this subject, but having recently prepared our first set of Imperial models for our Revit test I feel a little more qualified. All I can say is three cheers to France and Europe for the metric system, who dragged us Brits into the modern world by the scruffs of our necks in the 70's and 80's prior to the advent of mass computerisation.
But perhaps it's too late for America? Is it now so ingrained that 'going metric' is near-impossible? May be, but perhaps the White House should consider the origin of Imperial measurements, as implied by the name.
They were established by the British Empire in 1824, a full nine years before the abolition of slavery, and 48 years after American independence. Surely Mr Obama would like to shake off this legacy?
By the way, here's a smiley face in case you think I'm serious :)
Ed
Monday, 19 January 2009
Green shoots? Not yet!
Clearly the economy is at the forefront of everyone's mind these days, which is understandable. We've noticed a number of small trends during the past few months, which indicate that the 'green shoots' mentioned in the British media this week may just be a teensy bit premature!
AEC firms are still at the sharp end of the crunch, with some faring better than others. It seems that those firms with a mix of projects and locations, whilst still feeling the pain, are better geared to cope with the downturn than those with all their eggs in one project sector or country basket. Architects continue to struggle with their business models, more so than their engineering counterparts, it would seem. 'Cost-cutting' is rife, along with downsizing of staff numbers, which is unfortunate, but I suppose necessary.
Another problem appears to be that of simply getting paid for work or services delivered. UK Government guidelines state the importance of paying all invoices within 30 days of receipt, unless a longer payment period has been agreed or the amount billed is in dispute. These days, most UK firms appear to pay on closer to 60 days, and large firms are the worst offenders! This causes a ripple effect throughout the economy, where smaller suppliers have to expend their energies chasing debts, instead of generating new income, and in turn are forced to pay their own creditors late.
It's a vicious circle - and don't expect any help from the banks; I spoke to a 'Relationship Manager' last week at a large British Bank (3rd largest in the UK) and their advice was simple; 'Stretch your creditors as far as you can'(!!) So the banks, in their efforts to make record profits, single handedly wipe out much of the existing world economy as we know it; they go cap-in-hand to their respective Governments for a taxpayer 'bail-out', they take advantage of falling interest rates, at the expense of businesses and home-owners (by not passing on the full rate cuts), and when you ask for their opinion on cash flow their advice is simple - don't pay your bills! Great!
In fairness, I think the picture appears to be different in the US, because every deal we've done in the past year Stateside - every deal - has paid their bill either on time, or ahead of the 30 day terms. What a difference in attitude! Hopefully with the incoming President this week, we'll start to see more of an upward spiral happening in the global economy, led by the US stimulus package currently under discussion. ENR posted an interesting article about a breakdown of the money last week: http://enr.construction.com/business_management/finance/2009/0116-StimulusBillBreakdown.asp.
But receiving an injection of capital is only part of the answer. The former Trade Minister Lord Jones, when describing the efficiency of the British Civil Service, told the Commons Public Administration Committee in the UK this week; "Frankly the job could be done with half as many (people). It could be more productive, more efficient, it could deliver a lot more value for money for the taxpayer."
As well as securing new deals or lines of credit, it is still vitally important for firms to focus on productivity, and delivering more efficiency from less resource; particularly on projects where taxpayers' money is on the line. And let's face it - that's most of the new projects in the pipeline!
My read on the market, for what it's worth, is that we seem to be bottoming out on the worst of the slide, and will soon start the slow climb back up to 'normal' trading conditions, which are still 18 months away. It is my strong belief that by helping each other, we'll all survive this economic downturn in one piece - and hopefully be a little bit wiser than we were before!
Rory
AEC firms are still at the sharp end of the crunch, with some faring better than others. It seems that those firms with a mix of projects and locations, whilst still feeling the pain, are better geared to cope with the downturn than those with all their eggs in one project sector or country basket. Architects continue to struggle with their business models, more so than their engineering counterparts, it would seem. 'Cost-cutting' is rife, along with downsizing of staff numbers, which is unfortunate, but I suppose necessary.
Another problem appears to be that of simply getting paid for work or services delivered. UK Government guidelines state the importance of paying all invoices within 30 days of receipt, unless a longer payment period has been agreed or the amount billed is in dispute. These days, most UK firms appear to pay on closer to 60 days, and large firms are the worst offenders! This causes a ripple effect throughout the economy, where smaller suppliers have to expend their energies chasing debts, instead of generating new income, and in turn are forced to pay their own creditors late.
It's a vicious circle - and don't expect any help from the banks; I spoke to a 'Relationship Manager' last week at a large British Bank (3rd largest in the UK) and their advice was simple; 'Stretch your creditors as far as you can'(!!) So the banks, in their efforts to make record profits, single handedly wipe out much of the existing world economy as we know it; they go cap-in-hand to their respective Governments for a taxpayer 'bail-out', they take advantage of falling interest rates, at the expense of businesses and home-owners (by not passing on the full rate cuts), and when you ask for their opinion on cash flow their advice is simple - don't pay your bills! Great!
In fairness, I think the picture appears to be different in the US, because every deal we've done in the past year Stateside - every deal - has paid their bill either on time, or ahead of the 30 day terms. What a difference in attitude! Hopefully with the incoming President this week, we'll start to see more of an upward spiral happening in the global economy, led by the US stimulus package currently under discussion. ENR posted an interesting article about a breakdown of the money last week: http://enr.construction.com/business_management/finance/2009/0116-StimulusBillBreakdown.asp.
But receiving an injection of capital is only part of the answer. The former Trade Minister Lord Jones, when describing the efficiency of the British Civil Service, told the Commons Public Administration Committee in the UK this week; "Frankly the job could be done with half as many (people). It could be more productive, more efficient, it could deliver a lot more value for money for the taxpayer."
As well as securing new deals or lines of credit, it is still vitally important for firms to focus on productivity, and delivering more efficiency from less resource; particularly on projects where taxpayers' money is on the line. And let's face it - that's most of the new projects in the pipeline!
My read on the market, for what it's worth, is that we seem to be bottoming out on the worst of the slide, and will soon start the slow climb back up to 'normal' trading conditions, which are still 18 months away. It is my strong belief that by helping each other, we'll all survive this economic downturn in one piece - and hopefully be a little bit wiser than we were before!
Rory
Saturday, 10 January 2009
This just gets gooder and gooder!
I managed to have a few days off over the Christmas holidays this time around, which was great. No emails, no phone calls, no spreadsheets, just good company, (too much) good food and drink, time relaxing with family - all good stuff.
My two year old daughter made me smile amidst a tornado of shredded wrapping paper on Christmas morning. When her mum asked her if she had everything she wanted from Santa, she shrieked, 'This gets gooder and gooder!'. Naturally, we fell about, but the phrase stuck.
As with all software products, they're never really finished, as such; there's always more that can be developed, especially with great customer ideas streaming in for each new release. CADsmart is no different in this respect. But during my holiday down-time, I indulged in a bit of reflection about the past 5 years or so, back to the early days of our fledgling attempts to capture reliable metrics on how people use CAD. Things have moved on a bit since then, and everything on our original wishlist of features is now live in the current software - something we could only dream about back in the day.
