Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
GD&T Corrective Action. 1
- Thread starter rmaki
- Start date
Seriously though, in what context are you referring? What drafting standard does your company employ? Has there ever been any formal GD&T training at your company?
There are many different ways to answer your question. A little more information is necessary.
V
Mechanical Engineer
"When I am working on a problem, I do not think of beauty, but when I've finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
There are many different ways to answer your question. A little more information is necessary.
V
Mechanical Engineer
"When I am working on a problem, I do not think of beauty, but when I've finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
Well, having the drawings checked by someone that does know it and correcting/teaching them one mistake/case at a time is one way.
Making training available also has it's place as does having access to the standards and reference experts etc. This could be extended to getting them certified (in GD&T not looney bin).
They may also need to have explained to them why to use GC&T, this should at least form part of training.
If after this, they are still do not gradually start to get better then perhaps disciplinary action should be considered especially if it's apparant that it's just because they don't like doing it/aren't making an effort or something; not that they are still learning.
This assumes that your company policy is to use GD&T and that they know this and that management will enforce it.
An alternative may be moving them into a position that doesn't require drafting.
A lot of our engineers don't like using it, as some of my posts allude to. They have had some training but it was a while ago and some of them haven't really applied it since. Our 'expert' got laid off in June and now I'm the 'expert'. This is a problem as I don't have any formal training and certainly no certification. Talk about blind leading the blind.
Compounding that we have limited management backing it's an uphill battle.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
Making training available also has it's place as does having access to the standards and reference experts etc. This could be extended to getting them certified (in GD&T not looney bin).
They may also need to have explained to them why to use GC&T, this should at least form part of training.
If after this, they are still do not gradually start to get better then perhaps disciplinary action should be considered especially if it's apparant that it's just because they don't like doing it/aren't making an effort or something; not that they are still learning.
This assumes that your company policy is to use GD&T and that they know this and that management will enforce it.
An alternative may be moving them into a position that doesn't require drafting.
A lot of our engineers don't like using it, as some of my posts allude to. They have had some training but it was a while ago and some of them haven't really applied it since. Our 'expert' got laid off in June and now I'm the 'expert'. This is a problem as I don't have any formal training and certainly no certification. Talk about blind leading the blind.
Compounding that we have limited management backing it's an uphill battle.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
If they have any smarts they will get the point after a couple of check prints
Heckler
![[americanflag]](/data/assets/smilies/americanflag.gif "[americanflag] [americanflag]")
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SWx 2007 SP 4.0 & Pro/E 2001
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)
This post contains no political overtones or undertones for that matter and in no way represents the poster's political agenda.
Heckler, you'd think. People round here don't work like that.
Some claim that they're too smart!
By the way, if anyone has a sure fire way, especially when management support is limited I'd love to hear it too.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
Some claim that they're too smart!
By the way, if anyone has a sure fire way, especially when management support is limited I'd love to hear it too.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
- Thread starter
- #8
You will always have some of them either not get GD&T or not use it. Get them trained professionaly, then have monthly classes onsite until they have a feel for it. Then beat it into them.
Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog
Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog
RCA? Required Corrective Action?
Are you asking how we'd write up the employee, what wording we'd use?
Not sure this is the correct forum and it may depend a lot on local employment rules and company disciplinary procedures etc.
Before you can discipline you must have made it known that it is a requirement that all drawings comply to ASME Y14.5M-1994 & related standards and make use of GD&T (you can arguably comply with the standard without using FCF etc due to all the shoulds instead of shalls and such like). If they did not claim when they joined the company that they already knew the standards then you probably need to make a good faith effort on the training too.
Assuming these are covered then first step might be writing them up for not complying with the company policy that all drawings comply to ASME Y14.5M-1994 & related standards and make use of GD&T.
The result of this would perhaps be requiring them to sign something saying that they understand that Y14.5M-1994 is to be followed (copy in their personel file) and require them to attend training (arranged by/paid for by the company).
If after this they don't comply then you ramp it up till the eventually get fired if they don't make a good effort to comply.
