49 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
49 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
id: 2026-01-07T10:42:00-0500
|
|
title: 2026-01-07 10:42:??
|
|
tags:
|
|
- occupational
|
|
- topic/estimating
|
|
daily: "[[2026-01-07]]"
|
|
---
|
|
# 2026-01-07 10:42:??
|
|
|
|
When I got to work today Art admonished a fellow estimator
|
|
for not uploading _all_ of a project's drawings,
|
|
even those they did not intend to take off, to Trimble Connect.
|
|
Art suggested that the estimator should upload all the drawings,
|
|
but only add them to LiveCount as needed.
|
|
|
|
I take issue with the suggestion on principle
|
|
since doing so would not benefit the estimator or their senior
|
|
(if they aren't added, the estimator can do nothing with them),
|
|
but would require not-insignificant effort.
|
|
Effort that would ultimately benefit no one:---
|
|
|
|
Trimble Connect's ham-fisted approach to version control
|
|
means that the fewer times it must be used, the better.
|
|
|
|
> I'm currently dealing with the headache of an estimate
|
|
> where such caution was not applied.
|
|
|
|
The probability that any construction will be performed
|
|
according the drawings that we take off
|
|
(or even their immediate successors)
|
|
I suspect is slim to zero.
|
|
That [[pdi-operations|Ops]] would have the patience to add the revisions,
|
|
fighting with Trimble Connect as they would be,
|
|
I suspect is even less.
|
|
|
|
> On my current project, after trying in vain to play by Trimble's rules,
|
|
> I started by deleting all the drawings I could
|
|
> (those without takeoff associated with them)
|
|
> then reuploaded the revised set.
|
|
> I'm confident that this would be the dominant strategy.
|
|
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
It's curious to me that the possibility of scope revisions
|
|
doesn't seem to be at the front of every estimator's mind
|
|
when doing takeoff or considering process changes,
|
|
like it was for my mentors and peers at Ace.
|