Just last year, we completed a major upgrade of our core architecture, adopting the latest programming technology and web services functionality, to make our user journey that much smoother. We also undertook and delivered our first Revit release, which was challenging, but extremely rewarding.
During a web demo to leading US-based CAD consultant Robert Green last week, it suddenly dawned on me that, based on the enthusiastic feedback we received, we have actually created a damn fine piece of technology! And not just our software, which is world-class in the skills assessment field.
The lightbulb moment for me was more to do with the feedback we received on the quality and range of performance metrics which are created when the skills assessments are completed and uploaded to our customer 'dashboard' - a secure online login area where customers can access and interrogate their results data. In fact, the comment was made by Robert that the testing software is really just a tiny part of the big picture - and he's absolutely right! The testing phase is just a means to and end - it's the capturing of the CAD performance data for individuals, teams, offices and whole companies, which is the key.
We've been working hard on providing innovative and useful ways for our customers to engage with and apply their CAD metrics to improving performance across their respective organisations. In the next couple of weeks, we go live with even more functionality for CAD Managers and administrators to present CAD skills data in more of a 'management' context. We're excited at some of the new features, particularly when I look back at how some of the data was presented (using Excel and Word!) just a few short years ago.
In addition, our training reports now dovetail neatly into corresponding web-training sessions from Evolve (http://www.evolve-consultancy.com) and E-Learning classes from 4D (http://www.cadlearning.com/) which adds even more value to our user base.
To quote a wise-beyond-her-years toddler, this business 'just keeps getting gooder and gooder!' :)
Rory
My two year old daughter made me smile amidst a tornado of shredded wrapping paper on Christmas morning. When her mum asked her if she had everything she wanted from Santa, she shrieked, 'This gets gooder and gooder!'. Naturally, we fell about, but the phrase stuck.
As with all software products, they're never really finished, as such; there's always more that can be developed, especially with great customer ideas streaming in for each new release. CADsmart is no different in this respect. But during my holiday down-time, I indulged in a bit of reflection about the past 5 years or so, back to the early days of our fledgling attempts to capture reliable metrics on how people use CAD. Things have moved on a bit since then, and everything on our original wishlist of features is now live in the current software - something we could only dream about back in the day.
Just last year, we completed a major upgrade of our core architecture, adopting the latest programming technology and web services functionality, to make our user journey that much smoother. We also undertook and delivered our first Revit release, which was challenging, but extremely rewarding.
During a web demo to leading US-based CAD consultant Robert Green last week, it suddenly dawned on me that, based on the enthusiastic feedback we received, we have actually created a damn fine piece of technology! And not just our software, which is world-class in the skills assessment field.
The lightbulb moment for me was more to do with the feedback we received on the quality and range of performance metrics which are created when the skills assessments are completed and uploaded to our customer 'dashboard' - a secure online login area where customers can access and interrogate their results data. In fact, the comment was made by Robert that the testing software is really just a tiny part of the big picture - and he's absolutely right! The testing phase is just a means to and end - it's the capturing of the CAD performance data for individuals, teams, offices and whole companies, which is the key.
We've been working hard on providing innovative and useful ways for our customers to engage with and apply their CAD metrics to improving performance across their respective organisations. In the next couple of weeks, we go live with even more functionality for CAD Managers and administrators to present CAD skills data in more of a 'management' context. We're excited at some of the new features, particularly when I look back at how some of the data was presented (using Excel and Word!) just a few short years ago.
In addition, our training reports now dovetail neatly into corresponding web-training sessions from Evolve (http://www.evolve-consultancy.com) and E-Learning classes from 4D (http://www.cadlearning.com/) which adds even more value to our user base.
To quote a wise-beyond-her-years toddler, this business 'just keeps getting gooder and gooder!' :)
Rory
Monday, 5 January 2009
Egon Brunswick's 'Lens Model of Perception'
An obscure title for a CAD blog post, you might think!
In 1937 Professor Egon Brunswick conceived of a model of social perception, called the "Lens Model". The essence of the Lens is this, "What we think we see in others will determine, for the most part, how we will treat them and respond to them. The accuracy of what we think we see will dictate the appropriateness of the behaviour we utilize or the actions we take and the resulting productivity of the relationship."
As humans, we demonstrate the same behaviour in all aspects of life, not just in respect of how we see other people, per se, but in just about everything. We tend to develop pre-conceived ideas about all manner of topics (rightly or wrongly) and form opinions on them instantly when the subject is raised. In effect, we view everything in life through our own personal 'lens', based on a combination our experiences up to that point.
OK, enough of the psychology 101 - which brings me to my point! I had a good chuckle last week upon reading a post on Autodesk's discussion forum. The poster asked, 'Has anyone used this (CADsmart software)? If so, can you give me your opinion on it?'
A perfectly valid question, you might point out - which of course it is. The replies, however, demonstrated some interesting facets about the personalities of people who frequent these boards. Of the replies posted, only one had actually read the question fully - 'has anyone used the software?' i.e. can they give me an opinion based on the facts, not personal opinion based on heresay, ego, etc. etc. This person had used the software, and replied with an honest, positive account of their experience.
The remainder simply seemed to want to vent their collective CAD spleen on the virtues (or lack thereof) of testing CAD skills in general, based purely on their own personal biases on the subject (their 'lens' if you will). Not surprisingly, none had anything particularly positive to relay, but were nevertheless happy to share their (ill-researched) opinions with the world - don't they always?!
The most amusing post stated, in apparent horror, '$500 for a 10 minute test ? WOW ! I can't imagine anyone spending thousands of dollars to find out which candidate performed the best on a ten minute test. The money might be better spent hiring an private investigator to check out their resume!'
Which is funny up to a point, but demonstrates only a partial grasp of the facts and a huge (incorrect) assumption, which they were happy to splash all over the discussion boards.
Oh, and for the record, the $497 subscription for our Xpress software, which does indeed take 10-20 minutes to complete, offers unlimited assessments for a whole year - slightly better value, wouldn't you think? And for a more detailed assessment, including training needs analysis on a user's weak areas, the Premier service typically costs $10 - $60 per user per year, depending on the firm size.
Happy New Year!
Rory
In 1937 Professor Egon Brunswick conceived of a model of social perception, called the "Lens Model". The essence of the Lens is this, "What we think we see in others will determine, for the most part, how we will treat them and respond to them. The accuracy of what we think we see will dictate the appropriateness of the behaviour we utilize or the actions we take and the resulting productivity of the relationship."
As humans, we demonstrate the same behaviour in all aspects of life, not just in respect of how we see other people, per se, but in just about everything. We tend to develop pre-conceived ideas about all manner of topics (rightly or wrongly) and form opinions on them instantly when the subject is raised. In effect, we view everything in life through our own personal 'lens', based on a combination our experiences up to that point.
OK, enough of the psychology 101 - which brings me to my point! I had a good chuckle last week upon reading a post on Autodesk's discussion forum. The poster asked, 'Has anyone used this (CADsmart software)? If so, can you give me your opinion on it?'