However, if you don't know if you have management support, why bother. You'll just upset people without achieving anything and may place your position in jeopardy. This is the situation I'm in.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
Are you asking how we'd write up the employee, what wording we'd use?
Not sure this is the correct forum and it may depend a lot on local employment rules and company disciplinary procedures etc.
Before you can discipline you must have made it known that it is a requirement that all drawings comply to ASME Y14.5M-1994 & related standards and make use of GD&T (you can arguably comply with the standard without using FCF etc due to all the shoulds instead of shalls and such like). If they did not claim when they joined the company that they already knew the standards then you probably need to make a good faith effort on the training too.
Assuming these are covered then first step might be writing them up for not complying with the company policy that all drawings comply to ASME Y14.5M-1994 & related standards and make use of GD&T.
The result of this would perhaps be requiring them to sign something saying that they understand that Y14.5M-1994 is to be followed (copy in their personel file) and require them to attend training (arranged by/paid for by the company).
If after this they don't comply then you ramp it up till the eventually get fired if they don't make a good effort to comply.
However, if you don't know if you have management support, why bother. You'll just upset people without achieving anything and may place your position in jeopardy. This is the situation I'm in.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
Rmaki, your original post makes no sense to me. If you have any standards/SOP/procedures in-place at your company, you should be referring to them on how to submit a corrective action in your system.
If you are looking for specific wording for your corrective action:
"Inadequate training in the application of ASME Y14.5M-1994 has resulted in..."
This makes it a training issue, stressing that training is required, new drafters won't fix the problem.
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
If you are looking for specific wording for your corrective action:
"Inadequate training in the application of ASME Y14.5M-1994 has resulted in..."
This makes it a training issue, stressing that training is required, new drafters won't fix the problem.
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Corrective Action systems usually apply to products or processes that fail to meet some sort of specification as per ISO 9000 or TS16949. One has Customer complaints or there are lost $$ in rework or scrap resulting in the initiating of a Corrective Action.
I have not seen any corrective action system relating to a drawings flaws, deficiencies or inappropriate GD&T.
It might not be a bad idea but I don't think the Design group would be too enthusiastic about it.
Dave D.
I have not seen any corrective action system relating to a drawings flaws, deficiencies or inappropriate GD&T.
It might not be a bad idea but I don't think the Design group would be too enthusiastic about it.
Dave D.
-
1
- #13
PaulJackson
Automotive
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know!
Be patient with those that don't see things your way ... you might be wrong?
Be patient with those that don't see things your way ... you might be wrong?
If it is a training/experience issue that requires attention, try to help get people educated.
If they have the training and don't care about using it, then you have a problem that management needs to attend to.
If management is not concerned about either training people or ensuring the proper adherence to standard practice, you are in a no-win situation (unless you can become the boss).
Regards,
If they have the training and don't care about using it, then you have a problem that management needs to attend to.
If management is not concerned about either training people or ensuring the proper adherence to standard practice, you are in a no-win situation (unless you can become the boss).
Regards,
WHITMIREGT
Aerospace
I have been using GDT for 50 years and have been giving seminars for 35 years and I recommend the following:
a)A minimum of 40 hours training by an expert, or give a one hour class each week by a knowledgeable person using viewgraphs taken from a commercial DRM.
b)Two hours of training for upper management as to why GDT is used by every major corporation in the world.
c)Have your suppliers attend and help pay for the training.
d)Have a knowledgeable drawing checker.
d)Every design must be reviewed around a table by Engineering, QC, and Manufacturing as a minimum. Design reviews can save thousands of dollars. Have the drafter/designer attend.
“A drawing must be read, not interpreted”
Gary
a)A minimum of 40 hours training by an expert, or give a one hour class each week by a knowledgeable person using viewgraphs taken from a commercial DRM.
b)Two hours of training for upper management as to why GDT is used by every major corporation in the world.
c)Have your suppliers attend and help pay for the training.
d)Have a knowledgeable drawing checker.
d)Every design must be reviewed around a table by Engineering, QC, and Manufacturing as a minimum. Design reviews can save thousands of dollars. Have the drafter/designer attend.
