Don’t let the “design institute” turn into a “drawing studio””
Thread Content
Let’s prevent design institutes from becoming mere drawing studios. First and foremost, design is the soul of engineering projects. From a life-cycle perspective, engineering projects in various industries can be roughly divided into three phases: design, implementation, and operation. Engineering design plays a decisive role in achieving the project objectives, as well as in determining the quality, cost, and schedule of the project; its importance is self-evident. Baidu Baike defines engineering design as the process of conducting a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the technical, economic, resource, environmental, and other factors required for a construction project, with the aim of preparing the design documents for that project. Engineering design is the process by which people use scientific and technical knowledge and methods to purposefully create concepts and plans for engineering products, covering almost all areas of human activity. It can be said that design is the soul of engineering projects. II. Many “design institutes” are turning into mere “drawing offices”. This year marks the 40th anniversary of reform and opening up. Over these 40 years, we have built numerous outstanding projects, developed a comprehensive system for engineering design, and created a large number of excellent design institutes. However, alongside these remarkable achievements, some phenomena in the field of engineering design that warrant reflection have also become widespread. 1. Lack of excellence and innovation: We have seen many designs that “don’t have many problems” – they are reliable, but also mediocre ； No major problems, but plenty of minor issues ； It can meet the basic functions, but it’s “inconvenient and not user-friendly”” ； There are countless examples of template-based modifications that neglect details, lack humanity, and show no creativity. Engineering design is no longer a “work of art,” but merely a “product.” 2. The primacy of “standards” is beyond doubt; “standards” are the framework of design and must be strictly adhered to. However, there is an increasing tendency to rely excessively on \"norms\" and to apply them mechanically. A deep understanding of the meaning of \"standards\" and the flexible application of these standard metrics are essential qualities for outstanding designers; design should be a creative activity based on standards. 3. The problem is that the client lacks their own design concepts and is unwilling to conduct thorough research; they prefer to rely on guessing the intentions of their superiors and the client when carrying out design work, turning designers into mere drawing machines. The owner said to do whatever is necessary; no problem with that. A truly confident design, one that has been carefully refined, should possess the courage to speak out. 4. Prioritize the “large” over the “small”: Invest significant effort and care in designing projects that are large in scale, generate substantial profits, and can win awards. Projects that are small in scale and generate low profits are handled perfunctorily. The significance and role of engineering projects cannot be simply determined by their scale; every design is, in fact, related to the country’s economy and people’s well-being. 5. The prevalence of \"side work\": For various reasons, in certain sectors and among some designers, there is a tendency to take on \"side work.\" The quality of design work done as part of this side work cannot be guaranteed, which disrupts market order; it also leads designers to be satisfied with this kind of \"unproductive\" behavior. The design lacks insight, depth, highlights, and creativity; meeting safety requirements in terms of output becomes the goal of design. What was once considered a prestigious \"design institute\" seems to be turning into nothing more than a \"drawing studio\". III. Analysis of the causes at the phenological level The reasons behind these phenomena are complex and profound, involving institutional, social, cultural, and other aspects. Due to limitations in scope and length, this article only provides an analysis at the phenological level, aiming to serve as a starting point for further discussion. 1. External conditions: Our country is still in the development stage; design institutes have a heavy workload and face a relative shortage of staff. The fee calculation standard is based on the construction costs; the larger the project, the higher the design fees, whereas creative and innovative designs are not taken into account. The cumbersome review processes and endless reporting requirements have caused great frustration among the design institutes. The unreasonable design timeline keeps the design institutes constantly busy. The evaluation dimensions of the design are vague; there is a lack of driving forces and constraints at the macro, meso, and micro levels, and competition is insufficient and of low quality. 2. Internal factors: Most design institutes in our country, especially those in traditional industries, still retain a strong characteristic of being public institutions, resulting in inflexible management. Focusing on short-term gains and lacking long-term development plans, design institutes are forced by various profit targets set by their superiors, resulting in design efforts being aimed at making money. Efficiency is of top priority; the focus in the design process is on delivering design outcomes safely and reliably. Internal design quality control is insufficient, with inadequate attention to details. Emphasis is placed on production over research, and there are no effective scientific incentive mechanisms; designers’ earnings are primarily determined by the volume of work done, as well as various factors based on seniority. There is insufficient education and support for designers; some designers lack a sense of responsibility, and an atmosphere that encourages innovation has not been created. Although the problem is complex, at its core, the entity responsible for design is the design institute; and the most valuable asset and core competitive advantage of such an institute are its designers. Let’s look for solutions from this perspective. 1. On the one hand, optimize the design review mechanism to improve review efficiency, ensure a reasonable design timeline, and grant design institutes more trust, flexibility, and decision-making power ； On the one hand, a scientific post-evaluation mechanism for the entire design process should be established, along with a strict credit evaluation system for design firms, in order to intensify market competition and ensure survival of the fittest. Improve the design bidding mechanism and design fee standards. Various methods such as design competition are employed to encourage innovative designs, and the design fee calculation method based solely on construction costs is being optimized. 2. Establish a designer-led design institute management system to maximize designers’ enthusiasm and creativity. Drawing on the project manager responsibility system used in construction, an excellent team of designers is assembled to handle the project design with clear divisions of labor, along with a well-defined assessment mechanism. Design institutes should calculate costs scientifically, allocate design profits reasonably, and use these profits effectively to motivate the design team, thereby creating a sustainable model of development. In short, it is necessary to deepen reforms of institutional mechanisms, create a healthy competitive environment in the market, foster a society that respects intellectual property and innovation, ensure that design firms and designers receive the dignity and benefits they deserve, and truly let the market and practice serve as the benchmarks for design. I believe that in the near future, every one of our design drawings will shine with the light of wisdom.