A perfectly valid question, you might point out - which of course it is. The replies, however, demonstrated some interesting facets about the personalities of people who frequent these boards. Of the replies posted, only one had actually read the question fully - 'has anyone used the software?' i.e. can they give me an opinion based on the facts, not personal opinion based on heresay, ego, etc. etc. This person had used the software, and replied with an honest, positive account of their experience.
The remainder simply seemed to want to vent their collective CAD spleen on the virtues (or lack thereof) of testing CAD skills in general, based purely on their own personal biases on the subject (their 'lens' if you will). Not surprisingly, none had anything particularly positive to relay, but were nevertheless happy to share their (ill-researched) opinions with the world - don't they always?!
The most amusing post stated, in apparent horror, '$500 for a 10 minute test ? WOW ! I can't imagine anyone spending thousands of dollars to find out which candidate performed the best on a ten minute test. The money might be better spent hiring an private investigator to check out their resume!'
Which is funny up to a point, but demonstrates only a partial grasp of the facts and a huge (incorrect) assumption, which they were happy to splash all over the discussion boards.
Oh, and for the record, the $497 subscription for our Xpress software, which does indeed take 10-20 minutes to complete, offers unlimited assessments for a whole year - slightly better value, wouldn't you think? And for a more detailed assessment, including training needs analysis on a user's weak areas, the Premier service typically costs $10 - $60 per user per year, depending on the firm size.
Happy New Year!
Rory
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Benchmarking - what's it all about?
Benchmarking is the process of comparing the cost, time or quality of what one organization does against what another organization does. The result is often a business case for making changes in order to make improvements. Also referred to as "best practice benchmarking" or "process benchmarking", it is a process used in management where organizations evaluate various aspects of their processes in relation to best practice, usually within their own sector. This then allows organizations to develop plans on how to make improvements or adopt best practice, with the aim of increasing performance.
The most prominent methodology is the 12 stage approach by Robert Camp (who literally wrote the book on benchmarking in 1989). It consists of;
1. Select subject 2. Define the process 3. Identify potential partners 4. Identify data sources 5. Collect data and select partners 6. Determine the gap 7. Establish process differences 8. Target future performance 9. Communicate 10. Adjust goal 11. Implement 12. Review / recalibrate.
Benchmarking can take various guises:
Process benchmarking - a firm focuses its observation and investigation of business processes with a goal of identifying and observing the best practices from one or more benchmark firms. Activity analysis will be required where the objective is to benchmark cost and efficiency.
Financial benchmarking - a company performs a financial analysis and compares the results in an effort to assess overall competitiveness.
Performance benchmarking - allows a firm to assess their competitive position by comparing products and services with those of target firms.
Product benchmarking - the process of designing new products or upgrades to current ones. This process can sometimes involve reverse engineering competitors’ products to find strengths and weaknesses.
Strategic benchmarking - involves observing how others compete. This type is usually not industry specific, meaning it is best to look at other industries.
Functional benchmarking - a company will focus its benchmarking on a single function in order to improve the operation of that particular function, i.e. Human Resources, Finance and ICT.
Internal benchmarking - involves benchmarking businesses or operations from within the same organisation (e.g. business units in different countries).
External benchmarking - analysing outside organisations that are known to be best in class provides opportunities of learning from those who are at the ‘leading edge’.
International benchmarking - best practitioners are identified and analysed elsewhere in the world; globalisation and advances in information technology are increasing opportunities for international projects.
Process benchmarking - a firm focuses its observation and investigation of business processes with a goal of identifying and observing the best practices from one or more benchmark firms. Activity analysis will be required where the objective is to benchmark cost and efficiency.
Financial benchmarking - a company performs a financial analysis and compares the results in an effort to assess overall competitiveness.
Performance benchmarking - allows a firm to assess their competitive position by comparing products and services with those of target firms.
Product benchmarking - the process of designing new products or upgrades to current ones. This process can sometimes involve reverse engineering competitors’ products to find strengths and weaknesses.
Strategic benchmarking - involves observing how others compete. This type is usually not industry specific, meaning it is best to look at other industries.
Functional benchmarking - a company will focus its benchmarking on a single function in order to improve the operation of that particular function, i.e. Human Resources, Finance and ICT.
Internal benchmarking - involves benchmarking businesses or operations from within the same organisation (e.g. business units in different countries).
External benchmarking - analysing outside organisations that are known to be best in class provides opportunities of learning from those who are at the ‘leading edge’.
International benchmarking - best practitioners are identified and analysed elsewhere in the world; globalisation and advances in information technology are increasing opportunities for international projects.
Benchmarking involves four key steps:
1) Understand in detail existing business processes
2) Analyse the business processes of others
3) Compare own business performance with that of others
4) Implement the steps necessary to close the performance gap
Benchmarking should not be considered a one-off exercise. To be effective, it must become an ongoing, integral part of an ongoing improvement process with the goal of keeping abreast of ever-improving best practice.
Why Bother?
There are many benefits of benchmarking; the following list summarises the main ones:
· provides realistic and achievable targets
· prevents companies from being industry led
· challenges operational complacency
· encourages continuous improvement
· allows employees to visualise improvement which can be a strong motivator for change
· creates a sense of urgency for improvement
· confirms the belief that there is a need for change
· helps to identify weak areas and indicates what needs to be done to improve.
So how does all this apply to us - what are the benefits of benchmarking CAD performance?
· Gain visibility of core CAD skills
· Identify individuals’ strengths & weaknesses
· Implement better CAD training plans for staff
· Improve CAD recruitment processes
· Share performance data across an organisation
· Promote collaborative working between teams & offices
· Measure the performance of outsourcing or off-shoring partners
· Provide ‘best practice’ for CAD development
· Offer clearer staff inductions and more meaningful staff appraisals
· Enjoy better skills resourcing for projects
· Develop a continuous improvement process for CAD
· Save time and money on construction projects and offer best value for clients
· Gain visibility of core CAD skills
· Identify individuals’ strengths & weaknesses
· Implement better CAD training plans for staff
· Improve CAD recruitment processes
· Share performance data across an organisation
· Promote collaborative working between teams & offices
· Measure the performance of outsourcing or off-shoring partners
· Provide ‘best practice’ for CAD development
· Offer clearer staff inductions and more meaningful staff appraisals
· Enjoy better skills resourcing for projects
· Develop a continuous improvement process for CAD
· Save time and money on construction projects and offer best value for clients
In the end, it all comes down to better visibility of your teams and their real ability to use often complex technology and tools for maximum effect. If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.
Happy New Year!
Rory
Thursday, 11 December 2008
CAD skills testing job applicants in the USA - is it allowed?
Is it OK to test the basic CAD skills of prospective employees in the USA? This is a question which seems to come up quite frequently from our friends in the US. A common conundrum surrounding CAD skills assessments is whether it is legally allowed to screen the CAD ability of prospective employees and contract staff, before they join your team.
The short answer is yes, in our opinion, but only under the right circumstances. Let’s examine some of the evidence.
The most important issue underlying the use of pre-employment assessments is validity. The question we need to ask is this; ‘Is the test valid for this intended purpose; does it support the decisions that are going to be made?’
