Working Drawings Handbook
Issuing drawings
It has already been noted that the drawing register is not
a convenient document for recording the issue of
drawings to others, neither, although it is sometimes
used for this purpose, is the drawing itself. Indeed, one
should first start by questioning the need for such a
record in the first place. That drawings, both on
completion and on subsequent revision, should go to the
people who need them, is perhaps self-evident. Yet
instances abound of site staff working from out-of-date
information, of revision B going to the structural engineer
but not the M & E consultant, of the quantity surveyor
being unaware of the expensive revised detail agreed on
site and hastily confirmed by a sketch to the contractor
but not to him. The fundamental question for anyone
engaged in preparing working drawings—who am I
doing this for?—needs to be asked yet again here.
Whoever it is being drawn for needs it, and the common-
sense procedure of mentally running through the list of
everybody whose understanding of the job is remotely
changed by the preparation of the new drawing or
revision is a valuable discipline for reducing
communication gaps. Send to too many rather than to
too few is a good maxim.
The keeping of a drawings issue register, however,
will not of itself guarantee that the right people get the
right drawings. The best we can achieve is to set up
disciplines which, if they cannot prevent errors and
omissions, can at least assist their detection in
due time.
Two such disciplines may be mentioned. First, the use of
a drawings issue slip when any drawing leaves the
office—even though accompanied by a covering letter—
provides an easily leafed-through file record in the
issuing drawing office (5.12). Second, the routine issue
at regular intervals to all members of the team—
contractors, sub-contractors and consultants alike—of
the drawing register. This at least enables the recipient
to check that they are working to the latest revision of a
given drawing, and to some extent throws the onus on
them for ensuring that their information is up to date.As to the more mundane question of physically
conveying a package of drawings from one office to
another, then the larger drawings, unless they are
rolled (which is irritating for the recipient) will be folded
down to A4 or A3, depending on their volume, and
always, of course, with the title panel on the outside
(see 4.19and 4.20).Small drawings, whether of A4 or A3 format, should not
be issued loose when they form a set. Their use is
sometimes criticised, especially by builders, but a lot of
this criticism stems from their misuse in practice rather
than from any inherent defect in their size. They are only
difficult to coordinate if no logical search pattern holds
the set together, and they only get out of sequence or
get lost if they are issued unbound. It is important
therefore that sets of small drawings should be treated
as instruction manuals rather than individual sheets, and
should be held together accordingly in simple folders
(loose-leaf to facilitate photocopying for issue to
suppliers by the contractor). It is anomalous that the
motor engineer assembling a car in the protected
conditions of a factory or workshop should be given a
book of instructions to work from, while the building
operative working on precarious scaffolding and battling
against wind and rain should traditionally be expected to
work from loose sheets of paper flapping round him.It is appropriate that such bound manuals should
contain the drawing register, and some form of guide to
the drawing method.One approach with CAD is to publish alldrawings in
electronic format on a secure ‘members only’website. All
the team can see the latest revisions and can call for
their own copy if needed. This puts the onus on
recipients to request drawings rather than on the
architect to issue them.