Notes on drawings not being read 2

[KENAT]

Had the manufacturing engineering manager up here today saying that people aren’t reading the notes on drawings, especially assembly drawings. Primarily shop floor but also other Engineers etc.

Apparently, just training them to do so isn’t an acceptable solution. So I’m meant to come up with some kind of policy to make the ‘relevant’ or ‘important’ ones stick out/easier to read. (In my opinion if it’s not relevant/important it shouldn’t be there but my definition of important doesn’t match some others.)

Specifically notes that relate to assembly requirements or notes referencing procedures that need to be followed during assembly are getting missed. A lot of the manufacturing personnel have English as a second language.

We have a template of about 20 ‘standard notes’ that are meant to be deleted/modified/added to to suit the needs of the individual drawing. The first few are references to 14.100, 14.5 etc which end up on pretty much all drawings. After that comes things like roughness note, different finishes, different part ID options, different cleanliness etc.

Part of the problem is that people aren’t deleting all the non relevant notes so the notes are longer than needed. However, even on drawings with relatively few notes things are getting missed.

I’ve looked at ASME Y14.100-2004 section 4.26 but nothing stands out.

A couple of ideas I’m thinking of are:

1. Move the notes referencing the ASME standards & what units are being used that go on every drawing to the title block or border.

2. Break the notes into 2 sections on assy drawings, the first being general notes the second being ‘ASSEMBLY REQUIREMENTS’ or something like that.

Any suggestions? Any of you had similar issues.

(Please note we’re (starting to be) careful not to put processes/assembly instructions on the drawings IAW the ASME specs, complex assemblies get separate work instructions.)


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

 

[MintJulep]

I like your two ideas, but would suggest different titles. Something like:

"Notes you can ignore, but that the customer will read and make us scrap or rework parts."

And

"Read this!"

 

[KENAT]

Fortunately (or not) we're our own customer for the actual drawings. However when the tool doesn't work because no one programmed the camera, then the customer complains.

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

 

[Heckler]

We create assembly procedures that are called out on the assembly drawing. It appears to from this distance to be a lack of training and follow up. Does your company hold ISO certification?

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SWx 2007 SP 3.0 & Pro/E 2001
XP Pro SP2.0 P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

 

[fcsuper]

Suggestions:

First, I would suggest training the Engineers and approvers to only use the notes necessary for the drawing (and/or change how notes are generated to require each applicable note to be added instead of requiring editing of some sort after the fact, perhaps using Lenny's CommonNotes macro -- if these drawings are SolidWorks format). I'd also say that if inapplicable notes (for example, general surface finish) are showing up on an assembly drawing, the drawing shouldn't have been approved in the first place.

I believe your first suggestion is also a good second step. Move the standards notes to the title block to reduce the clutter. Filling in N/A's or dashes in the couple extra blank fields may add a little more work though, but likely still less than editing notes themselves. Oddly enough, I'm currently working on a new title block for my company that does just this.

I think your second suggestion is ok, but not a preference of mine. Another solution is to create assembly procedures. This provides a segregated list of steps, and may allow more freedom with how the steps are described. Depending on your system, changes to this document may not necessarily require changes to the drawing, so there is the opportunity for more freedom in that respect as well. However, I don't like to be the guy that has to write those procedures. lol


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

 

[ctopher]

I have always tried to list notes in order of assy or fab. Process note stay off.
If a note is to move to another line or deleted, it is removed from the old line and replace by "Removed", then written on a new line. If space is limited, the notes can be moved to a second sheet.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[MikeHalloran]

This may seem radical, but you'll have to do it if you implement JIT. If your stuff is that difficult or unobvious to assemble, you might be better off with JIT anyway.

Take the manufacturing information off the design drawings.

JIT doesn't have assembly drawings. Instead, it has detailed, step by step, station by station, illustrated manufacturing instructions.

It wouldn't be a huge step to make them language- independent, i.e., totally visual, or to make them in two parts: A visual part, and a text part. The text part could be translated into whatever language is required for the individual worker.

Generating the first set is a huge effort, but there's a hidden gift. They are maintained by someone else; the manufacturing engineers, right on the factory floor. That eliminates manufacturing documentation as a headache for you, and it eliminates design department inertia as a headache for the manufacturing engineers. Everybody wins.





Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[KENAT]

Well thanks for the input everyone, I felt kind of stupid asking the question but I’m tired of doing what seems reasonable then finding out later that it either contravenes the ASME standards that we invoke or that it’s a pain to do.

Forgot to explicitly state that because historically design documentation has been awful here we’re trying to implement ASME Y14.100 series fairly strictly. Once we’ve got people generally following the standards we may become a bit more liberal with our interpretation/enforcement when there’s a compelling case but at the moment if we introduce shades of gray it seems we’ll be back to square one.