So what is 'validity'? Validity measures how appropriate a test is for a specific purpose. Simply put, a test may be considered valid for one use and invalid for another. Why do pre-employment tests need to be validated? In 1978, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) created guidelines to ensure that the knowledge gained from testing is applied with impartiality to protect minority applicants from discriminatory employment procedures. What is the best method of validation? The EEOC guidelines do not state that one method is better than another; the method used must fit the needs of the business or organization.
There are three methods of validation set forth by the EEOC:
1) Criterion Validity: If data demonstrates that a test is significantly correlated with a vital measure of job performance, the test is said to demonstrate criterion validity. For example, if all the CAD users that scored highly on a selected test to measure CAD skills completed their projects accurately and on time, the test would demonstrate criterion validity.
2) Construct Validity: The term construct is a technical term for personality traits like intelligence and creativity. Construct validity is demonstrated if a test measures traits that have been found to influence successful performance of a job. A test that measures the interpersonal communication skills of a potential customer service representative would demonstrate construct validity.
3) Content Validity: This is demonstrated if the questions that make up an assessment are representative of content that is required to perform a particular activity or task. A test made up of algebra questions given to an applicant for a maths teacher's position would demonstrate content validity.
Many employers use employment tests and other selection procedures in making employment decisions. Examples of these tools, many of which can be administered online, include the following:
- Cognitive tests assess reasoning, memory, perceptual speed and accuracy, and skills in arithmetic and reading comprehension, as well as knowledge of a particular function or job;
- Physical ability tests measure the physical ability to perform a particular task or the strength of specific muscle groups, as well as strength and stamina in general;
- Sample job tasks (e.g. performance tests, simulations, work samples, and realistic job previews) assess performance and aptitude on particular tasks. NB CAD skills assessments fall into this category;
- Medical inquiries and physical examinations, including psychological tests, assess physical or mental health;
- Personality tests and integrity tests assess the degree to which a person has certain traits or dispositions (e.g. dependability, cooperativeness, safety) or aim to predict the likelihood that a person will engage in certain conduct (e.g. theft, absenteeism);
- Criminal background checks provide information on arrest and conviction history;
- Credit checks provide information on credit and financial history;
- Performance appraisals reflect a supervisor’s assessment of an individual’s performance; and
- English proficiency tests determine English fluency.
An important item to remember when interpreting CAD assessment scores is to put the results in context, and to compare them to an external performance benchmark. For example, a 58% score does not reflect ‘failure’. If this score is presented by a CAD user against an office average of 60%, it is likely the candidate will comfortably fit in to the team.
Test questions should also have a recognizable skill level; basic, intermediate or advanced. In this way, the benchmark data can be reliably used to compare CAD performance and make sound hiring decisions.
In conclusion, for a CAD skills test to be valid, it must contain content that reflects a representative sample of the target skill. A reliable CAD skills test should comprise sample job tasks (e.g. performance tests, simulations, work samples, and realistic job previews) and assess performance and aptitude on particular tasks.
Skills evaluations should not discriminate according to; race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age (40 or older), or disability.
Lastly, employers should ensure that employment tests and other selection procedures are properly validated for the positions and purposes for which they are used. The test or selection procedure must be job-related and its results appropriate for the employer's purpose.
More information can be found here:
http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniformguidelines.html and
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html
Rory
The short answer is yes, in our opinion, but only under the right circumstances. Let’s examine some of the evidence.
The most important issue underlying the use of pre-employment assessments is validity. The question we need to ask is this; ‘Is the test valid for this intended purpose; does it support the decisions that are going to be made?’
So what is 'validity'? Validity measures how appropriate a test is for a specific purpose. Simply put, a test may be considered valid for one use and invalid for another. Why do pre-employment tests need to be validated? In 1978, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) created guidelines to ensure that the knowledge gained from testing is applied with impartiality to protect minority applicants from discriminatory employment procedures. What is the best method of validation? The EEOC guidelines do not state that one method is better than another; the method used must fit the needs of the business or organization.
There are three methods of validation set forth by the EEOC:
1) Criterion Validity: If data demonstrates that a test is significantly correlated with a vital measure of job performance, the test is said to demonstrate criterion validity. For example, if all the CAD users that scored highly on a selected test to measure CAD skills completed their projects accurately and on time, the test would demonstrate criterion validity.
2) Construct Validity: The term construct is a technical term for personality traits like intelligence and creativity. Construct validity is demonstrated if a test measures traits that have been found to influence successful performance of a job. A test that measures the interpersonal communication skills of a potential customer service representative would demonstrate construct validity.
3) Content Validity: This is demonstrated if the questions that make up an assessment are representative of content that is required to perform a particular activity or task. A test made up of algebra questions given to an applicant for a maths teacher's position would demonstrate content validity.
Many employers use employment tests and other selection procedures in making employment decisions. Examples of these tools, many of which can be administered online, include the following:
- Cognitive tests assess reasoning, memory, perceptual speed and accuracy, and skills in arithmetic and reading comprehension, as well as knowledge of a particular function or job;
- Physical ability tests measure the physical ability to perform a particular task or the strength of specific muscle groups, as well as strength and stamina in general;
- Sample job tasks (e.g. performance tests, simulations, work samples, and realistic job previews) assess performance and aptitude on particular tasks. NB CAD skills assessments fall into this category;
- Medical inquiries and physical examinations, including psychological tests, assess physical or mental health;
- Personality tests and integrity tests assess the degree to which a person has certain traits or dispositions (e.g. dependability, cooperativeness, safety) or aim to predict the likelihood that a person will engage in certain conduct (e.g. theft, absenteeism);
- Criminal background checks provide information on arrest and conviction history;
- Credit checks provide information on credit and financial history;
- Performance appraisals reflect a supervisor’s assessment of an individual’s performance; and
- English proficiency tests determine English fluency.
An important item to remember when interpreting CAD assessment scores is to put the results in context, and to compare them to an external performance benchmark. For example, a 58% score does not reflect ‘failure’. If this score is presented by a CAD user against an office average of 60%, it is likely the candidate will comfortably fit in to the team.
Test questions should also have a recognizable skill level; basic, intermediate or advanced. In this way, the benchmark data can be reliably used to compare CAD performance and make sound hiring decisions.
In conclusion, for a CAD skills test to be valid, it must contain content that reflects a representative sample of the target skill. A reliable CAD skills test should comprise sample job tasks (e.g. performance tests, simulations, work samples, and realistic job previews) and assess performance and aptitude on particular tasks.
Skills evaluations should not discriminate according to; race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age (40 or older), or disability.
Lastly, employers should ensure that employment tests and other selection procedures are properly validated for the positions and purposes for which they are used. The test or selection procedure must be job-related and its results appropriate for the employer's purpose.
More information can be found here:
http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniformguidelines.html and
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html
Rory
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
The View from the Strip...
Well, we're back and just about caught up from our trip to AU2008 in Las Vegas, and I must say, overall we had a great time! This was my first time at AU as both sponsor and speaker - and it certainly made for a busy event!
The logistics of the conference are a sight to behold; even in an economic downturn, there must have been more than 8,000 delegates in attendance. Simply feeding and watering such a horde of enthusiastic CAD aficianado's was an impressive logistical feat!
