Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
(OP)
Sorry for yet another post but:
For those of you who have a formal drawing check process (not just dedicated checkers) what are typical minimum qualifications/job requirements.
Just to narrow the field, I don’t just mean a vague peer review but thorough checking for completeness, correct GD & T, standards compliance, basic form/fit/function, tolerance analysis, DFMA etc.
I tried looking at job postings but almost all of them listed previous checker experience as being a requirement and I’m just looking for bare minimum.
It’s come up because we only have one ‘approved’ checker, me (and frankly my qualifications for the position are questionable) and people are complaining about the back log and asking why they can’t check etc. We’ve had at least one Engineer send several messages saying that someone with a Masters prepared the drawings she with Bachelors already reviewed them, why isn’t that sufficient. I just finished checking the first pack from her earlier today and, lets just say they weren’t good.
We have a check policy that says my boss maintains a list of approved checkers, I’m the only one on it for now. We want to formalize our requirements for being a checker so that we can defend our stance of not letting just anyone with a pulse check and also hopefully so it can help us find someone else to share the load.
For starters I’m thinking:
1. Minimum 5 years preparing drawings to ASME Y14.100 (or equivalent).
2. Skilled in the application and understanding of GD&T (ASME Y14.5M-1994), preferably at least GDTP Technologist level or broadly equivalent combination of training and experience.
3. Experience with ‘Worst Case’ stack up tolerance analysis including impact of GD&T.
4. Familiarity with common manufacturing processes preferably with knowledge of DFMA principles.
5. Good communication skills to explain drawing changes, standards requirements and represent documentation requirements at meetings etc
6. Internal candidates should have a proven track record of complying with relevant company policies and procedures.
I have my doubts about academic qualifications (other than GDTP etc) having much direct relevance though maybe a minimum of high school wouldn't be a bad idea.
Any suggested changes or additions?
For those of you who have a formal drawing check process (not just dedicated checkers) what are typical minimum qualifications/job requirements.
Just to narrow the field, I don’t just mean a vague peer review but thorough checking for completeness, correct GD & T, standards compliance, basic form/fit/function, tolerance analysis, DFMA etc.
I tried looking at job postings but almost all of them listed previous checker experience as being a requirement and I’m just looking for bare minimum.
It’s come up because we only have one ‘approved’ checker, me (and frankly my qualifications for the position are questionable) and people are complaining about the back log and asking why they can’t check etc. We’ve had at least one Engineer send several messages saying that someone with a Masters prepared the drawings she with Bachelors already reviewed them, why isn’t that sufficient. I just finished checking the first pack from her earlier today and, lets just say they weren’t good.
We have a check policy that says my boss maintains a list of approved checkers, I’m the only one on it for now. We want to formalize our requirements for being a checker so that we can defend our stance of not letting just anyone with a pulse check and also hopefully so it can help us find someone else to share the load.
For starters I’m thinking:
1. Minimum 5 years preparing drawings to ASME Y14.100 (or equivalent).
2. Skilled in the application and understanding of GD&T (ASME Y14.5M-1994), preferably at least GDTP Technologist level or broadly equivalent combination of training and experience.
3. Experience with ‘Worst Case’ stack up tolerance analysis including impact of GD&T.
4. Familiarity with common manufacturing processes preferably with knowledge of DFMA principles.
5. Good communication skills to explain drawing changes, standards requirements and represent documentation requirements at meetings etc
6. Internal candidates should have a proven track record of complying with relevant company policies and procedures.
I have my doubts about academic qualifications (other than GDTP etc) having much direct relevance though maybe a minimum of high school wouldn't be a bad idea.
Any suggested changes or additions?
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...





RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
For #1, I would suggest min 10 years.
#5, good communication (written AND verbal skills)
I think I would also add a good knowledge of machining practices.
Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Emphasis on machining is good idea, as that's how most of our parts are made. Also written & verbal, good point.
I'm pretty sure that whatever I come up with either I'll be disqualified or, I'll have to water down requirements so that I'm not.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
I cannot see how someone can check mechanical drawings without extensive experience at mechanical design. This gives them the training at GD&T and other drafting standards, and DFMA. Extensive design experince in-house means they are familiar with your particular design problems, and they have a track record of good judgement and getting things done. You can ask the fabricators how good their drawings are.
I am trying to think back on how competent and knowledgeable I was with five years experience. I agree with ctopher about the ten years.
Your tag line implies you were saddled with this. You could state that five years is the minimum acceptable, but ten years is strongly preferred.
