WorksManager

I wanted to start a thread where we talk about how we organize and distribute designs in WorksManager/TCC. With the workflow being almost totally through Worksmanager now, I'm more interested in that. 
  
What i'm talking about exactly is how do you guys organize what gets put on designs, how you break them up to send out to the data collectors, handle the conflicts that arise afterwards. I feel like I am constantly resolving conflicts due to having objects in several different designs. 
  
How I do it: 

We break our designs into several different designs for each surface/utility scope, so we end up having a pond design, a parking design, a full site surface design, a landscape design, a pads design, a full site design, a water util design, storm design, sewer water design, channel design, roadway design, etc. If a project has many pieces to it, this can get pretty crazy. We started doing this to keep designs from getting too big when loaded into the data collector and keeping from too many objects being on one design.

This causes a lot of the same objects to be a part of several different designs so even if I make a small change to a curb I have to republish every single design because of it. Also, objects tend to get taken off the design all the time from editing linestrings, so I have to go back into each design and make sure all objects are still selected. 
  
I've thought about including a site map to remedy this, but then our surveyors get frustrated from having to back out and load into several different designs because the site map is only for reference. 
  
I'm always open to different ways of going about things and am wondering if any of you have better ways of organizing your information.

------------------------------
john chronister
------------------------------

I would recommend looking into VCLS via the TBC to WM integration. The advantage of this is for SiteWorks and Earthworks you can have several surfaces part of 1 design. This way the linework is all the same but you can have specific surface models for varying phases of work. Both Siteworks and Earthworks (if VC) can turn off layers so I find I am better having more layers sent out and then field crews can turn of what they don't need at the moment. I think the UI of layer selection could use a spruce up on both respective programs to make this easier and more intuitive for users though, commands similar t the graphically isolate and freeze that we have with TBC). If you have older style collector like GCS900, WM will automatically take the VCL great designs for each surface. 

There are some major quirks with the TBC-WM process right now so my recommendation for doing this is to have your working drawing and a WM upload drawing. High level: issues with dependent objects, blocks, utilities. I currently export all of my linework and surfaces from my working drawing using dxf/dwg and LandXML, this way you can export alignments and multiple surfaces at once, import into the WM upload drawing and publish this way. Works well and because DXF/DWG is tried and true you can confirm that you get all of your data from some of the smarter objects of TBC (utilities, blocks) to the field devices. 

I agree with you on having multiple surfaces that this can be hard to manage and is my hesitation with making to many complex models for specific scenarios. VCLs are a good step forward in that direction but need work and feedback from other users on good and bad.

------------------------------
Patrick L'heureux
------------------------------

It's a good question and I'm interested as well.  

Our company work in excavation.  Mostly DOT work with a smattering of private site work.  We have a mix of CB460 and earthworks equipment.  Our company has a dozen pieces of equipment with GPS capabilities.  We generally have a dozen projects in the half million to 1 million in scope.  We usually have prime 1 to 3 larger projects (5-10 Mil) through the year, which takes up the majority of my time.

I create as little as 1 design and as many as 4 or 5 depending on the work that's required.  We always have a subgrade, regardless of the project.  If there is any complications to the project - different pavement or stone depths, then I add on base course designs to give my guys further guidance. Then we will also create storm sewer designs specifically for the rover, giving them line and grade as well as back of curb.  

I do most of my surface design in Civil 3D.  That has been the program I work most with in the past, so that's probably why I stick with it, but I find it has a lot more control and ease of use.  Most likely because I know where everything is and with TBC I have issues even trying to print something to a scale.  I'm sure if I didn't have the option, I could get the ins and outs of TBC, but seeing as I have the option, I use it.  One thing I will say is that it's very nice to use the program that the designs are designed in.  In my state, Civil 3d is the state's required format for designs, so that's the way most design firms have went.  

This does cause the same issues that you have, as in if a curb flowline changes, I have multiple designs that I have to adjust, but generally large issues like that get worked out while I'm creating the designs.  

The actual process I use to create designs is that I use provided design information as a guide.  I draw lines on the surfaces they provide and massage those lines to work with Trimble.  For example, Civil 3d allows for straight vertical lines in their corridors.  This doesn't work very well with trimble, so I offset the vertical lines by 0.03 feet in order to get a readable vertical cut, which works out great in dozers and is a pain on the rover if you can't see the cross sections. I do my best to check my work a couple times.  The best is when you can have someone else look over it.  I'm the only one in the office that knows CAD, so I print out quantities and ask project managers if they look right.  If they do, then I know I'm on the right track.  If they don't, I start hunting.   

I couldn't ever immagine sending data out like Patrick does.  My guys have a hard enough time dealing with the seperate designs.  Trying to teach them how to switch between different linework and surfaces would be a nightmare on my end.  I like having the control of what they can see via different designs so that I know if they are going by what I've designed, they aren't going to be making any mistakes.  Excavation in my state is cut throat at the moment, a lot of bids are won on less than a percentage of difference, so any loss in work time or added expense due to mistakes is a big deal to my boss. 

Private site designs are by far my largest time sinks.  There are always add ons to those projects.  When designs change, I generally just add on to an existing design or create a new one out of whole cloth.

------------------------------
Anthony Smith
------------------------------