The venue itself has to be seen to be believed; we stayed at the Venetian Resort, which is enormous! The walk from our suite ('room' doesn't do it justice!) to the exhibition hall took about 15 minutes! And yes, I did forget my laptop and had to make the trek back at least once! The attention to the interior detail was fascinating, with faux tapestries, ceiling montages, and even a frighteningly realistic blue sky above the shopping mall. It took me a moment to realise that I was still inside the building; and when we sat at the bar for a quick afternoon drink, my wife asked the waiter if we could sit 'outside'! :) I could tell from his wry smile we weren't the first! We then sat over a beer, to be entertained by a mini-opera just yards away!
There were a couple of moments which might have detracted from an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable week. When setting up the booth, a rather over-zealous security guard insisted we have our name badges re-printed because they were missing a label (which meant queueing again for 30 mins). And the Autodesk 'help' committee tried to charge me $25 for a replacement badge when I left it in my wife's handbag (she was shopping, naturally!) - even though I tried to explain we were spending $5k on a booth! Ah well, I guess they were just following the rules.
From a business perspective, I'd say the show was a resounding success. This year, CADsmart was involved in a new format for the AUGI Top Daug competition, which went remarkably smoothly. Over 500 assessments taken over two days, on 32 machines, and just two software crashes - a credit to Ed and Martin on our technical tem, for building such a stable app. The results were posted live to a 'Top 10' scoreboard throughout the event, and the eventual winner was determined by a drafting 'shootout'. Great stuff!
We also launched our new Revit skills assessment, which was tremendously well received. Over 100 companies signed up to trial the software, so we're looking forward to receiving their feedback in the coming days and weeks. We'll be creating an Imperial data set in the next few weeks, for those firms who refuse to work in the real world :) (just kidding!) and will be adding Structure and MEP content in the new year.
Tony & I delivered our class on making the move from AutoCAD to Revit to a full room, and received some good scores on our feedback survey, which is nice to hear.
And so to the gambling; we did have a dabble on the last day, just to be polite! Tony, Mel and I started with a 'pot' of $25 each and here's how we did; Tony - lost it all on a spin of the wheel. Myself - ditto (although I went red 18 and it came up red 19 - so near and yet so far - probably 6 words which sum up the history of Vegas!). Mel - hit the craps table, feigning an innocent ignorance, and walked away with $150, to the amusement of the croupier, who knew a hustler when he saw one! :)
And so, we left Vegas as winners, in more than one sense. Next year's event will be at the Mandalay Bay. Think I'll try my hand at Black Jack...
Rory
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Viva Las Bristol
While my esteemed colleagues Rory and Tony attend Autodesk University in Vegas I'm staying at the ranch making sure everything carries on working tickety-boo. And there's lots going on - our Revit release is now out of Beta (thanks to all the testers!), we launched our new product-focused website (see below) yesterday, and we're also involved in the Top Daug competition at the aforementioned AU, which saw 235 assessments in its first 3 hours of availability last night, and seemingly zero support issues.
Martin and I will be on tenterhooks tonight though, as apparently the Top Daug machines are going to be still available during the 'Beer Bust', which basically means (for any non-Americans reading this) drinking lots and larking about. Oh, and networking of course.
The thought of hundreds inebriated people attempting [to break?] our bespoke pared-down version of CADsmart sends a shiver down my spine, as its a million miles away from CADsmart's intended context - a calm, formal, professional, sober atmosphere in which to be assessed. Either way I'll probably be staying up till 4am waiting for an email or two!
If British universities are anything to go by then Rory and Tony will come back from AU with huge debts having learnt nothing, however I suspect Universities are held in higher regard across the pond; I'm sure Autodesk will put on a great gig and R & T will have a great time, meet some great people and learn lots ot new stuff.
OK I'm jealous really. But 22 hours of travelling?
Ed
Thursday, 27 November 2008
People don't know...what they don't know!
The basic psychology of how people learn new skills is pretty fascinating - really!
Being in the business of measuring CAD & BIM skills of Autodesk & Bentley users, we find ourselves at the heart of the learning debate.
Part of the problem with traditional CAD training is that it can be a bit one-dimensional. Often, over the course of 1, 2, or 3 days, a variety of users from differing backgrounds, and with varying degrees of experience and ability, will gather in a classroom and attempt to absorb every detail of the latest release of AutoCAD, Revit, or whatever, in a torrent of technical information. Inevitably, the trainer has to gravitate to the speed of the slowest learner, and everyone else follows along at that pace. The assumption is (incorrectly!) made that all delegates possess a minimum level of basic CAD ability. Further, the material tends to be off-the-shelf or generic, with individual workflows and processes seldom covered; this can make it difficult for students to relate to the material and apply the information back at the workplace.
Now, consider the following evidence from Rebecca Rupp, author of 'Committed to Memory';
'One hour after learning, 56% of material has gone to the wind; one day later, 66% has evaporated; and after one month, 80% is gone'.
With this in mind, is it any wonder why firms struggle to get a satisfactory bang for their training buck?! Should even a modest amount of time pass between the course ending and real work commencing, it is small wonder that much of the new material isn't applied on the job; the 'use it or lose it' factor.
Over the past four years, CADsmart has compiled results data from over 10,000 live CAD skills assessments. Analysis of the data makes for enlightening reading. By dividing the results into four performance 'quartiles', an interesting trend emerges. Based on accuracy & speed, and against a 'mean' score of 63% in 74 minutes, the following breakdowns occur; 37% comprise the upper quartile (4), which means they are faster and more accurate than the average. 1 in 5 users make it into the mid-upper quartile (3); more accurate but slower than the mean. Another 20% populate the mid-lower quartile (2); less accurate but faster than their peers. Finally, 23% of users (nearly a quarter!) make up the lower quartile (1), performing slower and with less quality than the rest.
In our experience, until they complete a formal skills assessment, most users have no real idea of how skilled they are, relative to their peers in industry. Many claim to be 'experts' or 'super users', based on nothing more than their years of service with Autodesk or Bentley tools! Simply put, they don't know what they don't know.
So what journey do we take, as we progress our skills from basic, through intermediate and advanced levels? The 'Conscious Competence' model explains the process and stages of learning a new skill (behaviour, ability or technique).
Stage one is 'Unconscious Incompetence'; a person is not aware of the existence or relevance of the skill and is unaware that they have a particular deficiency in the area concerned.
Next, we progress to 'Conscious Incompetence'; a person becomes aware of the existence and relevance of the skill and is therefore also aware of their deficiency in this area, ideally by attempting or trying to use the skill, or by formal assessment. The person is helped by evaluating the extent of their deficiency in the relevant skill, and a measure of what level of skill is required for their own competence.
A person achieves 'Conscious Competence' in a skill when they can perform it reliably at will; they need to concentrate in order to perform the skill - it is not yet 'second nature' or automatic and it is unlikely they will be able to teach it well to others.
Finally, with practise and persistence, the skill becomes so familiar that it enters the unconscious parts of the brain - 'Unconscious Competence' is achieved. Typical examples are driving, sports activities, typing, manual dexterity tasks - such as CAD! - listening and communicating. The skill becomes 'second nature', but arguably gives rise to the need for long-standing competence to be checked periodically against new standards.