JHG
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Maybe number 7 on your list should read something like, requires the patience of Job (biblical character) and the hide of an elephant. Coming into a company as a design checker requires both (as I am sure you know) and you need to be sure that the person you get can stand up to both the natural resistance/obstinance of the designers (I freely admit that I have been like that in tha past but I have seen the light) and senior managers (usually outside an eng. dept) who want things 'now not tomorrow'
Good luck finding the right person
Kevin
“It is a mathematical fact that fifty percent of all doctors graduate in the bottom half of their class." ~Author Unknown
"If two wrongs don't make a right, try three." ~Author Unknown
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
If you add up all of the desired characteristics of a good checker, you will severely limit the number of applicants available.
This is probably the reason why the best checkers that I have known were not young. It takes time to gain quality experience. You might have to rank your requirements as to what is most important, and (I hate this) settle for the best you can get, and give the winning applicant the support necessary to improve to the level that you desire.
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
I do not consider myself qualified/experienced enough to hold the position but as I've mentioned before our Senior Design Checker got laid off and I've been determined the least bad candidate to fill the void.
Drawoh, agree about the experience. Several people here have stated that we should be able to train checkers which I dont believe to be true. We're trying to formalize what the bare minimum requirement is for experience/qualification. We've only recently introduced industry drawing standards here and outside our department most people don't really follow them so hence the proviso on internal candidates and the fact I emphasize 14.100 in the experience.
Prohammy, you're not wrong. We actually have that (phrased differently) in our job description for hiring internally. Sadly given we just lost our checker to lay off this isn’t actually for a job posting for an external hire.
The purpose of this description is so we can end up with an internal ‘job description/minimum qualification’ to defend against the idea of any old Joe doing it. I plan on saying it was prepared after review typical industry requirements and consulting with industry experts (that’s you guys
The other idea that’s been mooted is that we approve some existing Engineers/Designers as lower level checkers for simpler tasks.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
As regards the settling, which I too hate, I haven't seen anyone here outside my department who comes close to being marginally acceptable!
I don't come anywhere near the previous incumbant of this position in terms of qualification or experience, I knew this before grudgingly accepting it and get reminded of it daily. I'm not yet 30, he was past retirement age. There's no comparison.
But I'm trying...
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Doh, what was that about strong written comunication skills.
Should have been "... hiring externally..."
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
You cannot teach ten years of design experience.
Having said that, there is a training issue with design checkers. You need to be very organized at handling information. With a good, methodical process, you can check a drawing package a day. Without it, you could take weeks.
If the checker has design experience, they will be familiar with design tools. If a drawing package is well executed, it is extremely unlikely the designer does not understand CAD thoroughly. If the package is a mess, it is likely the designer is incompetent with CAD, but sorting this out is not necessarily the checker's responsibility.
The most important thing you need is the backing of management.
JHG
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
It seems that you don't place much value on a well constructed model. With the power available in todays CAD systems, this can be a serious oversight. Properly constructed and maintained, you can make a change to one part and have all related parts update automatically. These changes can be simply changing an expression.
If the models aren't properly constructed, this simple change may turn into a complicated change involving MANY more man-hours to implement.
I agree about the importance of design experience. I just wanted to emphasize that, while a model may "look" good, that it pays off in the long run if the model is indeed "good".
There are very many CAD jockeys out there that can create models and drawings in very short time, but not all of them are methodical enough to create robust models (similar to the lack of good drawings we see today). If your product involves any complicated geometry or assemblies, it is better to establish modeling criteria from the beginning.
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Put yourself in the shoes of a good design checker who is admiring a clear, accurate, standards compliant drawing package. The CAD model is a link in a chain that, apparently, is working.
It is possible that a CAD operator could produce a throughly screwed up CAD model, and that an experienced and very skilled drafter could turn the mess into high quality drawings. This would be managed pretty much the way things were done back in the drafting board days with a calculator and a scratch pad to make sure all the dimensions lined up. This would be a pretty deranged waste of company resources. It would be a lot easier to fire the CAD operator.
High quality drawings are produced by well organized, methodical, knowledgeable designers. High quality CAD models are produced by... ?
When I finalize my SolidWorks fabrication drawings, I go into the assemblies and I delete all the external parametric constraints. I do not want features of a finalized fabrication drawing controlled outside the CAD model attached to the drawing. SolidWorks updates read-only CAD models in RAM. The dimensions on your fabrication drawing can vary depending on what other files you have open when you print it.