This post was last edited by water_he on 2018-7-14 19:20. It makes sense.
There is such a trend; nowadays, designers have become mere draftsmen for their clients.
Everyone needs to make money right away; there’s no time to turn you into a soulful engineer.
Today’s so-called designers steal blueprints from other projects; many of the device identifiers remain unchanged. A lot of what they design is decided arbitrarily, and such designs are not practical at all in actual production and use
Valuing technology and the results of labor enables workers to enjoy and take pleasure in their work within their specialized fields, while continuously improving and making progress, just like the veterans from the 1970s and 1980s. Focusing on money and status can make workers feel disconnected from their work; in some cases, they even resort to dishonest tactics, breaking industry rules and fostering a work ethic that values only money. Over time, no one will be willing to engage in technical work anymore... Nowadays, some design firms have developed their own work processes centered around corporate performance, which results in shortened design cycles, fewer designers, and an increasing tendency to copy others’ work... Of course, this is not solely the responsibility of the design industry; it’s the overall environment that drives such trends – after all, design fees are decreasing year by year, and the time required to deliver designs is getting shorter as well... Reflecting on these issues, the best time for reform in any industry was 10 years ago, with the next best time being now! ! !
I disagree with this view. What does it mean to \"steal blueprints from other projects\"? Engineering design itself is carried out in accordance with laws/regulations, standards, and the traditions of the organization; the widespread use of reused diagrams in design is a common practice to improve efficiency – so where is there any notion of \"theft\"?
Those who can truly handle process design must have on-site experience.
Reaching a conclusion of \"plagiarism\" outright is indeed a bit far-fetched. These days, computers are used for drawing instead of pens, ink, and paper; the term \"reuse\" is more objective, and this also **improves work efficiency**. But it should be reused appropriately, and necessary modifications should be made to meet the purpose of the design. It is estimated that what is meant by “plagiarism” is copying other drawings without making any adjustments based on the actual site conditions. In some newly installed units, issues such as incorrect positioning and redundant structures have been observed; perhaps this is the cause
The discussions on the 9th floor led to another topic, namely: strengthening the design management in design institutes, including but not limited to the \"three-stage system of design, verification, and review\", design change management, and the management of as-built drawings, among others. During the design process, design changes often occur for various reasons, leading to \"upgrades\", which is quite normal. However, before the final as-built drawings are archived, each specialty must indicate or reflect the changes in the as-built drawings. Some institutions are negligent in this regard, merely collecting and archiving the drawings, specification sheets, and design changes produced during the design process. The error made by the master on the previous project was not detected when the apprentice (or colleague) reused it in the next project, resulting in the same mistake being made again.
Agreed! Indeed, there are some design firms that do not pay attention to the preparation of as-built drawings; they simply attach the blueprints and design changes and consider that to be sufficient as as-built drawings, just to get things done. But the direct consequence is that the same problems reappear in the next project, which has a significant impact on the work of those responsible for ordering projects, carrying out construction, and handling design tasks, as well as on the reputation of the design institute. Managing this isn’t particularly difficult in itself, but few manage to do it well; it requires design institutes to drive progress from the top down. After all, only by continuously improving the quality of design work can a company take on more projects, and thus everyone’s earnings can increase!