ASCENT Blog

Labs Without Lecture?

By Elvis R. Sverko

When I took my Engineering classes in college (or university, for those who prefer that term), I took some classes that were labs, where you got to learn “hands-on”. Of course they came with a workbook and a lecture so you at least knew the process of the experiment, and the outcome of what you were trying to learn. I loved those labs. Not only am I a “visual” person, but I’m also a “hands-on” person. Labs are my favorite way to learn.

Many of today’s top software companies share the same thought when it comes to some of their potentially new software. They launch a “Labs” site. These “Labs” sites are great. You get to play with actual new powerful software, and it isn’t a trial version (well, in some ways it is a Trial, but because there’s not an official (or “paid” version) yet, I guess we won’t call it a trial, but it does kind of the same thing, where it gets you used to and excited about their software).

Anyway, it’s new software, with new features, new commands, new possibilities. Many of the new things you find on the “Labs” sites, actually do make it as real launched products. Check out Autodesk Labs for some really cool new CAD stuff. I also love Google Labs for some of their prototype and experimental applications.

As great as these Labs are, most don’t come with any type of workbook or lecture or help, to teach you how to use it. Sure some do, but not all do, and those that do, might be limited in content or poor in quality. If you don’t have a “lecture” to teach it to you, will you be able to use it properly? And, if you can’t properly use the software, might you get irritated at it and think that it sucks?

So, are these “Labs” good ideas? And if so, should we look at making some really good curriculum for them, or is it better to learn them on your own, blindfolded? Or will these “Labs” sites go to the wayside?

If Google’s notice that they will be shuttering their Labs site is an indication that they are bad ideas, then I’m wearing black. Because I love them, and I wouldn’t want to see them go away. I would love to write their curriculum too, just to see them survive! ;) And of course it would include some exercises for “Lab” time, because learning by proper lecture and then by doing, is probably the best way to learn.

"What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing." – Aristotle

 

Preparation with Hotfixes

By Elvis Sverko

As a trainer, there’s always the need to be prepared for the course at hand.

As a trainer of CAD software, part of the act of being prepared is having the software ready. That means making sure it’s installed. It means making sure it’s the correct version. It means making sure it’s set to the default state (see the post Out-of-the-Box). It means making sure the course files/dataset are in place. But even after all that, it still doesn’t mean it’s ready.

Case in point:  AutoCAD Electrical 2012

Out of the box, AutoCAD Electrical works fine, just as it should. However, due to a change in the base AutoCAD, some major workflows are affected. I’m talking about the SNAP mode. AutoCAD 2012 no longer snaps to the snap spacing while in Snap mode, unless it’s looking for a specific point input. This change in functionality does not bode well in AutoCAD Electrical because it’s imperative to be using Snaps while creating schematics, and there are certain commands in AutoCAD Electrical that you need to use the Snap mode, but because these commands aren’t specifically looking for a point, they are operating as if Snap mode is toggled off, even though you have it toggled on.

Anyway, Autodesk corrected this workflow anomaly with a Hotfix that would need to be downloaded and installed. Then AutoCAD Electrical 2012 works the way it did in 2011 in regards to the Snap mode. And this type of Hotfix is just the type of thing you need to have loaded in order for your software to be completely ready for your next training class.

So for your next training class that you deliver, make sure you have all the latest Hotfixes, Service Packs, etc. installed. You can then say you’re completely prepared.

“Before anything else, preparation is the key to success.” – Alexander Graham Bell

 

Standard or Customized?

By Paul Burden

You’ve determined that you and your staff need training. The reason may be to update overall skills or it may be to address a discrepancy between actual performance and desired performance. Whichever is the case, the next decision to be made is whether the courseware content you use will be standard off-the-shelf or customized.