In the real world, you are not allowed to change form, fit and function of your fabricated parts. You certainly are not allowed to do it randomly and without warning.
JHG
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
"Put yourself in the shoes of a good design checker who is admiring a clear, accurate, standards compliant drawing package. The CAD model is a link in a chain that, apparently, is working."
The key word here is "apparently". If you only need this package for a design that is mature and will need no further development, then I agree with your point. If there is any possibility of this package being the basis of a new design, then the model is a very important link, and deserves a more thorough examination than just having a clear, accurate, standards compliant drawing. It also effects CMM and CAM.
"High quality CAD models are produced by..." well organized, methodical, knowledgeable designers.
"SolidWorks updates read-only CAD models in RAM."
This sounds like a software issue, and if proper controls are in place, this is not an issue with NX. I am not familiar enough with SolidWorks to comment further.
"In the real world, you are not allowed to change form, fit and function of your fabricated parts. You certainly are not allowed to do it randomly and without warning."
In the real development world, you are EXPECTED to change form, fit and function as the design progresses. You have to have a record of these changes, and have a robust PLM system in place to document these changes. My point is that, especially in development, it is much more efficient to change a detail and have a domino effect of updated parts result than it is to change each and every part individually. These changes would all be recorded by default, and you would be aware of what parts you are changing. You must also have good communication within the company.
An aircraft is a highly complex mechanism, and getting it approved and flying in a timely manner will make or break a company.
Anyway, this is getting off topic, and different industries do have different needs.
(getting off of soapbox)
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Sometimes a good model and bad drawing but this is very rare.
What will happen is that someone who knows what they are doing with drafting will update an old drawing to look fairly good, but leave the model in a state. Low and behold when you want to make a development based on that part (or when it doesn't effect form fit function etc a change to that part) you hit big problems.
We have got some basic modeling rules/guidelines [such as the model dimensions/dimension scheme being the same as the drawing and the thing about deleting parametric links prior to release] but few follow them and in our priority list correcting this has had to take a secondary place to getting the actual drawings to an acceptable standard.
I do not assume that if the drawing is good the model is good. If nothing else the person preparing (or at least finishing) the drawing isn't always the person that initially created the model. Drawings are laid out for you to see any issues, with models problems may be hidden although our CAD has tools for finding some of them. However I don't always have the time/remit to do much about it.
As to the off topic issue about the benefits/problems of parametric links:
During initial design/development phase, before hardware, incredibly useful. During Prototype stage when changes are being made still has major benefits but can start to cause problems. During production/sustainment phase, problematic (this is what I took drawoh to be talking about).
I don't so much mean in terms of creating assemblies out of parts (though occasionally this can have issues) but in terms of features in one part being driven by links to features in another.
You change a feature in one part and it changes another part that isn't immediately obvious. This is especially problematic if the part you're working on is used on a number of unrelated assemblies. Especially if one half of the 'pair' is used independently from the other in some applications.
Of course this is minimized by following proper revision protocols but problematic at times none the less.
drawoh - easier to fire the CAD operator, in my dreams. Plus then there'd be no one left except me and one or two others.
fcsuper, It’s easy to be humble when the others around you are (mostly) more experienced and knowledgeable. Of course others may have different opinions as to my humility, you only see my virtual self.
ewh, I agree about CAD jockeys creating models/drawings fast but when you come to do anything with them later, night mare. I lay part of the blame on typical CAD training. It’s usually all about what the software can do, not what you should do with it. Perhaps it’s a subtle distinction but an important one.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
internal(you) and external(customer) constraints, model and create drawings (templates). For example we, the company I work for we identified approx 60% internal constraints ( we control) and 40% external constraints(customer control) standardized models and drawings where by designers and checker followed est guide lines. Basically check time reduced by 60%. Of note the drawing config templates also incorp standard notes for specific manufacturing process, finish,material and id process specification (hyperlinked) for ref when creating drawing from templates. Also all this was collaborative design and project engineers, drafters ect.. with periodic design reviews of cad std's.
Also created automated excel BOM spread sht linked to master models. Bottom line start with one product master model and cookie cut to other similar product configs.
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
We don't use Solid Works, though I believe I understand what you are talking about.
We do not really have semi standard parts which can be set up as templates. However, we are applying some of these ideas to the top level tools assemblies where possible.
Cables is one area where we might be able to set up a more detailed template (at least drawing), an old one exists but needs updating to reflect drawings standards.
We already have the standard notes, it's not very elegant (inserted word file) but is workable, some need values adding and typically about 3/4 end up getting deleted. However, a lot of people will change it however they feel like or even delete the whole block.
When we first introduced the CAD standards we had get together with representatives from each department to get agreement. Unfortunately a lot of them don't see standards as being of value or play nicely in the meetings nodding their heads etc and then completely ignore it in practice.
Master BOM & configuration is done by our MRP system.
So long as the majority of Designers and their immediate supervisors/project leaders don’t seem to care about the standards, or in some cases even about creating high quality documentation, Check does end up being a bottle neck. Hopefully things will improve as more people are getting their drawings checked and start to learn how drawings should look but I’m not optimistic of it being quick or easy.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
"Don't waste your time making the process idiotproof. There will always be a better idiot."
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
I agree with the requirements for checkers. That would be a nice, real world, place to work. The issue I have is that a checker can just sign it off. If something is missed, “I’m sorry I missed it”. In the 80’s I was getting $18 per hour as an engineering checker, not drafting checker before CAD. The checker I worked with was experienced and getting $28 per hour. His way of proving himself was to have drafters move dimensions around the drawing. We do not have checkers here were I work, non-military and non-medical. CAD has solved most of our issues.
I had an engineer check one of my (4 E size sheets) design changes to a pipe bender. It took him 30 seconds to sign his name as checked. You get the idea.
Bradley
SolidWorks Premim 2007 x64 SP4.0
PDM Works, Dell XPS Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU
3.00 GHz, 5 GB RAM, Virtual memory 12577 MB, nVidia 3400
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
It's basically that we are being pressured to allow other people to check drawings, we want to formalize what we believe the absolute minimum requirements are for someone to have to do meaningful checking. As I mentioned some people think if they have a BS or MS they should automatically be able to check drawings. Likewise our Doc Control supervisor thinks we should be able to simply train some of the current staff (the same ones who prepare poor drawings, flagrantly violate standards/procedures etc).
If we can find someone else internally who meets the requirements and is willing & whose manager is OK with it, then that would be great. I’m doubtful this will happen though.
Our work is non medical non military but CAD hasn't solved the issues at my place, in fact it's made some things worse as it's now even faster/easier to do it wrong
I try to be pretty pragmatic in my checking but if someone’s dimension scheme isn't coherent/doesn’t support function of the part etc. then yes, I will have them move dimensions around the drawing.
I was taught that the checker is at least equally responsible with the person preparing the drawing, sometimes we’d joke more so, so just saying “Oops, Sorry I made a mistake” doesn’t really cut it for me for a checker any more than for the original designer/engineer.
We are starting to put together a system for determining which drawings/drawing changes need full check, which can have a summary check and which can be peer reviewed, I’m not overly happy with it as it’s the start of a slippery slope but we don’t have the resource to do a full check on every change in a reasonable time scale.
Enough whining & moaning for now though...
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Bradley
SolidWorks Premim 2007 x64 SP4.0
PDM Works, Dell XPS Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU
3.00 GHz, 5 GB RAM, Virtual memory 12577 MB, nVidia 3400
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Our senior Design Checker was apparently the highest paid in my immediate department, so he made more than me. (I guess when they set the pay rates they felt 40+ years experience but no bachelors was worth more than 6-7 years + bachelors, which for the role I can't argue with.) Plan was originally I'd still be doing some design/engineering as well as checking when I took on the job.
As to why they are considering letting anyone with a pulse check, there's an element of truth in what you say, no one else here (that I know of) really looks at drawings in any great detail. Also I can't check fast enough to keep up so there is a genuine delay.
Interestingly just after they laid off our checker they also started wanting all drawings from all departments checked, up until then (including when I grudgingly took the job) it had only been maybe 1/2 of all drawings, probably less.
Initially I thought they were deliberately trying to break the system so they could get away from checking at all but now I’m not so sure, a few people actually seem to value it, up to a point.
Anyway I’ve probably started to say to much like I did on thread1103-193705: Drawing standards only for Military work so I better stop now.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
I understand and good luck. Please let us know how this turns out a year from now.
The least qualified checker is an Engineer who does not want to check.
Bradley
SolidWorks Premim 2007 x64 SP4.0
PDM Works, Dell XPS Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU
3.00 GHz, 5 GB RAM, Virtual memory 12577 MB, nVidia 3400
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
I'm doing it because I value the function and sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is but, I'd be lying if I said I wanted to make a career out of it.
Assuming I'm still here I'm sure I'll still be posting in a year to wail and moan about my situation
Thanks Bradley.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
I am not checking any more, but when I did it, I just loved it. I started the way you are now. Just part time, design part time. My goal was to not make changes, unless the parts would be made wrong. Then management got involved which made me redline other issues.
