An issue that only would come up if you're dealing with a drafters union... 1

[frusso110]

Hello,

This is an issue that would ONLY ever come up when there is a drafters union involved.

Drafters are the only ones that are allowed to edit and produce the official drawings for our parts and assemblies. There are three main workflows for how engineering and drafting can complete drawings to the engineers satisfaction.

1. Engineers receive PDF prints from drafting, they mark up the prints, and then hand them back to drafting to incorporate these markups. This works fine for text and simple markups.

2. Sometimes, engineers create unofficial drawing views (inside the drafting application for the part/assembly) that they can communicate what they need to the drafter. This would get saved.

3. Engineers will open up the drawing file (that references the master model), add the notes and dimensions they need, take a screenshot and then send that screenshot over to drafting. The engineer can't actually save the work done to the drawing. Drafting would re-create the exact same thing.

Anybody have a clever solution to this? I'm pretty sure there's no great solution... But who knows.

 

[JNieman]

I don't know what problem you think exists.

It would be a waste of most engineers time to have to learn everything the CAD Techs knows about proper model maintenance, drafting standards, and other drawing requirements, as well as documentation of all changes. There's a reason your drafters are there.

This isn't even a "Drafters Union" rule that only exists with unions. We had the same rule in some SMALL BUSINESSES I worked for. It was a mostly-structural engineering firm and all there principles thought that the CAD Techs should be the ones to make changes, and stuck to relining prints. Occasionally they would create screenshots from the CAD model or save a reference/temporary copy with the changes, for evaluation. It was expected that the engineers would just screw something up that the drafters wouldn't. The engineers don't even know what they would screw up, or not do, and no one would notice until it's too late and the damage had spread.

 

[ewh]

I agree with the above. Procedures are generally in place to prevent engineers from incorrectly updating drawings. I have often seen situations where an engineer would "sneak" in changes that were not per the agreed standards (ASME, etc) because of a general lack of drafting knowledge. This gets quite frustrating when the drawing has already been through a thorough check and is awaiting release.
Yes, unions would try to control this, but so would a well-run engineering group.

"Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[frusso110]

Sorry. I should clarify.

I agree with what you're saying! The "problem" / question i would like to answer is:

In this environment, how can Engineering effectively communicate what is required on a drawing to drafting?

 

[JohnRBaker]

Have you looked at using PMI to add such things as GD&T and other notation directly to the model which could then be either inherited onto the Drawing by the Drafter or are least referenced before the Drafter actually adds the needed annotation to the formal Drawing?

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Digital Factory
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[frusso110]

Thanks, John. Yes PMI is one method that I didn't mention above. We all should use it more readily.

But PMI can't tell the drafter "Please make a section view here and show these specific dimensions."

 

[JNieman]

Your questions seem to get into company policy more than means of communication, in my opinion. Maybe I misunderstand you.

I don't think you should HAVE to tell a drafter to "make a section view here and show these specific dimensions" at all. You should be able to update him on the changes, and the drafter will/should be able to make sure a print is generated which fully and clearly defines the part. If the drafter isn't reliably capable of doing so, their supervisor/checker should be able to guide them. I would expect experienced drafters to be able to decide and control the output of the print to fully convey the engineers requirements without the engineer having to tell them how to /make/ the drawing. It's possible my expectations aren't a fit for how your specific company works, though.

I think annotated screenshots, red-lined prints, scanned hand-sketches, and maybe even a sample model/CAD-file for them to look at and copy changes from, is a pretty extensive means of communication. After that begins phone calls and/or emails to discuss/clarify further.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Well you can create 'section views' in PMI as well as dimensions, none of which have to actually be inherited onto the Drawing if you don't wish them to. In other words, these items can remain in the Model file and only act as a sort of scratch-pad/mark-up between the engineer and the drafter. The PMI objects can either be removed from the part Model files after the Drawing is finished and signed-off, or they can be left hidden as a sort of 'record' of what was passed from engineer to drafter in the past.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Digital Factory
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[frusso110]

You make a good point JNieman. Well said.