In answer to some of your points:

Heckler:

Historically we had a mix of:

1. Some assemblies with a drawing that was half drawing half assembly instructions (basically didn’t give enough detail to be used to check it had been assembled correctly/detail final item as a drawing but didn’t’ give full unambiguous assembly instructions either) which contravenes ASME standards.

2. Other assemblies, especially mid size ones had a Bill Of Material and some kind of assembly/work instruction based on photos of the tool being built and no drawing. Sadly a lot of the assembly procedures weren’t very good and didn’t give you anything to work to when you had to install new equipment etc.

3. Finally many assemblies just had a BOM and nothing else. Again these were pain to work with when incorporating changes at the assembly level.

We are now standardizing on the drawing being the defining document except for the very top level of our complex tools. For more complex assemblies a separate work instruction is created as well. Only if how the assembly is done affects the performance of the end product is the work instruction usually referenced on the drawing, otherwise it is only linked in the MRP system. We are also now applying the “Master Model” concept using 3D CAD so we can create illustrations from this for many of the work instructions.

No we don’t hold ISO 9001 (or whatever) certification. In fact when my Boss was hired to lead the efforts to improve design documentation/introduce industry standards one VP explicitly told him not to take us down the ISO route. My previous employer in UK was ISO, I almost miss it.

Fcsuper:

I’m hoping that training will form part of the solution if I have the time I may even be proactive on the training for the engineers. Our drawing approval process is, or at least historically was, massively flawed/inadequate. Although we’ve introduced a formal checking process it has no teeth (checker isn’t on ECO approval board) and can’t stop drawings being released so some people circumvent it. That said on drawings that come across my desk I’m pretty brutal with getting rid of unnecessary notes.

References to standards were in the format/title block at my last place, my bosses too so I’m looking at that option.

One concern with the second suggestion is how individuals decide which notes go in which section, but it would be easier to introduce

We’ve already taken the step of starting to create separate assembly documents which has reduced the amount of notes (especially the process ones which contravene the spec). Apparently not enough though, the example the manf guy gave was one of my drawings with only 5 notes, the 4th of which referenced a procedure for down loading the correct software. They missed this step.

Also I agree with the point about more freedom in work instructions, I’ve pushed for this strongly.

Ctopher:

Me too, although I just found Y14.100 says at 4.26.6 that the order of notes has no meaning unless otherwise stated. Removing process notes is something we’ve been doing and is part of the justification for separate work instructions. They aren’t strict on tracking changes to notes here, and at this stage it’s not something I’m planning to cause a stink about.

Mike:

I think this is what they were aiming at with some of their BOM/work instruction combos but it didn’t work well/they didn’t do it well. Also as I mentioned eliminating assembly drawings doesn’t give much to work to when you have to modify the tool in future. Now that we have a full model it might be possible but I have my doubts.

We are taking manufacturing steps off the assembly drawings but still have the drawing to delineate the finished/assembled item as designed.

My last place did JIT for high rate of production items but they still had assembly drawings. However most of the work on the floor was done to simple routings or even placards at each station with minimal verbage.

As mentioned we are creating work instructions for all but the simplest of assemblies. Yes it is an effort. You’d think that was what manufacturing engineers would do but here they are far to busy making drawing and design changes so Design gets to make and to some extent maintain the work instructions.:-(

We trialled a software called Interactive Product Animator last year which helps create interactive assembly instructions in a web site format based on animations of the model. It’s pretty cool and the couple we sent down to the shop floor were well received but nothing else has happened on it in the last year.

Thanks again everyone, appreciate the input. Sorry this post was so long, I know it means most of it wont get read. Must learn to be less verbose.


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

 

[ctopher]

Kenat,

... the order of notes has no meaning unless otherwise stated

I agree. It's just a personal preference to list them in order, at first. But, they do change during revision changes and is OK.
Mike,
I agree about the JIT. IMO, I think all assy's should have JIT's, and referenced on the dwg. The assy dwg should only have the minimum notes necessary to explain some steps. It is more pictorially vs text on a JIT. They work together.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[PSE]

Kenat,

It sounds like you have inherited a bit of a mess to clean up. I try to work along the following hierarchy.

If it can be defined on how to make/assemble/test it on the drawing, do so. It gives you a single document to work with and it is under ECO control.

More complex parts/assemblies may require additional documentation, it could be in the form of build sheets, tooling lists, and work instructions. We revision control these but they are not ECO'd.

Testing Procedures are developed if performance criteria cannot be successfully/suitably defined on the drawing. These are ECO controlled as it directly relates to performance/traceability/safety etc.