What I liked most is when an engineer would come to me and thank me for catching an error.
Bradley
SolidWorks Premim 2007 x64 SP4.0
PDM Works, Dell XPS Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU
3.00 GHz, 5 GB RAM, Virtual memory 12577 MB, nVidia 3400
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
1) design and manufacture of radar pedestals
2) design and manufacture of communications equipment
3) design and manufacture of electro-hydraulic servo-valves for aerospace.
The last of these was around 15 years ago, and I haven't had the fortune of working with a dedicated checker since.
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
My previous employer in the UK (Aerospace Defense) got rid of their last dedicated checker in the mid-late 90s (before I started there) when the design offic shrunk to single figures. When I started there we had peer checking but eventually we came to the realization that the level of checking we were getting wasn't adequate, too many mistakes getting through & new people not learning to do it properly. Before I left we'd set it up so that (except for his own work) all checking was done by one of the senior guys.
I'm not especially surprised you've never worked with one gmarken but from what I've seen they are more than worth the time/money/resource.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
As to the volume issue, if you don't have volume to justify 100% dedicated checker than a checker/designer like we went toward at my last place isn't a bad compromise.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
A major requirement of successful design checking is that you need to agree on what your drawing standards are. My experience is that we did not have standards, and there was no convenient way to resolve arguments. The managers were not mechanical engineers, designers or drafters. If you have no training or experince at mechanical drafting, you have no way to determine whether or not the checker is competent and reasonable. This is a golden opportunity for office politics.
JHG
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
thread765-194599: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
You are right about "no way of knowing". The smooth talker wins without standards in place.
Bradley
SolidWorks Premim 2007 x64 SP4.0
PDM Works, Dell XPS Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU
3.00 GHz, 5 GB RAM, Virtual memory 12577 MB, nVidia 3400
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
For instance the ASME standards have a lot of wiggle room, shoulds etc instead of shall.
For some of these areas we've tightened/clarified them with our own internal Design Room Manual but I still come across areas of contention.
I'm torn between the fact that it's good to question rules regs etc or they'd never develop but at the same time just wanting to say 'because I said so' 90% of the time.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
But a GOOD checker is one who is first concerned with form/fit/function THEN concerned with ASME Y14.100 (or whatever the prevailing drafting standard is). Once he knows the design meets f/f/f then he checks drawings for conformance to the drafting standard and to company standards. This guy has lots of experience and knows the standards inside and out. As long as the drawing meets the standards then he's happy. He doesn't insist on seeing things a certain way; he knows the drawing standards are flexible and doesn't get retentive.
Now whether or not the designers give him sufficient checking packages to insure f/f/f is a different story. Usually it's hopeless to expect a complete checking package (or a checking package AT ALL) so the only thing he has left to do is insure the drawing meets drafting standards. Of course his workload and/or the project schedule often preclude him from complete checks even IF he is given complete checking packages.
Tunalover
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Fit,fuction,form,interchangeability, assembleability (new word?), inspectability (i.e. verifiability)and complete component delineation. Those are the elements of design check, and it almost always involves more than just a single part. Applying accepted standards for uniformity and proper interpretation come next. A checker should be able to justify any change by one of the above elements.
Whenever any designer for engineer hands you single part drawing to review, ask these two questions: "What does it do? What does it mate to?"
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Agree and that's what I try to do. I put most of those items in my OP, just not in order of importance. I'd be lying though if I said I'd never asked for changes just because it's how I prefer it but I try to stop myself. In fact I find myself frequently going back to 14.5 to check if things are just my personal preference or a real standard.
The thing I will say is that it seems to me, in my admittedly limited, experience that it's easier to check the 'important' stuff if the 'less important' stuff is correct.
If the symbology etc is correct then I find it faster/easier to check the actual values asigned etc. When the drawing looks like a 10 year old with an etch a sketch did it, it can be difficult to get to the FFF type information.
Plus using the symbology etc. incorrectly can affect FFF so you need at least some level of compliance with the standard. A classic example of this would be datum placement.
What does it do, what does it mate to, I should get a sign for my desk! I'm also at the stage of asking how thorough a check it needs and even if they ask for full check they still often aren't good at giving the required infor for a full FFF etc check.
(FYI Ron I now get to check not just Design Services and Most Automated drawings but almost all drawings that go through ECO, I'm having fun with some of them!)
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
Ken
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...