“A drawing must be read, not interpreted”
Gary
Gary,
I would like to second your recommendations for the implementations with one possible exception.
Years ago, I took a company sponsored course which used a self teaching manual. It contained the GD and T material and was followed shortly by a question and answer sheet which was covered by a flap. You could go back for a review if you missed the intent. At the end of the text with the book, there was a test given. If I remember correctly anyone not passing the test got to do another review. Somehow that method seemed better structured that to have someone lecture.
One question for you. Did your first exposure GD and T use the term within "True Location"? Jet engines?
I would like to second your recommendations for the implementations with one possible exception.
Years ago, I took a company sponsored course which used a self teaching manual. It contained the GD and T material and was followed shortly by a question and answer sheet which was covered by a flap. You could go back for a review if you missed the intent. At the end of the text with the book, there was a test given. If I remember correctly anyone not passing the test got to do another review. Somehow that method seemed better structured that to have someone lecture.
One question for you. Did your first exposure GD and T use the term within "True Location"? Jet engines?
MechEng2005
Mechanical
I agree, it really does depend on your workplace, policies, and your position.
At my workplace I think I'd be more likely to get submitted to "Corrective Action" for using GD&T since few people around here would fully understand it (not that I have a complete grasp of it either).
The OP asked about people that "do not use GD&T properly." If by not properly it was meant that the dimensions are actually wrong or require additional expense (i.e. putting tight tolerances where they aren't required), then I don't think that GD&T is the factor. It would be no different than somebody putting 1 inch instead of 1 foot or applying a rectangular coordinate with an unnecessarily tight tolerance.
If that's the case, then I know what my employer would do if I continually made mistakes that significantly increased cost, difficulty, or impeded function... Provide me a correctly dimensioned drawing showing where the door was.
- MechEng2005
At my workplace I think I'd be more likely to get submitted to "Corrective Action" for using GD&T since few people around here would fully understand it (not that I have a complete grasp of it either).
The OP asked about people that "do not use GD&T properly." If by not properly it was meant that the dimensions are actually wrong or require additional expense (i.e. putting tight tolerances where they aren't required), then I don't think that GD&T is the factor. It would be no different than somebody putting 1 inch instead of 1 foot or applying a rectangular coordinate with an unnecessarily tight tolerance.
If that's the case, then I know what my employer would do if I continually made mistakes that significantly increased cost, difficulty, or impeded function... Provide me a correctly dimensioned drawing showing where the door was.
- MechEng2005
WHITMIREGT
Aerospace
ringman: When I first used GDT at Aerojet in 1955, we used MIL-STD-8 and position was called true position.
I think I pretty much agree with what everyone has put.
I will say I do think there is a place for disciplinary action but it should be pretty much the last step. It should only be used when the staff have been set up for success and don’t achieve it through sloppiness or just refusing to do it etc. (or I suppose in extreme circumstances if they just really suck).
For most Designers/Engineers having the training, being explained its value, being told they have to do it, having their work checked and having access to relevant resources (experts, training material, standards…) plus some of the other things people have suggested should be enough.
The disciplinary action will primarily be for not following the company policy, not for struggling with GD&T.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
I will say I do think there is a place for disciplinary action but it should be pretty much the last step. It should only be used when the staff have been set up for success and don’t achieve it through sloppiness or just refusing to do it etc. (or I suppose in extreme circumstances if they just really suck).
For most Designers/Engineers having the training, being explained its value, being told they have to do it, having their work checked and having access to relevant resources (experts, training material, standards…) plus some of the other things people have suggested should be enough.
The disciplinary action will primarily be for not following the company policy, not for struggling with GD&T.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
CheckerRon
Mechanical
As others of you have said in so many words, They do not get their drawings approved until they comply. This will have an impact on schedule, which should provide greater impetus for compliance (providing the checker isn't blamed as the reason for the schedule delay).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question