We have a saying at CADsmart; 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it'. By putting in place reliable performance metrics, including a formal assessment program, AEC firms can make the transition from basic 2D drafting to more complex 3D modelling and BIM skills with a higher degree of confidence.
Rory
Being in the business of measuring CAD & BIM skills of Autodesk & Bentley users, we find ourselves at the heart of the learning debate.
Part of the problem with traditional CAD training is that it can be a bit one-dimensional. Often, over the course of 1, 2, or 3 days, a variety of users from differing backgrounds, and with varying degrees of experience and ability, will gather in a classroom and attempt to absorb every detail of the latest release of AutoCAD, Revit, or whatever, in a torrent of technical information. Inevitably, the trainer has to gravitate to the speed of the slowest learner, and everyone else follows along at that pace. The assumption is (incorrectly!) made that all delegates possess a minimum level of basic CAD ability. Further, the material tends to be off-the-shelf or generic, with individual workflows and processes seldom covered; this can make it difficult for students to relate to the material and apply the information back at the workplace.
Now, consider the following evidence from Rebecca Rupp, author of 'Committed to Memory';
'One hour after learning, 56% of material has gone to the wind; one day later, 66% has evaporated; and after one month, 80% is gone'.
With this in mind, is it any wonder why firms struggle to get a satisfactory bang for their training buck?! Should even a modest amount of time pass between the course ending and real work commencing, it is small wonder that much of the new material isn't applied on the job; the 'use it or lose it' factor.
Over the past four years, CADsmart has compiled results data from over 10,000 live CAD skills assessments. Analysis of the data makes for enlightening reading. By dividing the results into four performance 'quartiles', an interesting trend emerges. Based on accuracy & speed, and against a 'mean' score of 63% in 74 minutes, the following breakdowns occur; 37% comprise the upper quartile (4), which means they are faster and more accurate than the average. 1 in 5 users make it into the mid-upper quartile (3); more accurate but slower than the mean. Another 20% populate the mid-lower quartile (2); less accurate but faster than their peers. Finally, 23% of users (nearly a quarter!) make up the lower quartile (1), performing slower and with less quality than the rest.
In our experience, until they complete a formal skills assessment, most users have no real idea of how skilled they are, relative to their peers in industry. Many claim to be 'experts' or 'super users', based on nothing more than their years of service with Autodesk or Bentley tools! Simply put, they don't know what they don't know.
So what journey do we take, as we progress our skills from basic, through intermediate and advanced levels? The 'Conscious Competence' model explains the process and stages of learning a new skill (behaviour, ability or technique).
Stage one is 'Unconscious Incompetence'; a person is not aware of the existence or relevance of the skill and is unaware that they have a particular deficiency in the area concerned.
Next, we progress to 'Conscious Incompetence'; a person becomes aware of the existence and relevance of the skill and is therefore also aware of their deficiency in this area, ideally by attempting or trying to use the skill, or by formal assessment. The person is helped by evaluating the extent of their deficiency in the relevant skill, and a measure of what level of skill is required for their own competence.
A person achieves 'Conscious Competence' in a skill when they can perform it reliably at will; they need to concentrate in order to perform the skill - it is not yet 'second nature' or automatic and it is unlikely they will be able to teach it well to others.
Finally, with practise and persistence, the skill becomes so familiar that it enters the unconscious parts of the brain - 'Unconscious Competence' is achieved. Typical examples are driving, sports activities, typing, manual dexterity tasks - such as CAD! - listening and communicating. The skill becomes 'second nature', but arguably gives rise to the need for long-standing competence to be checked periodically against new standards.
We have a saying at CADsmart; 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it'. By putting in place reliable performance metrics, including a formal assessment program, AEC firms can make the transition from basic 2D drafting to more complex 3D modelling and BIM skills with a higher degree of confidence.
Rory
Sunday, 16 November 2008
World first from CADsmart - interactive Revit skills assessment software
Well, it's been a while in the making, but we're just about there. About a year ago, we sat around a table with a half dozen leading UK Revit users from our customer base at HOK's London offices (thanks for the coffee & biccies, Miles!). Our aim was to determine how we should attempt to break down Autodesk's flagship AEC CAD (BIM?) software, so that a meaningful basic skills assessment, complete with accurate training needs reporting, could be developed.
Fast forward to the present, and we're nearing the end of our final beta test phase - and I must confess, we're pretty pleased with the result. Having battled with a somewhat (still) limited API and developer environment, we are on the cusp of launching a world first - a fully interactive basic Revit skills assessment. I should say that Autodesk's support team has been very helpful in responding to a host of technical support issues from our team - and things can only get better as they continue to tick things off their own Revit development wish list.
Our timing is just about spot on, as our goal was to launch the new software at Autodesk University 2008, which is now just around the corner. In fact, Tony & I will be teaching a class at this year's event, appropriately titled, 'How to make the Move from AutoCAD to Revit'. By all means come along! :)
In anticipation of the launch of the software, we are also sponsoring the show, so here's the plug; we'll be at booth 237 - and the first 100 firms to sign up for a demo of the Revit skills software will - if they like it - qualify for a 50% discount on their first year's subscription!
In anticipation of the launch of the software, we are also sponsoring the show, so here's the plug; we'll be at booth 237 - and the first 100 firms to sign up for a demo of the Revit skills software will - if they like it - qualify for a 50% discount on their first year's subscription!
Look forward to meeting you in Vegas!
Rory
Monday, 10 November 2008
6 degrees of Kevin Bacon...
For quite some time now, I've manfully resisted the temptation to join in with the whole 'social networking' phenomenon. Thinking a guy in his mid-thirties is far too old to be 'tweeting' or 'poking' old friends on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, et al.
In fact, it was quite by accident that I first signed up to the 'business' network LinkedIn, back in the Spring of 07. Almost a year went by, and my network had grown to a mighty 6 'connections'. Then, I happened to pause my finger over the delete button one morning a few months ago, when reading an auto-update email from the site - and realised that I had kind of missed the point about just what potential there is to be had in reaching out through cyberspace to make fruitful connections with like minded people across our industry.
So I began to do some homework. Armed with my copy of 'LinkedIn for Dummies' from Amazon.com, I stepped outside of my comfort zone and started inviting...
After just a few short months, my network stands at just under 200 '1st level' connections, each one personally invited, and with a particular interest in CAD & BIM technology within the AEC space. But the amazing thing is that I now have nearly 60,000 people just two connections away and a further 4.5M people one step away from that!
It reminds me of the old college game, '6 degrees of Kevin Bacon', which was based on the theory that any actor or actress can be linked through his or her film roles to the actor Kevin Bacon. This, in turn, was a derivation of the '6 degrees of separation' idea that, if a person is one step away from each person they know and two steps away from each person who is known by one of the people they know, then everyone is an average of six 'steps' away from each person on Earth.
With that thought, it only remains for me to say that, if you have an interest in, or responsibility for, improving CAD & BIM productivity, I extend a warm invitation for you to join my expanding network; http://www.linkedin.com/in/roryvance.
I look forward to 'meeting' you! :)
I look forward to 'meeting' you! :)
Rory
Friday, 7 November 2008
Need to save money? Sack the CAD Manager!