Regardless of what you come up with, what jumped out at me in your first post is the need for proper supervision and training. These are not your problem and need to be addressed by others (hopefully they are aware of this). No documentation method is going to solve the problem by itself. People need to be trained in it's use and monitored to ensure work is being done correctly and problems identified. Documentation, Training, and Supervision all carry the same weight in terms of importance for achieving success.

Regards,

 

[KENAT]

Thanks PSE,

The protocol you describe is pretty much what we're trying to do, at least on new releases.

The training thing has come up before and I've offered to lead some of it if they assign me the time to prepare it, this hasn't happened.

The thing I don't get is at my last place I received minimal training but, they had a reasonable set of procedures which I was expected to familiarize my self with and follow.

When I started here we didnt' have that many procedures, at least not that bore any relevance to what happened. However I asked around, looked at how other things had got done etc and worked out how most stuff went.

We have since released some standards/procedures. However, hardly anyone familiarizes themselves with them or works to them. We had the QA Director send a message around when they were released saying to follow them and at least some of the department directors also said they were to be followed. Several people have complained that they wont/dont want to read procedures etc. (Don't get me started on why there's no enforcement.)

So am I a freak in that I can happily teach myself from a written policy/procedure and don't complain about the time it takes me?

Just realized this is off topic, sorry.

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

 

[ajack1]

This seems to be a communication problem to me. You state that you have a standard set of notes that in the past have not been added to or deleted, so I would assume that people that are familiar with drawings from your company know that the notes are not worth the paper they are written on. Just because you tighten up the system does not mean people will take any notice unless they are informed.

I totally agree with others who say about training. Nothing to do with engineering but years ago when I was at school we were told to write down how to remove a match from a box, strike it and light a candle, what could be simpler?

Well the teacher then followed the “rules” but did everything wrong that was not clearly written down, push the middle right out the box or not far enough open to remove the match, try striking the wrong end that sort of thing, EVERYONE was sent away to rewrite it and pretty much managed it but with very lengthy and detailed descriptions that were difficult with any variation, say the operator was left handed, try it you will be amazed.

So you can have a very complex set of rules that offer little flexability or 30 seconds training to get the same result.

 

[PSE]

ajack1,

Nice example. Kenat, without the training to reinforce the use of the procedures (or even how to properly produce a part/assembly), and the supervision to check that things are being done correctly, anything you do is subject to fail. In ajack1's example, you have a person deliberately abusing the "common sense" portions of a procedure in order to illustrate a point. I have seen assemblers do the exact same thing.

You cannot succeed in taking this on alone. If you have responsibility for drawing creation and format leave it at that. My recommendation is that notes should only contain pertinent information to performance.

In your last posting, you indicate that the QA Director sent a message around saying that these need to be followed and that others complained or indicated they won't or don't want to read/follow the procedures. This is a management level problem that can directly affect the health of the business. I am not sure how well the managers communicate with each other but it seems (if you do not have their sufficient buy in or support) that you inherited a no-win situation.

This one should be kicked or delegated "upstairs" if you can. There seems to me to be a bunch more going on than just drawing notes.

Regards,

 

[KENAT]

You're both pretty much right. This drawing note issue is just symptomatic of a much bigger site (company?) wide problem(s), same as my earlier post on GD&T parts costing more (as you so subtly pointed out ajack).

My department, Design Services, seems to be held to a higher standard than anyone else. Also our reporting structure ends up meaning we have little direct upper level support as our VP is based at another site and has his own agenda (using our efforts at standardization/improving design documentation introducing PDM/PLM etc to move work to his site).

Turns out the issue of people not editing notes isn’t as big a factor as I first thought, the drawing example he said a step got missed on only has these 5 notes:

NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

1. DIMENSIONS AND TOLERANCES ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME Y14.5M-1994.
2. INTERPRET DRAWING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME Y14.100.
3. DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES.
4. PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF LABEL CCU DSP SETTINGS TO BE MODIFIED TO MATCH THOSE IN CONFIGURATION FILE 850-015-475-SW-A.CFG. SEE QMS 3OPAS75066 FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON DOWNLOADING SOFTWARE PROFILE.
5. PART TO BE FREE OF OILS, LUBRICANTS AND OTHER CONTAMINANTS PRIOR TO BEING PLACED IN SEALED BAG.

Note 4 got missed. The drawing does have some dimensioning on so 1 & 3 are necessary.

However, I already suggested training was the best solution and this has been declared inadequate by itself.

I’m going to suggest training again and as a secondary option suggest that for Assembly drawings with a lot of notes the ones that are explicit Assembly Requirements be grouped at the end of the notes and have a title saying “Assembly Requirements”. This wont achieve much as most of the notes will be “Assembly Requirements” but shows willing. I don’t have the time right now to change the template but I might keep it in mind for the future.

Anyway thanks for the replies, off to fight the good fight.


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