×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications
8

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?


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

I think you have a good start.
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

2
(OP)
Thanks Ctopher, I was originally thinking 10 years but don't want to disqualify my self, I only have approaching 7 years.

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.smile

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

2
KENAT,

   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

Ken,

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

I agree that familiarity with machining is desirable, as is extensive design experience.  You would also want someone who knows how to produce a GOOD drawing, and is well versed in GD&T (inspection experience perhaps?).  You need someone who can manipulate the CAD files to ensure proper modeling techniques are followed.  
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

(OP)
Thanks gents.

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 guyssmile)

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

(OP)
Didn't see your post ewh, your points are well taken especially re 3D CAD.  We aren't formally checking models yet but we have identified it as something we'd like to do and on one major program it's getting done to some extent.

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

(OP)

Quote:

differently) in our job description for hiring internally.  

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

KENAT,

   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

drawoh,
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

ewh,

   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

(getting on soapbox)

"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.  peace
(getting off of soapbox)

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

As humble as you are, KENET, I would consider you the most qualified person I see regularly posting here. :)

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

(OP)
We typically have bad models and drawings.

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.smile  Backing of management, I almost fell out of my chair laughing on that one, with one or two exceptions (my immediate boss is good as he was brought into the company to improve documentation) management (and other engineers) see the checking process as an unnecessary inconvenience/delay.

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.smile

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

As a design checker I agree with a majority of whats been conveyed above, "the checker does not need to be the sphincter at the end of the flow chart". Automate by creating a begin environment, for example create master models in solidworks for various product configs, identify
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

That is a great way to start contolling your documentation, 12156!

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

(OP)
Thanks for the ideas 121560.

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

Word of advice I found out a while back...
"Don't waste your time making the process idiotproof.  There will always be a better idiot."

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

    Checking is a thankless job and not many want the job. It is not easy telling someone they made a mistake. Engineers do not want to check drawings for standards and etc. So they do not make good checkers. I would rather hire someone who wants the job, because they enjoy it. Rather than hire someone who is experienced and hungry and hates the job.

   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

(OP)
Hiring externally is not currently an option (we just laid off our senior design checker) and the point of this post wasn't to put together a job add.  That said I pretty much agree with your first paragraph Bradley.

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 wrongsmile.  Some of the old ‘back of a napkin’ sketches are better than some of the CAD drawings being produced.

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

You said management laid off the Senior Design Checker. Why would management cut cost by laying off the “money saving Checker”, then pay an engineer more money to check drawings than the checker was getting? (just a guess here). Our Engineers cost our company over $100 per hour. Not the pay they receive, the companies cost. By the way, most but not all Engineers do not do the detailed job of checking drawings that is needed. That must be the reason management wants to get the Engineers to check, they just look at the drawing and sign it off. That is quicker, so the cost is less.

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

(OP)
Bradley,

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

KENAT,
   I understand and good luck. Please let us know how this turns out a year from now.

Quote:

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
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

(OP)
Depending on your view point that could be me!  

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 situationwinky smile3

Thanks Bradley.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

KENAT,
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

Can I ask what industry or companies you fellows are working in or for? I have been in engineering in one capacity or another for almost 30 years and I have never worked in an engineering department that actually had a dedicated checker. I am working in for a medical systems manufacturer and we rely on peer review for checking of all our documentation.

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

The companies that I have worked for which had dedicated checkers:
 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

(OP)
The only place I've worked with dedicated checker was here, a Metrology equipment manufacturer.  The checker primarily worked in the semiconductor segment although now I've taken over I get the other part of the business too!

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

I agree that having a dedicated checker would be an asset.  The volume of drawings produced and complexity of the end item would be the determining factor. I used to work for a semiconductor/metrology company Veeco Instruments. I really enjoyed designing those types of systems.

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

(OP)
gmarken

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

Bradley,

Quote:

Checking is a thankless job and not many want the job. It is not easy telling someone they made a mistake. Engineers do not want to check drawings for standards and etc. So they do not make good checkers...

   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

drawoh,

Quote:

If you have no training or experience at mechanical drafting, you have no way to determine whether or not the checker is competent and reasonable.
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

(OP)
Even if you invoke a standard then smooth talkers still sometimes get away with stuff.

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

My experience has been that each checker has preferred ways of seeing things (the path of least resistance is to give him what he wants) and spends more time on formats, notes, and the delineation than with the design function.  

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

Tunalover. Good description of a checker. I always strived to apply those same elements to my checking.
 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

(OP)
Tuna/Ron

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

KENAT: Lucky you! That is more than a one man job. Regarding your etch-a-sketch comment, I expect your getting more than a few of those, and as you know,it is really hard to turn a sows ear into a silk purse.

RE: Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications

(OP)
Yep, as I read this the VP of manufacturing is here, I think he's going to ask about checking.

Ken

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources