Small Company Issues... 8

[frusso110]

Hi everyone,

I'm a relatively new mechanical engineer (graduated college in 2008). I used to work for one of the largest DoD contractors in the USA, but last February switched to a new, small company.

This new company does things very unprofessionally compared to what I'm used to. My first day, my co-worker said "this isn't a professional company." After 9 months, I tend to agree. I've been working hard to improve the way things are done, but it feels like i'm losing an uphill battle.

One of these things is assembly drawings. I was taught very strictly that mechanical engineering drawings describe WHAT is to be done, but should rarely specify HOW it is to be accomplished. Quite frankly, if I had to inform manufacturing the order in which to assemble each screw... Well... Yeah.

Manufacturing is insisting that engineering put this information on the assembly drawings, which I am firmly against. I wouldn't mind it as much if engineering was treated with respect at this company, but we are not. Everything is always engineering's fault no matter what. I'm not sure of a way out of this, or what to do. I already spend my more than 75% of my time doing secretarial tasks instead of engineering. I'm not sure if I can keep my sanity unless someone gives me some real engineering to do instead of mindlessness.

I'm completing my M.S. at night - looking forward to moving on when its done.

Thanks

 

[btrueblood]

So, write up an assembly procedure, including lots of pictures and/or CAD 3-views, showing the intended assembly sequence. Show this to manufacturing. Become indispensible as a creator/maintainer of assembly procedures.

 

[IRstuff]

Purist spec weenies would agree with you. However, that said, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with telling someone how you want something done; there may be other reasons beyond pure whim, such as human factors or accessibility. In such a situation, there ought to be a dialog with the supplier along the lines of asking them whether the added requirements cause undue constraints or costs or schedule hits.

As a counterexample, I offer the 1974 Camaro Z-28, which one of my roommates owned. We did a tuneup once and replaced all the spark plugs, and the rear driver-side plug was almost inaccessible, and the spark plug wrench, when we finally got it engaged on the plug, could only turn two clicks before hitting something. This is what happens when downstream operations are not constrained.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[IRstuff]

Another, perhaps better, example is a torquing requirement on fasteners. You are telling the assembler a HOW, because you know, as the design engineer, that a lower torque or higher torque causes problems.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[DRWeig]

Hi frusso110,

You've jumped a large chasm to another culture. You may have been taught at your high-standards, all-by-the-book job to only describe WHAT to do. That was their way, their culture. At your new company, they have their own way and their own culture. Neither is wrong.

I, too, have been in both situations. I could hand off a design drawing to production at one place with no additional instructions. They had the experienced hands to take care of the manufacturing setup, methods, and documentation. At another place, my design had to be accompanied by step-by-step HOW to do it instructions, fill-in-the-blank forms for documentation, and detailed machine setup. If the order of putting in each screw were actually important, that would be in my procedure as well.

I was happy in both positions. I learned from watching an older friend's career turn into bouncing around like a pinball. Companies all have a culture that they have enjoyed (or not) for many years. Whether it's the best or not, the management and ownership must like it or it would have already been changed. When a new fellow comes in and tries to change the culture, he or she is usually gone in a short time. My friend would take a new job, be appalled at the methods they used, and immediately write up a plan to improve the company to his standards. Of course, his boss would either pooh-pooh it or say it's a good idea but never act on it. So, after giving them a couple of weeks to see it his way, he'd go straight to the president, CEO, or owner and tell them that he had a plan to make the company better and only an idiot would not take the steps in his plan.

Poof! Looking for a new job.

The moral: You may be convinced that your way is best. The owners of a company, though, usually LIKE the way their business operates, and are proud of it because they are the ones who gave birth to it. They don't appreciate anyone telling them it's wrong, especially a newbie.

If I were in your shoes, I would adapt. A job is where I go to do the best I can do at what I'm given, take the money they give me, and enjoy the non-job part of my life. This is not meant to be offensive to you, but the psychologists my old friend saw all concluded that he was a textbook case of "Messiah Complex." He was destined to consider himself the savior at any company he joined, unless he changed his ways.

If you can't adapt, get your resume polished again and get out of there! I don't advise trying to change the culture unless the ownership or upper management calls upon you to do that.

Good luck! Keep your sanity, friend. Leave it all in the parking lot when you go home each day. Pick it up again in the morning.

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

 

[Cockroach]

I feel for you brother, I'd be out of there in a New York second. The problem with small companies is that they are that, small. Gets worse if it is family owned, then you have the politics with the unprofessionalism. So look at it as an educational experience and move on. Let this small company wonder why they lack a competitive edge and can't find quality employees.

Regards,
Cockroach

 

[redpicker]

What you are describing sounds SOP for most, if not all, of the jobs I've held in the past 30+ years. You can change jobs (I did quite a bit years ago), but it is the same everywhere. At a large company, you are more likely to have management shield you from a lot of this stuff, but it's only because they are handling it and not letting it get to your level. At a smaller company, you have fewer levels of management, so it's more direct. How you handle it is the key.

If you learn to handle it well, it is a golden opportunity. You are in a position to write the procedures and change their processes to eliminate these problems. Yes, this involves a lot of "clerk work", since getting things to run smoothly is more a matter of repeating things that work and stop doing those things that don't. In doing this, you will find that there are two things you can't get manufacturing to do.
1) Change the way they do things.
2) Do something the same way twice.
Once you realize this, the rest is easy.

It starts by understanding that they are going to blame Engineering for anything that goes wrong. That is what manufactuirng does. When something goes wrong, they throw excuses around. When it sticks to something, they remember it and they'll use that excuse next time. "Engineering" is one of those excuses that they like to use. The only way to survive this is to take the high ground. When Engineering makes a mistake, admit it loud and clear. Make no excuses, just admit you made a mistake and do what it takes to fix it. When someone else makes a mistake and tries to blame Engineering, your first response should be to ignore the blame and find a solution; that is what you are there for. Once a solution is in place, limit your involvement in the "blame game" to identifying the root cause and finding a solution to it; don't try and "prove" that any specific person is at fault--that doesn't do any good and management knows who the screw-ups are already. Often, the root cause will be something that Engineering has no control over (customer was vague on requirements, purchasing sourced a new supplier, manufacturing decided to schedule the work using equipment not normally used for that operation). This is where procedures and specificaitons come into play. As Engineering, you have no control what Sales will sell, where purchasing will get the material, or how manufacturing runs their equipemnt. You do, however, have the responsibility to make it work, however, which gives you the opportunity to tell Sales that they have to give you clear requirements, the opportunity to give Purchasing a specification for the material, as well as specify to manufacturing the required results of their processing.

rp

 

[frusso110]

Wow. Thank you so much everyone. Really great stuff here.

I think creating the awesomest manufacturing procedure possible is going to be my route.

I don't know why I didn't think of that. Blinded by something I guess.

 

[btrueblood]

Good luck Frusso, that's the right way to look at things.

"The problem with small companies is that they are that, small."

My work history is a steady trend in favor of smaller companies, after starting in one of the (at the time) largest multinational corporations in the world. I could state the complete opposite: "The beauty of small companies is that they are small"

In a small company you HAVE to (I would say GET to) wear many hats, and you learn (Cockroach might say "are forced to learn") what corners can be cut and get away with it. But you also get (have) to touch a lot more stuff, and get to (have to) take ownership of a lot bigger piece of the work. It's not for everybody, but it can be a lot of fun if you approach it with the right mindset. And, small companies have an agility and speed that large corporation with multi-level management can't hope to duplicate - if the boss likes your idea the only problem is how fast can you make it happen, not "who next in the management tree needs to have a presentation so they can buy off on it". The trade-off is that small companies are much more resource-limited, so projects tend to be smaller in scope. Also, when something goes wrong, it's a lot harder to blame somebody else.

 

[mfgenggear]

when something goes wrong, it's a lot harder to blame somebody else

first off you got hired, so your credentials must of impressed them ok.

This my recommendation!
Just remember that when writing working instructions which I call it, has to be correct.
In a small company you can be put on the defensive more easily. and getting the blame for problems can get you fired.
so make sure that you are not trying the guessing game. make sure beyond doubt that an whatever part or assembly is correct.
ask a lot of questions, do not try act like you know everything. if not sure. don't guess. OK
you may not be able to iron all the issues , and thats ok, just don't scrap stuff.

believe it or not this will help improve your designs even if in the future you don't have do this.

if I do not know the answer. I will never guess at it.

HTH

Mfgenggear
if it can be built it can be calculated.
if it can be calculated it can be built.

 

[1gibson]

Build the manufacturing procedure around what the "old guys" in the shop prefer. Path of least resistance. Get their input, if they aren't forthcoming then just observe them go through the process start to finish. If you don't, you will run into problems with malicious compliance:

"The procedure says to use a hammer to tap the part into alignment, but I have always used a rawhide, so when I used a hammer like the procedure said it dented the part, not my fault the procedure sucks. Better write up the damaged part and charge it to engineering dept."