It never ceases to amaze me how short-sighted some firms can be! Over the past few weeks I've seen first hand three separate examples of otherwise perfectly sensible firms of architects, who are experiencing a temporary down-turn in their fortunes as a result of the current economic squeeze, suddenly have a brain-freeze. So what do they do? Tighten their belts by cutting back on non-essential services? Cancel the standing order to the local organic deli for the Friday afternoon buffet? Look at non-core expenditure or sub-contracted items which can be temporarily placed on hold? No, let's sack the CAD Manager - that'll save us a few bob! When will design firms learn that CAD & BIM tools are an essential ingredient to the successful delivery of quality projects on time & budget? And a good CAD Manager is worth his or her weight in gold, and should be one of the last people to be shown the door!
Rory
Rory
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Language and progress
With the imminent release of our skills assessment software for Autodesk Revit, we have been musing here at CADsmart Towers as to whether the term 'BIM' or some other acronym might ever fully usurp the term 'CAD' and make our name and corporate identity look a little dated.
But today it struck me - it doesn't matter, because one of Europe's biggest companies has a corporate name that is so dated due to a rapid change in technology that it would be laughable if it were proposed for a new firm today, yet they continue to dominate in their field with a very clear message about what they do.
Step forward The Carphone Warehouse. If you go to their website and search for 'car phone' you get no results - they don't sell any. Of course they don't, and everyone knows this. Consumers are so familiar with their high-street name that nobody thinks twice about it.
Long live CADsmart!
Ed
Friday, 31 October 2008
Mr CEO, meet the CEO
I travelled to Florida this week to sort out a few legal details for our new office in Clearwater, and to sign a few forms for our new US business - CADsmart LLC. I now have the title of CEO to add to my resume :) Whilst over here, we are also pleased to be Silver Sponsors of the Bentley Florida User group conference (http://www.flugsite.com/) in Tampa. I delivered a class on 'Measuring & Improving CAD Productivity' to a full room, which was well received; I think they liked the accent! The conference was well run, albeit a little down on numbers this year; no doubt a result of the current economic squeeze.
One of the highlights of my trip came when I had the chance to spend a few moments chatting one-on-one with Bentley Systems' CEO, Greg Bentley, following his keynote speech. I found him to be warm, intelligent and personable; refreshing in today's world of big business. Mr Bentley's keynote delivery was interesting; the man clearly has a sound grasp of economic matters, and shared his vision for the next phase of Bentley's strategic plan. With 142 different products to manage, they certainly have their work cut out! The pending release of the 'Athens' suite of products - he wouldn't be drawn on the actual product name! - looks to spell a new chapter in the support of global infrastructure projects. To quote a recent article from the Wall Street Journal, '...the future is engineering'. Recession or not, there will still be plenty of opportunity to develop new business in the coming year and beyond.
One final observation from my trip this week; apart from some unhappy Tampa Rays fans (their team lost to Philadelphia in the world series) I couldn't help but notice how many people mentioned the 'cold' weather they've had over here this week. Now, when I left Blighty at the weekend, it was wet, grey and cold. Here, the temperatures have barely dropped below 60 degrees! I'm walking around in t-shirts, shaking my head at the locals in their winter woolies! :) Ah well, it's back up to 80 degrees tomorrow; now where did I put my sun-block...
Rory
One of the highlights of my trip came when I had the chance to spend a few moments chatting one-on-one with Bentley Systems' CEO, Greg Bentley, following his keynote speech. I found him to be warm, intelligent and personable; refreshing in today's world of big business. Mr Bentley's keynote delivery was interesting; the man clearly has a sound grasp of economic matters, and shared his vision for the next phase of Bentley's strategic plan. With 142 different products to manage, they certainly have their work cut out! The pending release of the 'Athens' suite of products - he wouldn't be drawn on the actual product name! - looks to spell a new chapter in the support of global infrastructure projects. To quote a recent article from the Wall Street Journal, '...the future is engineering'. Recession or not, there will still be plenty of opportunity to develop new business in the coming year and beyond.
One final observation from my trip this week; apart from some unhappy Tampa Rays fans (their team lost to Philadelphia in the world series) I couldn't help but notice how many people mentioned the 'cold' weather they've had over here this week. Now, when I left Blighty at the weekend, it was wet, grey and cold. Here, the temperatures have barely dropped below 60 degrees! I'm walking around in t-shirts, shaking my head at the locals in their winter woolies! :) Ah well, it's back up to 80 degrees tomorrow; now where did I put my sun-block...
Rory
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Comparing CADsmart and Autodesk Certification
We often get asked how CADsmart compares to the Autodesk Certification Exams, so we'd like to share some of our our thoughts on the matter. Let's first start by saying that we believe all forms of skills assessment are worthwhile. Whether it's simple on-line multiple choice quizzes, or detailed live skills drafting, any process that helps a CAD user develop their skills by identifying training needs has to be good.
Anyone involved in a competitive sport gets a regular opportunity to see how they, or their team, shape up against the competition. In business, companies can measure turnover and profit against their competitors. However, there are very few times when CAD users can measure themselves against their peers, or a benchmark, in order to figure out where they can improve. As far as I know the AUGI Top DAUG is the main public CAD competition out there - Top DAUG
Autodesk Certification and CADsmart are both excellent ways for a CAD user to find out more about their own capabilities. Certification is a valuable tool for an individual to demonstrate their competence in a specific Autodesk product, and version. Certification is only possible after extensive training, real-life experience and exceeding a minimum standard. It's a significant investment in time and money for the individual, or their employer, if they are paying.
By comparison, CADsmart is very much a training needs analysis tool with benefits for both the CAD user and their employer. CADsmart assesses core CAD skills in AutoCAD, MicroStation and coming in December, Revit. We look at measuring what one of our customers has described as "CADmanship"! We're not product or release specific and there's no pass or fail with CADsmart. We simply report the results and provide a training needs recommendation report. The individual CAD user can use this report as the basis for personal development, whilst the CAD Manager is able to pull all the assessment results together to develop a time and cost effective training plan for the whole team. CADsmart provides CAD Managers with comprehensive review, reporting and data analysis tools.
One of the unique strengths of CADsmart is the independent benchmark, based on the results from many thousands of assessments. The benchmark allows an individual to see how they compare with the rest of the CAD world, and provides the CAD Manager with a way to see how their team stacks up. Regular CADsmart assessment also provides a way to monitor personal and team improvement. Here's an interesting article in AEC Magazine about Ramboll Whitbybird for those who want to read more on the subject - RWB story.
In summary, Autodesk Certification and CADsmart are different beasts. Certification is a great way for an experienced and skilled CAD user to prove their skills in a specific Autodesk product and version. CADsmart is a training needs analysis tool which can be used by CAD users of all skill levels to help them, and their employer, identify paths for skills improvement. Take your time to look in detail at both and you'll see where they fit in to the world of CAD skills assessment. Both are valuable, and it's not a simple choice of do one or the other. In fact, why not do both!
