Drawing Checker/Approver Qualifications 8

[KENAT]

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...

 

[KENAT]

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 wrong. 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...

 

[Standing]

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

 

[KENAT]

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 so I better stop now.


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

 

[Standing]

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

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

 

[KENAT]

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 situation;-)3

Thanks Bradley.

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

 

[Standing]

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

 

[gmarken]

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.

 

[ewh]

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.

 

[KENAT]

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...

 

[gmarken]

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.

 

[KENAT]

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...

 

[drawoh]

Bradley,

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

 

[KENAT]

Anyone involved in checking drawings may want to look at drawohs related post.

thread765-194599

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

 

[Standing]

drawoh,

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

 

[KENAT]

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...

 

[Tunalover]

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

 

[CheckerRon]

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?"

 

[KENAT]

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...

 

[CheckerRon]

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.

 

[KENAT]

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...