 

[chicopee]

1gibson has a good point. Review your procedures with the guys on the floor as they have more experience and you may learn something from them. There is a big difference between academia and the real world.

 

[tbuelna]

frusso110,

First of all, let me say it's a good thing that your first work experience as an engineer was with a large, well structured defense contractor. You got to see how things are done at one extreme of the industry. And now that you are working at a small company, you are experiencing the opposite end of the spectrum.

However, it is a huge mistake to assume that a small business cannot produce "professional" output as good as any large company. The level of work a business puts into any product should be a function of the intended application, and should not be based on the size of the company.

Based on your comments, it also sounds like you learned your lessons well during the time spent at the large company. Documentation produced by engineering, such as part or assembly drawings, are not manufacturing instruction. More correctly, these drawings are requirements for a part or assembly as it will be delivered. The detailed instructions for manufacturing the part or assembly are normally described in planning documents. The planning documents are usually prepared by manufacturing engineers, and not design engineers.

Good luck to you.
Terry

 

[Cockroach]

I was driving in traffic and was thinking about some of the points raised in this thread. You know, it's not the small company that is of concern here, rather the climate of culture that being mediocre is okay. I would definitely stick to your guns and don't lower your expectations on what should or should not be done in a design.

So to that end, I did this for another problem in the forum, and thought of sharing it here. Attached is a very simple problem and a concept developed for solving the problem. From this point, I would sit down and do the stress mechanics to see what are the possible weaknesses in the design. Then I would be looking at production issues, things that would detract from the overall simplicity of getting the work done.

I strongly believe the print package should stand alone. In this company, the print is King, nothing is open for interpretation or speculation. So after thirty years of design, I still do it "old school". I know some of the younger kids get off with geometric tolerancing, just not for me, that's all. I always ask them if parts fit in the assembly prior to the computer age and concepts of geometric tolerances. To my recollection they did, hence my particular design habits.

Hope this helps you out. Don't lower your standards and take the easy way out.

Regards,
Cockroach

 

[geesamand]

Each company is different. Whether it's small or large it can be very different.

Being "professional" can be a major hindrance if the strong structure prevents sufficiently rapid development and change. One of my main judgments about adequate document control and structure of information is whether someone can figure out what exactly was done and exactly how to do it all again - without enough consistency in practices, the data is a mess.

I've seen companies where Engineering is told what to do by Sales to the point of not being functional, and having no standard designs. The Engineering for each job was a throwaway result and given no value, such that revisions made to get the job out the door were not documented or captured, and where Sales would spend $1000 of design time to save buying a $100 commercial part.

I think my main point is that there is no standard in how engineering is to be done. An assembly drawing is what you or your company need it to be. Perhaps this is as simple as the shop translating an "assembly drawing" to be a document that shows how to assemble. I think this is not the common interpretation, which I follow that it should show an assembly of components. Order of operations and shop assembly is typically handled by Work Instructions.

Take your time, be observant, and consider a little about where the company came from, what their history was, who carries the culture (is it a cadre of key employees, an owner, a president, etc?). Small companies are usually not too hard to figure out and if you ask questions about current practices in a neutral or positive way, you can gain a good understanding. Get to know what motivates things in the company. I've seen major decisions made based on warranty costs, maximizing profit, minimizing risk, minimizing capital expenses, avoidance of change, maximizing overall sales, attracting the least attention from ownership, and the priorities define a lot about how things get done. Get to know whether the point of view of an Engineer is valued - some companies are run by emotional decision-makers. If you want to propose change and you don't have the decision-making power to dictate it, it takes time to understand the context and figure out how to sell the change.

 

[moltenmetal]

I too favour smaller companies. I never had to learn to love them. But to each their own.

There is no one right way to communicate designs to manufacturing, any more than there is only one right way to do any other aspect of engineering. The right way is what works in your environment: results matter more than process. Two separate documents? That works only if both are read and understood- and if both are correct. In my experience, if it's critical it had better be on the drawing or else it WILL be missed- in fact even if it's on the drawing it may well be missed.

As to engineering getting the blame for everything: that's common, comes with the role, and sometimes it's deserved. Engineers have "failures of imagination" frequently related to manufacturability in my experience, and that's natural if your only experience of the article is gained from your seat at a CAD station. That's especially true if the "designers" have spent most of their life so far generating designs in a vacuum, i.e. without direct feedback from the manufacturing floor or construction site as to how successfully previous designs were interpreted and implemented.

I frequently see specifications created by client engineers that have no idea what they are doing, but are still arrogant enough to dictate minute details of HOW I'm supposed to do my job. As long as I'm allowed to discuss the real needs with the people who made those decisions and come to an understanding before we start work, it's no problem. When I'm not afforded that opportunity, it can be very frustrating and I'm happy to give them the blame for the bad result. Wouldn't you be too?

 

[truckandbus]

Large company or small, the expectations of downstream departments need to understood and documented. The creation of work instructions onthe engineering documentation could be adding 25% more time required to complete the specific project. I've seen this work in the reverse direction as well, where engineering management in an effort to stay within budget began cutting out work that engineering had typically provided in past projects, claiming the work should have been done by other departments in the past. The scary result was the work wasn't done by anyone and production was left to fend for themselves.
My advise would be to document the expected output from enigneering for this specific company and plan your work load accordingly.

 

[blucas1]

Hi Frusso110 -

I too worked at a small but very high-tech engineering / manufacturing company at one point in my life and was forced to wear a lot of hats. The most important thing that I learned from my time there was hit on by several earlier great posts and that was I had to find a way to make the folks in manufacturing an ally as opposed to an enemy. It is easy to make it about blame but harder at times to make it about finding a solution. I was asked at one point to write manufacturing instructions. What I learned is that I could sit at my desk and write something that I thought was correct based on the way it had been developed in engineering but it was never going to be done that way on the shop floor. So I went to the shop floor and worked hard to earn the respect of the old guard (his name was Phil where I came from). If there was a problem, I always tried to work with Phil to solve it. Over time, it became less about engineering versus manufacturing and more about engineering working with manufacturing. This has been an invaluable lesson now that I deal with a majority of outside customers as opposed to internal customers (which is what manufacturing is for you in some sense). Folks always appreciate a problem solving attitude and approach as opposed to playing the blame game. Stick with it. Small company experience will undoubtedly make you a better "engineer" for a future employer.

Barry Lucas

http://www.sequencesoftware.com

 

[Jboggs]

frusso110,
So... had enough yet? Ask one little question and look what you stirred up! Wow!

It hurts to have to accept that my perfect knowledge on this (from over 35 years) will be watered down by having to be just one reply among many (kidding!!) but I will add my thoughts for what they are worth.

First - as far as being blamed, grow a thick skin and get over it. It is an unchangeable fact in the world of manufacturing. The "blame wheel" always seems to stop on engineering. Can't take the heat? You know what to do. In fact, your reputation will be enhanced when you can quickly and voluntarily accept blame. It shows you have high standards for your self and don't like it when you don't meet them.

Second - there are ways to make it better. Instead of trying to convince the old farts how much you know, try very, very hard to adopt the "I'm here to learn from you" attitude, no matter who you are dealing with. Ask questions. Pick their brains. You'll be amazed how much "smarter" you will become.

Third - look at every job, every project, as a learning opportunity. You have learned how things are done, how they MUST be done, in a large DOD contractor. Now you can learn how things are done elsewhere. Every industry, every level of business will have its own common practices. There is no such thing as a "best" way that applies in all circumstances. Over the years I have seen drawings done so many ways it would make your head spin. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Fourth - your drawing is your product. It is the ONLY way your "customers" will know you. But your "product" is only one step in the journey that ends up producing and delivering a product that fills an end customer's need AND produces a profit for the shareholders. If anything about your drawing impedes that process (such as confusing, missing, extraneous, or incomplete information) then it fails to meet its purpose. Your drawing doesn't exist to meet some standard. It exists to communicate the required information in an easily understandable way.

I had a young machine designer years ago that put WAY too many dimensions on his drawings, and they were all fractions. Lead to unacceptable tolerance buildups. I found out that he came from a barge builder who didn't know what tolerances meant and required him to do that because the guys in the shop couldn't do simple math and only used fractional tape measures. Had another guy that filled his drawings with GDT symbols that just confused the fab shops. I'm sure you know why.

I've seen Japanese machine drawings that placed machining and fabrication dimensions on the assembly drawings. Talk about confusing! But hey had a lot fewer detail drawings. I'm sure somebody thought that was more efficient.

Or the typical age old questions: do I call out tap drill sizes or not? Do I dimension press fits or just call them out?

The bottom line is this - your drawings should represent the highest possible level of professionalism AS DEFINED BY THE NEEDS OF THE ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONNEL THAT WILL BE USING THEM. You want your "customers" to say, "I like working from frusso110's drawings. They are easy to read, complete, and correct. And he always responds quickly and respectfully to any question I have."

 

[KENAT]

Wow, I’ve never seen so much piffle from folks I usually regard highly in one thread.;-) Oh, and I say this as an unrepentant ‘spec weenie’. Most of the time when I decide to stray from the relevant industry standards for this type of thing I seem to come to regret it, so I don’t do it often any more.

There is an industry standard for drawings in the US, the ASME Y14.100 series. Now whether your employer chooses to abide by these standards that have been developed over many years by a bunch of fairly experienced folks…, or prefer to careen of into the wide unknown and blaze their own trail of tears is another matter. Of course, rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools so there’s always some leeway if you really know what you’re doing.

While there are a few exceptions (or at least partial exceptions) such as installation drawings, generally engineering drawings to ASME do define the end item/finished article and not how to get their (unless the how materially affects the end functionality). I’d argue for instance that a torque requirement isn’t a how it’s a what, though arguably what you really want to spec is the preload and you’re using the torque as a ‘how’ to indirectly do that.

So I’d second (or third or fourth or whatever) the idea of introducing separate routings/assembly instructions/work instructions or whatever you choose to call them. However, you need to do it in a way that offers clear advantages over hybrid drawings, and justifies the extra document.

One aspect might be that drawings generally need a fairly robust document control/revision system to control configurations etc. However, since the work instructions won’t directly affect the definition of the end item (since they show the how not the what) one could argue that they could be made easier to change. Perhaps the folks on the line could change them with just the approval of the manufacturing engineer or something rather than going through a whole ECO approval.

Another idea is to take advantage of being freed from the typical format implications of even pseudo formal engineering drawings. Perhaps not doing them in CAD but in a format that more folks are familiar with would be an example – we’ve used both word & PowerPoint. This might help make them modifiable by folks on the line etc. that don’t have CAD training – just throw in buzz words like continuous improvement or Kaizan and you’ll have management eating out of your hand;-).

Maybe you actually create a poster type format for each assembly/assy step that can be put up at the relevant work station.

Maybe you go hi tech and use one of the software packages that partially automates assy documentation and can create a web page type interactive assy instruction or similar. Maybe the operator has to confirm each significant assy step before it goes to the next instruction or something.

Certainly make use of photographs and colored images etc. if it makes sense to do so. Like wise exploded views from CAD can be great – but in some CAD systems while quick to make initially they can be more painful to maintain as the product evolves, and in my opinion they probably get a bit overused.

There can be a fine line between truly cooperating with manufacturing/operations and pandering to them/being subservient. The guys doing the assembly don’t always understand or appreciate what the end function is so you have to be ready to say no on occasion. Likewise if it’s a product that had significant testing etc. then some changes they want may require the testing to be repeated and you have to consider if it’s worth the time & effort (same can go for tooling and the like). You could (should?) try alleviating this by getting their input during the design stage before making even prototypes but from my experience they aren’t always good at interpreting sketches & CAD renderings etc. let alone formal engineering drawings. Even if you get them to help build the first few proto’s and incorporate their feedback there’s a good chance they’ll come back just as you’re about ready to release to market and want another change they didn’t think of at the time. Again you might just have to say no because the perceived improvement for manufacturing isn’t justified by the disruption to the product launch, the extra time from engineering, that distraction of engineering from their next task…

Other times trying to get feedback from operations can be like getting blood from a stone. I got pulled onto a project to help get the assy documentation finished in time for launch. I wasn’t particularly familiar with the product and hadn’t been involved with the proto builds. So ideally I would have just sat down with operations while we bumbled through the first pre-production unit but there wasn’t time. So instead I had to create the instructions sat at my desk, using a few photos an intern had taken of a proto build, the CAD model/drawing and a bit of engineering nouse. I figured they’d be lousy but based on the lack or redlines I got back – despite asking for them – I must be some kind of Work instruction savant;.-)

The small defense company I used to work at was generally far more enjoyable than my current mid size (but try’s to act like it’s large) hi tech employer. Yet the small company generally did a better job on documentation etc. – I’m sure due in no small part to being a defense firm though and so to some extent having it ‘thrust upon them’.

Sorry this was so long but I’ve been in the trenches on exactly this topic for quite a while now, I’d like to think I do some of the best work instructions around here by now though that isn’t saying much considering some of the dross various folks turn out.

I like the cut of your jib though frusso110 – good luck.

(As to GD&T being a new thing, I’m not so sure about that seems to be it dates back to WWII and the best guy I ever knew at it was in his 70’s and had been doing it quite a while. Now it is often done poorly which causes problems, and/or forced on shops that don’t understand it but notice it often gets used only on really tight tolerances (not what’s really intended from Y14.5) so start charging an extra few $ for every FCF they see – regardless of if it’s actually done correctly in such a way as to make best use of all the available tolerance.)

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​