Anyone involved in a competitive sport gets a regular opportunity to see how they, or their team, shape up against the competition. In business, companies can measure turnover and profit against their competitors. However, there are very few times when CAD users can measure themselves against their peers, or a benchmark, in order to figure out where they can improve. As far as I know the AUGI Top DAUG is the main public CAD competition out there - Top DAUG
Autodesk Certification and CADsmart are both excellent ways for a CAD user to find out more about their own capabilities. Certification is a valuable tool for an individual to demonstrate their competence in a specific Autodesk product, and version. Certification is only possible after extensive training, real-life experience and exceeding a minimum standard. It's a significant investment in time and money for the individual, or their employer, if they are paying.
By comparison, CADsmart is very much a training needs analysis tool with benefits for both the CAD user and their employer. CADsmart assesses core CAD skills in AutoCAD, MicroStation and coming in December, Revit. We look at measuring what one of our customers has described as "CADmanship"! We're not product or release specific and there's no pass or fail with CADsmart. We simply report the results and provide a training needs recommendation report. The individual CAD user can use this report as the basis for personal development, whilst the CAD Manager is able to pull all the assessment results together to develop a time and cost effective training plan for the whole team. CADsmart provides CAD Managers with comprehensive review, reporting and data analysis tools.
One of the unique strengths of CADsmart is the independent benchmark, based on the results from many thousands of assessments. The benchmark allows an individual to see how they compare with the rest of the CAD world, and provides the CAD Manager with a way to see how their team stacks up. Regular CADsmart assessment also provides a way to monitor personal and team improvement. Here's an interesting article in AEC Magazine about Ramboll Whitbybird for those who want to read more on the subject - RWB story.
In summary, Autodesk Certification and CADsmart are different beasts. Certification is a great way for an experienced and skilled CAD user to prove their skills in a specific Autodesk product and version. CADsmart is a training needs analysis tool which can be used by CAD users of all skill levels to help them, and their employer, identify paths for skills improvement. Take your time to look in detail at both and you'll see where they fit in to the world of CAD skills assessment. Both are valuable, and it's not a simple choice of do one or the other. In fact, why not do both!regards
Tony
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Backup!
As part of the day to day running of a software business, I'm quite often called upon to present at CAD conferences and exhibitions - which in truth I enjoy. A few weeks ago we sponsored an event in London, which was pretty uneventful, that is, until the final day. Now, being in IT, you could rightfully assume that we travel with a range of tools to do our job properly, such as laptops, projectors, etc., which of course is true. However, on this occasion, I made the cardinal error of leaving my laptop at the booth (albeit tucked away) and headed off to attend the evening networking event. I don't know why I didn't take 5 mins to pop it back in my hotel room, but simply assumed the room would be locked, and left it at that.
Naturally the next morning, when I returned to the booth, I found my laptop bag, laptop, notebook and all my recent work - had disappeared. Not wanting to assume the worst, I contacted hotel security and the event organisers to ask if someone had perhaps moved my bag, but it was nowhere to be found. At this point, I had that horrible sinking feeling (the kind you get when you lose your wallet, or your house keys) and you know that the next few days are going to be an absolute pain! Visions of calls to the police, checking security cameras, logging a crime number, claiming on my insurance, replacing my laptop, and being WITHOUT EMAIL for days swarmed through my mind.
Then, to make a bad situation even worse, I realised that I hadn't backed up my files for at least a month! I was as annoyed at myself as I was at the light fingered individual who was probably at that moment flogging my treasured Toshiba in a smoky back room of a London pub for a handful of used notes. How could I have been so dumb as to bring my machine on the road with a bunch of files which had no copies?? It was enough to put me off my full English breakfast! Happily, my fears were short lived, when the head of hotel security informed me that they were holding a laptop in the 'lost & found' room - and by sheer good fortune, it was indeed my trusty Tosh! As the relief flooded through me, I resolved to a) back up my files religiously from that point on and b) make sure that none of the team goes on the road without making sure they have everything copied.
As soon as I got home, I logged on and copied everything on to my 320GB hard drive. And then for good measure, I found a really handy online backup service called Carbonite (http://www.carbonite.com) and uploaded all my files onto their system as well! So now I have backups for my backups - and I hope never to have a repeat of this episode again! I'm off to Florida on Sunday to present at a Bentley user conference, so my calendar has a BIG note to do a full backup before I go. Which leaves just one question - when was the last time YOU did a full backup (including your pst files)??
Rory
Naturally the next morning, when I returned to the booth, I found my laptop bag, laptop, notebook and all my recent work - had disappeared. Not wanting to assume the worst, I contacted hotel security and the event organisers to ask if someone had perhaps moved my bag, but it was nowhere to be found. At this point, I had that horrible sinking feeling (the kind you get when you lose your wallet, or your house keys) and you know that the next few days are going to be an absolute pain! Visions of calls to the police, checking security cameras, logging a crime number, claiming on my insurance, replacing my laptop, and being WITHOUT EMAIL for days swarmed through my mind.
Then, to make a bad situation even worse, I realised that I hadn't backed up my files for at least a month! I was as annoyed at myself as I was at the light fingered individual who was probably at that moment flogging my treasured Toshiba in a smoky back room of a London pub for a handful of used notes. How could I have been so dumb as to bring my machine on the road with a bunch of files which had no copies?? It was enough to put me off my full English breakfast! Happily, my fears were short lived, when the head of hotel security informed me that they were holding a laptop in the 'lost & found' room - and by sheer good fortune, it was indeed my trusty Tosh! As the relief flooded through me, I resolved to a) back up my files religiously from that point on and b) make sure that none of the team goes on the road without making sure they have everything copied.
As soon as I got home, I logged on and copied everything on to my 320GB hard drive. And then for good measure, I found a really handy online backup service called Carbonite (http://www.carbonite.com) and uploaded all my files onto their system as well! So now I have backups for my backups - and I hope never to have a repeat of this episode again! I'm off to Florida on Sunday to present at a Bentley user conference, so my calendar has a BIG note to do a full backup before I go. Which leaves just one question - when was the last time YOU did a full backup (including your pst files)??
Rory
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Who borrowed our name!
This month we released Version 6 of CADsmart skills assessment for AutoCAD and MicroStation. To celebrate, we decided we'd embark on our first serious PR campaign. We sent out information to the many friends we have in the CAD press, CAD industry observers and world renowned CAD gurus. We also used a number of online Press sites, some of which are free, some you pay for.
The following day we thought it would be fun to see how much of the PR had been picked up by Google. Doing a search for CADsmart on Google we found that the top result was a sponsored link from an Autodesk reseller, advertising the Autodesk Certification exams - see the image below
After at first feeling a little shocked we checked with Google that this was actually legal, decent and honest. Actually, it is! Anyone can bid on a brand name, including registered trademarks like CADsmart, and use them as keywords for searching - here is the link for the Google facts - http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=92877
So beware in case your company's brand name gets hijacked by a competitor. It's all within the rules, just a bit of sharp (maybe smart ) practice! Or, if you haven't already done so, why not hijack your competitor's brand and improve your Google results.
Actually it's quite flattering that the Autodesk channel can feel CADsmart are so important that our name is a key search word. So on reflection it's a real confidence boost to know our growing skills assessment business is taken so seriously in the Autodesk world.
Finally, we often get asked how CADsmart compares to Autodesk certification exams and next week we'll explain how they fit together in the world of CAD skills assessment. Until then - farewell and have a great week
Tony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