Standard courseware content is offered by a number of sources in a variety of forms (e.g., self-study books, instructor-led training, synchronous and asynchronous web-based training, etc.). In all cases, standard courseware content is designed to appeal to the widest audience possible. For example, a standard introductory-level training guide for mechanical design CAD software must be kept general because it will be used by people whose job functions include plastic design, sheet metal design and mold design, among others. It has to include instruction on topics that appeal to each of these disciplines. Anyone using standard courseware content should be aware that an entire course might not be relevant. Before proceeding, you should investigate exactly what proportion of the content is not relevant. Is sending someone to a five-day training class worthwhile, if only three days of the covered topics apply to that person's job? Is there an alternative?

One alternative is to consider customized courseware content. The level of customization can vary, but the underlying advantage is that it focuses on your requirements – all the content is relevant. The downside is that customized courseware content is generally more expensive than standard, sometimes significantly so.

The simplest and least expensive form of customization involves taking standard courseware content and simply removing the unneeded topics. If the content provider has developed the courseware using a modular design, this process is easy. Very little writing or processing is required. For this form of customization, you pay the vendor to reorganize or recompile the courseware content.

The next level of customization incorporates aspects of what you do or of your environment directly into the courseware examples and exercises. While the instruction may remain somewhat general, the examples and exercises relate more directly to the job functions of your people. This can involve substituting your datasets and environment settings for the generic course datasets that have to relate to users with a variety of job functions and backgrounds. This form of customization is more time-consuming and, therefore, more expensive. Portions of the courseware content will need to be rewritten and the courseware developer must become familiar with the aspects of your processes that you want incorporated. The benefit is that your people can better relate to the examples and exercises, which may increase understanding and retention.

The third and most expensive level of customization is the creation of new courseware content specifically for your training requirements. The courseware development team may be able to adapt some existing material, but generally new material is created that specifically addresses what your people need to be able to do.

If you decide upon this level of customization, the first question that the courseware development team should ask you is, “What do you want your people to be able to do when they complete this training?” You should be asked to specify functions or tasks that they are currently unable to do satisfactorily. You should not be concerned with what topics are covered in the training or the duration of the training at this point. The answer to these questions will be determined after you have identified the critical functions and tasks; the courseware development team will work with you to determine what topics should be covered and the order in which they should be presented.

If the training is to be focused and concise, the developers should identify the concepts and the procedures that your people need to know, avoiding material that is nice-to-know. They will ask themselves, “What is the least people need to know to do these tasks?”. The nice-to-know material is non-essential and clutters a course. The developers will also identify the best instructional techniques and methods to convey the information. Now the actual duration of the training can be determined. They should also consider what tools and reference material your people normally have access to when doing their jobs. For example, if your company has a standards guide that designers refer to when creating models in your CAD software, that standards guide should be referenced in the training – it is part of the environment in which people normally work.

The development of courseware content (including copy editing and formatting) can require as low as 5 to 10 hours of development time for every hour of training for traditional instructor-led training materials. It can require much more time to develop web-based and interactive simulation training. This development time accounts for the higher costs associated with customized courseware content. To make the decision between standard and customized courseware content, you need to consider several factors:

• Relevance of standard material
• Time you can afford to have your people away from the job
• Number of people being trained

When it comes to covering introductory or fundamental topics for a given subject, standard courseware content is typically satisfactory – everybody usually needs to know the basics. For advanced tools and tasks, custom courseware content may be a choice worth considering. You are assured that the training will be focused, dealing only with topics of concern to your organization, and your people will not lose time sitting through content that is of neither use nor interest to them.

The cost of creating custom courseware content is the same whether it is for one person or for many people. If you are training a large number of people, it may be worthwhile to spend the extra money up front. Ultimately, the decision starts with how much you have available to spend. Standard courseware content is less expensive and will meet the requirements of most people. Custom courseware content, while costing more up front, enables you to have more control over what is taught and ensures complete relevance.

Out-of-the-Box

By Elvis Sverko

Almost all software is customizable. From email to accounting to games to CAD and everything in-between. And I’m not talking about its functionality, but its look and feel and layout. In essence, its appearance. Or Graphical User Interface (GUI). Sometimes, it becomes so customizable and people take advantage of it, that it can appear to be a completely different program altogether from the way it looked out-of-the-box. In effect, it really is gooey (sorry, couldn’t help myself).

Take for instance, AutoCAD.

 
AutoCAD, default, out-of-the-box.

 
AutoCAD, customized.

This degree of customization can prove challenging to trainers of the software. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that the software’s interface is completely customizable, so that each individual can streamline it for their particular workflow and comfort ability, but when training someone new to the software (and for that matter a group of individuals at the same time), having a similar look to the interface, makes is much easier. And much easier not just for the trainer, but the trainee as well.

So, what is the best interface setup to use when training someone? Some people would say it’s the particular customized setup that the trainee will be using for their particular workflow, which I think is correct.

But then again, I think it’s incorrect. That setup doesn’t work for a group of people all training at the same time but who will each have different workflows. It also doesn’t work for someone completely new to the software, and who doesn’t have someone else on-hand to help them get it setup to a particular custom likeness.

The best answer is Out-of-the-Box.

When the software first gets installed, it’s always setup the same way, the default, out-of-the-box way (except of course when there are options you can select during installation, but even then, there usually is a standard installation option.) And most manuals, courseware, etc. use the default out-of-the-box look as well.

Another challenge comes up however. When someone else previously used the installed software and made their own adjustments to the interface, whether it’s a classroom environment or on a production unit, it can become difficult to follow along, and features, windows, etc. are in different locations, or even not at all available through the same sequence of clicks. So we need a way to get the interface back to the default, out-of-the-box look. And luckily most software has such a way of doing it.

With Autodesk AutoCAD software, you can setup and save specific Workspaces, or Profiles, all depending on what exact settings you do want to save, if it isn’t default and out-of-the-box. You can always Export the default then Import it back if it gets changed, or simply reset it. But to take it even further to the ultimate default, on the Start Menu, expand Autodesk and the appropriate AutoCAD listing, and there is program you can click called “Reset Settings to Default”. It’s easy and quick, at just one button.

So if customization gets Out-of-Hand, return it to Out-of-the-Box!

“We will make our products work out of the box.” – Steve Ballmer

 

With CAD Going Mobile, What's Next?

By Elvis Sverko

People have been using CAD for years, decades even. And for the most part, it’s been on desktop computers and laptops all this time. And most people were trained that way. And it’s still the mainstay.

But today, most people who need to use CAD, or just need CAD models, aren’t tied to their desk, or like to carry laptops around anymore either. And with today’s proliferation of smartphones and tablets, these people need something better.

A few CAD software packages have recently started to make their way to these devices, including the newly launched Autodesk Inventor Publisher free mobile app which helps you create and view 3D interactive product documentation. There’s also the AutoCAD WS mobile app by Autodesk that let’s you view, edit, and share DWG drawings. And like Inventor Publisher, Dassault has 3DVIA Mobile which allows you to view and publish 3D models in various formats. But while the Autodesk products are available as both an iPhone/iPad and Android App, the Dassault product is currently only available as an iPhone/iPad App.

So what does all this mean? Other than a fantastic step forward in technology and the way people create and share model information, it also means that we’ll need to find the best way to train everyone on these apps and devices.

I recently purchased the new HTC Thunderbolt smartphone and started playing with some of these apps, and I got to say, they are awesome! It took me some time at first to get comfortable with the Android operating system, and then another few tries playing with the CAD softwares, (as I really only played with them for a few minutes a day for a few days). But all in all it was pretty simple. But when others tried to explain to me at first how to navigate through everything, they made it sound very complicated. And now that I understand it, I wonder why they didn’t just explain it to me in the simplest of terms. I don’t think they really understood it.

So as simple as it was for me to learn all this, these packages don’t do as much yet as their PC counterparts. But when they do, people will need to be trained properly on it. We might have some time, but we’ll need to be ready when the old desktop computers and laptops go way of the dinosaurs.

If you have any thoughts on training people for mobile apps, especially CAD, please forward them to me. It would be interesting to hear everyone’s thoughts. Thanks.