Cad department organization 5

[matamaticas]

Hi, all

Have you had any experience in starting a cad department
for Engineering? (mechanical,process, electrical drawings)

have you had any experiences?

To have the cad drafters after them a cad supervisor?
and then the engineers? should be a three steps process
to approve a drawing?

to draw,revise,an revise and approve?

The drafter should be a technician, the reviser a technician also or Engineer?
----------------------------------------
What about to coordinate between disciplines the engineering drawings management?

Can you lead me to get information about how the engineering process should be done?

Let´s say procedures,standards and so on to be complied by all the participants in a project.
(managers,drafters,engineers,project managers, etc.)
procedures like: document control, minutes of meetings
changes of scope, etc.


Sorry for many question, I hope you can help me

Thanks too much

 

[fcsuper]

Drafting departments per se are not as useful as in times past. It's more Engineering Services now.

Also, there shouldn't be repeated revisions before approval. A drawing/model is revised and then approved.

It might help if you mention which industry you are in, as eash field has its own particulars needs.

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

 

[ctopher]

Also, start with a set of the ASME/ANSI standards.
Start with the guidlines that QA, machine shop and inspection use.
As Matt wrote, it also depends on your industry. The very basics can be the same.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[drawoh]

matamaticas,

I hate the term "CAD Department". If you insist on calling it that, you will wind up with a department full of CAD operators, supervised by a CAD manager.

CAD software is user friendly, and just about any one can learn to operate it. Engineering, design and drafting is hard. It requires training and a lot of practical experience.

You have a mechanical design department, or an electrical design department, or a civil/structural design department.

Your manager would be good at these things. They may wind up not bothering to figure out the CAD. They can figure out if the drawings and designs are good, and they can figure out if the designers and drafters know what they are doing. A CAD manager is potentially unable to understand any of this, perhaps in addition to not understanding who is qualified to use the FEA to do structural analysis.

CAD is only a tool.

JHG

 

[ctopher]

I agree drawoh.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[KENAT]

I have experience of being in a new ‘Design Services’ department, we’re primarily mechanical but occasionally get involved in electrical. The department was only a few months old when I came in and hadn’t expanded to its full role so I’ve seen most of the development. I’m the only ‘Engineer’ with a bachelors but we have 2 experienced Designers/Drafters (both started working before CAD), A Senior Design Checker (40 years experience including checking military packages to level 3), a number of interns (usually 2-3) and a Manager. None of the members are just CAD operators or technicians, all permanent staff have some formal training in drafting (including GD&T) and most some training in actual Engineering as well, not to mention years of industry experience.

We provide a range of design support, from simple red-line incorporation & creation of drawings based on Engineers models or sketches to complete design (including calculations) build test and release of items to everything in between including some CAD admin, setting company Design/Drawing standards (primarily invoking ASME stds) etc.

Previously ‘Engineers’ had done their own drawings and there was a lack of consistency, adherence to drawings standards & conventions etc as well as little to no design checking/verification. Our group was created primarily to improve the quality of product documentation, especially drawings.

I believe the main point of your post is the sign off process for drawings. While it may vary based on industry and unique circumstances I’d suggest:

In your case a ‘Designer’ (or as you call it technician) should probably normally create the drawing. Sometimes an Engineer will create the drawing, there is no fundamental problem with this and is typically how I work but some people believe it is more efficient for the Engineer to delegate the drawing detailing to a Designer.

The Design Checker will then review the drawings and request any corrections, changes etc. He’s not only checking them for completeness but also adherence to drawing standards and typically also tolerances, basic functionality DFMA etc. To do this he’ll use 3 different colored pencils, red indicates a change, yellow indicates keep as is while blue is for notes/comments/calculations etc. (Designers/Engineers use green pencil as required) He will then return the drawing to the Designer to incorporate the changes.

Once the Designer has incorporated changes he will re-submit to the checker to make sure all changes were made correctly. This process continues until the checker is satisfied and ‘signs off’ the drawing.

At this point the drawings will be passed to the cognizant Engineer if applicable for approval.

Only after this will they be submitted for incorporation as part of ECO.

FYI to back up what drawoh said, our Checker has limited familiarity with our CAD package and our manager almost none. This has little impact on their ability to do their job.

Hope this helps for starters, I had a little trouble understanding parts of your question, if you have more questions please post, I’d love to share what I’ve learned/am learning. Some of the things your mention, like document control, are fields all by them selves. If you ask specific questions someone may be able to help.

By the way my title is CAD Engineer, I’m not keen on it. Back in the day of hand drafting it’s not like I’d have been a Pencil Engineer, as others have said CAD (be it 2D or 3D) is just a tool. I preferred Design Engineer, which was my title at my last place. I do a lot more than CAD, in fact some weeks I barely open up the software.

 

[Heckler]

I would second "Engineering Services" as the appropriate title for your new department.

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
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

(In reference to David Beckham) "He can't kick with his left foot, he can't tackle, he can't head the ball and he doesn't score many goals. Apart from that, he's all right." -- George Best

 

[ewh]

I'll third that!

 

[fcsuper]

I agree with much of KENAT's comments, however I question the need for a checker in many industries, especially if the company has a good PLM set up and an experienced CAD staff. Processes can be made simpler too, again, depending on industry.

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

 

[PSE]

matamaticas,

The relative size of the group will end up establishing some of the structure (manager, supervisor(s) etc.) My experiences with department setup/procedures is similar to what Kenat relates.

Engineering Creates initial CAD models and refines the design. Maintains responsibility for design intent. There may be a single manager or a manager by discipline (mechanical, electrical, etc.) depending upon group size. A multi-manager organization will typically have an overall leader (current place I work is a VP level position)

Designers/Detailers take the CAD models and put them into drawing formats per established standards (For us, ANSI Y14). Again, depending upon size, there may be an supervisor or manager for the group(s)

Here my experience diverges because we do not have a stand-alone group for checking/reviewing drawings. They go to the engineer who originally created the design for review and then to the project/program manager for additional review. Manufacturing also gets a sign off on it if they are going to be producing the part/assembly.

We have a separate group that does engineering changes on released drawings. ECO's are reviewed by the originator, engineering, and other affected departments as needed.

Regards,

 

[KENAT]

fcsuper, I've heard the argument about not needing a checker but from what I've seen the quality of drawings is significantly (I’m tempted to say order of magnitude but might not be able to justify it) better when you have a good level of checking. For a small department that can't justify a dedicated checker(s) then a dual function designer/checker is a good option. Peer checking is better than nothing but can be of limited value, especially if the peer isn't an experienced designer/drafter...

The other (often overlooked) advantage of checkers is that in order to do their job they need to be highly experienced with good knowledge of drawings standards, GD&T etc as well as just having been in industry a while. As such they can serve as a source for advice and instruction to less experienced personnel. My checker often gives me input that isn’t directly related to just drawing correctness etc.

If the OP has the opportunity to implement a dedicated checker then I think it would be massively beneficial.

One thing I don’t see is how a good PLM system has any impact on needing a checker or not.

 

[ewh]

A star for that, KENAT (deja vu all over again). While it may be somewhat industry specific, dedicated checkers can and do serve a vital role. It is unfortunate that management doesn't see them as contributing enough to the bottom line.

 

[JsTyLz]

All,
I disagree with the need for a "dedicated" checker... at least in automotive applications. The engineer should originate the drawing or need for a drawing and the designer should complete the drawing to the best of his/her abilities and current company/industry standards. (whether it be ASME/ANSI or internal verbage, etc.)The engineer should get the print once it has been completed and check it. In today's industry there is no time for a dedicated checker. I agree with the fact that the checker has more to bring to the table then is evident in their title, i.e. GD&T, standards, how to dimension off of a functional/machining datum, etc. I would prefer it if this person was the Senior Designer, and not only check the prints of all the designers, but work on them as time permits and help mentor the less experienced designers.

Again, the need for checking is unchanged, but having a dedicated checker, seems overkill with the ease of use of today's CAD software.

 

[ewh]

The ease of use of todays software has nothing to do with how well a drawing is thought out. The same goes with GD&T to a lesser extent. I cringe when I think of the ability of the engineers that I have worked with (over a 25 year span) to create a correct drawing. The best have always had to pay their dues slaving under a strict checker who had an endless supply of red ink to bleed on their drawings.
Today's MBD is a step in the right direction, where drawing layout doesn't matter anymore, but GD&T is as important as ever. Also important with MBD is how the model is structured. Now more discipline is needed to ensure that the model is easily understood and changes don't force an entire model re-work. Geometry needs to be properly segregated and associated. Without the proper software to check it (and no software is perfect) and/or a knowledgable checker, expensive mistakes can and do happen. The resulting file will be no better than what your "checker" can produce, and if he (or she) is not a dedicated checker, things WILL fall by the wayside. The primary objective of an engineer (who also checks) is to "get the file out". The primary objective of a dedicated checker is to "get the file out correct."

 

[fcsuper]

My comment about PLM is that having a good system with a suitable approval matrix set up gives the drawing and all other documentation associated with a particular change a high level of review, from the words in the drawing notes to the data collected to provide justification that IQ/OQ/PQ is complete. A company will reach a balance of errors vs. efficiency without a dedicated checker. I just don't see how it is in the best interest of a company to pay someone to review drawings all day. I couldn't even begin to justify a dedicated checker at my company. Internal checks between peers based on the personality of the company is more effective than I see being suggested in this thread.

As far as GD&T and Dimensioning standards, they are losing relavance in 3D CAD because the do not currently address documentation methods in 3D Models where no drawings exist. They make a passing swipe, sure, but nothing "standard" about it. Without guidence from ASME and the other organizations, the 3D CAD software companies themselves are all doing their own thing, and none of that is standardized either.

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

 

[ewh]

Have you read ASME Y14.41-2003?
This is a new area, and rest assured, they will be expanding on it. GD&T has not lost relevence, except for those who lack the knowledge of proper application.
As for the extended review a PLM system allows, again, if those reviewing don't know what a correct file is, then files will be released without being corrected. Most (if not all, as the modeling software tends to be too expensive to load on all of their computers) of the reviewers NEVER interogate the model, only check to see that superficial information critical to their own subject area is present. The actual model seems irrelevent to them.
Again, how can an engineer properly check a drawing when he has never himself made a correct drawing in his career?
Yes, a company will reach a balance of errors vs efficiency, but what is that balance? Couldn't a stricter enforcement of standards positively reflect on the bottom line? If not, why even have standards?

 

[KENAT]

Just because CAD systems make it quicker/easier to make mistakes, sorry I mean drawings, does not significantly reduce the need for checking. While most of them incorporate features that support standard practices most of these can be overridden or used incorrectly, still allowing mistakes. Sure if you go MBD or use retrieve dimension it reduces the chance of missing dimensions but checkers look for a lot more than just that.

fcsuper, our ECO process which supposedly includes all affected departments (over 10 signatures if I remember correctly) and which includes review of the drawings does not by itself result in quality drawings. Just because the PLM system says lots of people have to approve the drawing doesn't mean that any of them know a good drawing from bad, or have time to look at it in detail. On the other hand our checker does know a good drawing and so drawings that go through him are of a much higher standard.

Plus in terms of efficiency I'd think it was more efficient for one person to spend most of his time checking drawings, with the associated expertise etc this develops, than for numerous people to spend a little time doing it. As I said in my original post small departments may not be able to justify a 100% dedicated checker but having one person check all work, in addition to doing some other tasks, is surely better than having a number of probably less qualified people doing it.

 

[drawoh]

JsTyLz,

I argued elsewhere that design checking takes up schedule time and man-hours that might be better expended elsewhere. The design checker should be catching mistakes that cost more than the design checker. In the context of this discussion, that point could go either way.

I work in an environment where we fabricated mostly machined parts in small quantities. We get along well with our machine shop, so usually it is easy to get things modified for whatever reason. Design checking is not a necessary part of our process.

If some of our stuff was checked by a qualified checker, there would be trouble. We have no oversight, and some of us do very bad drafting. It would be nice if somebody were able to catch this.

I am not impressed by PLM and an approval matrix. Our PLM people announced that our drawing checking would be done online. No need for paper! When I told them that design checking was not possible without paper, they ignored me. Our checking process does not work.

JHG

 

[fcsuper]

At my company, I don't think the mistakes caught could come close to paying for a person to check our models and prints. I agree if there can be a cost justification for it, then it should be considered. I just haven't experienced a situation where that is even close to being possible. Most drawing mistakes would never cost anyone a dime. Many of those "mistakes" are simple matter of opinion or interpretation differences of the standard. At times, arguements over such matters more than negate the usefulness of the checker (this I have seen first hand).

Hey, what is it about the process you are describing that doesn't allow for the checking of prints online? Are you refering to the checking of the model too?


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

 

[ewh]

Yes, model checking is important if you have any plans to re-use or modify them (and have more than one person creating them). Just as there are (supposedly) drafting standards, there should also be modeling standards. The CAD packages today can imbed much information and design knowledge into the models, not just the space they take up in 3D.