91 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
91 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
id:
|
|
aliases: []
|
|
title: 2026-01-07
|
|
tags:
|
|
- authorship/original
|
|
- destiny/permanent
|
|
- status/draft
|
|
- type/daily
|
|
---
|
|
# 2026-01-07
|
|
|
|
## 2026-01-07 10:03
|
|
|
|
At Ace, "residential" always meant single-family/duplex construction,
|
|
but I think now we were the outliers.
|
|
|
|
## 2026-01-07 10:05
|
|
|
|
See [[pdi-breakdowns#Location]].
|
|
|
|
I have---for some time now---
|
|
been trying to figure out the purpose of the non-system breakdowns.
|
|
|
|
[[location-vs-scope]]
|
|
|
|
Perhaps there is another dichotomy
|
|
in that an estimator may use the area classifications of the design
|
|
or according to their own understanding of each term.
|
|
For lack of a better example,
|
|
whether a "101 - KITCHEN", without provisions for cooking,
|
|
would be broken down under "Kitchen".
|
|
|
|
## 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 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.
|
|
|
|
## 2026-01-07 12:13
|
|
|
|
Just now Jorge admonished another peer
|
|
for using insulated wire for pool bonding.
|
|
|
|
## 2026-01-07 16:03
|
|
|
|
#occupational #topic/organization
|
|
|
|
There is a palpable animosity for [[pdi-estimating#Bid Estimating|Bid]]
|
|
in [[pdi-estimating#Construction Estimating (ConEst)|ConEst]],
|
|
stemming---I believe---from an lack of buy-in on Bid's part.
|
|
Their lack is easily explained by their [[estimating-culture#Incentives|incentive structure]]:
|
|
Since throughput is systematically prioritized over accuracy,
|
|
ConEst has a strictly antagonistic role
|
|
because it slows down the bid process.
|