Drawing standards only for Military work 6

[KENAT]

We have a number of Engineers here who seem to think that the ASME drawing standards etc are only for military work and have no place in a commercial organization.

How would you respond?

Also If people want to make this some kind of survey of "We use the standards and are/are not Defense/Defence" that would be great.

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

 

[KENAT]

Good point vigil.

There is a strong defense bias but plenty that aren't, the likes of Xerox & Kodak jump out as being in vaguely related (very vaguely) type of industry to our place and using the standards.

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

 

[MikeHalloran]

Some places make a distinction between drawings that will leave the building, and those that never will.

Drawings for internal use may refer to standards that are not published externally, e.g. are hung on the shop wall, and may be simplified in nonstandard ways in accordance with internal custom that has evolved to suit the particular business.

BEWARE OF DISTURBING AN EVOLVED SYSTEM. It may be working very well indeed, but as the new guy, you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell.

It may be in a company's commercial interest to make drawings to be sent out intentionally obtuse or misleading, because they stand a good chance of falling into the wrong hands.

The military insists on easy to read drawings because the person interpreting the drawing may also be under fire at the time.

Not everyone has the same set of incentives.


Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[KENAT]

Mike, generally I agree that when new to a company you shouldn't go out guns blazing to change things.

There were no meaningfull standards, that's part of the reason my department was created. So when you've been hired to change things, leaving the Status Quo isn't an opton. That said I do believe my department made mistakes in this area in the first few months, some of them before I was hired, in not properly gauging what some common practices etc were.

The 'system' wasn't working: high rate of mistakes/rework on parts; stuck with vendors because they were the only ones who had worked out what the chicken scratch drawing was meant to say; lots of ecos to correct drawing errors etc.

The system wasn't evolved, people made up rules as they went along. If you asked 5 different people how to do something like an eco you'd get 5 different answers, and I don't mean just personal preferences.

Been here almost 2 years, not sure if I count as the new guy any more.

Your point about drawings being deliberatly misleading is something I've thought about. At least one vendor we use also supplies a competitor. However, surely even in that case the drawing needs to be clear enough for the vendor to make it (mostly talking machined parts)? Isn't this kind of concern better dealt with by having NDAs etc?

The military insists on easy to read drawings because the person interpreting the drawing may also be under fire at the time.

while it may just about be true for higher level schematics/assemblies etc I don't think its a major reason. I'm pretty sure the main reason is so that any competant organization can make it from the drawing.

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

 

[fcsuper]

I don't really agree with Mike Halloran's premises. The falling-into-the-wrong-hands point is a matter for the legal, IT, facilities and/or security departments (depending on the company and the extent of the breach). Besides that, I don't buy that any tribal system is entirely cryptic enough to abate illicit use of a drawing that has fallen into the wrong hands.

Anything that makes it easier for someone to use under-fire is certaining going to be useful in creating economic efficiency on the homefront (which is what the ANSI standards did/do). This goes for internal and external drawings.

Also, if a system is severally broken, then holding to closely to it when trying to create a system that works will only make the problem worse and prolong its faults.

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

 

[drawoh]

MikeHalloran,

I doubt very much that engineering drawings, particularly mechanical ones, are read by people who are being shot at. The real problem is that the parts and assemblies may be critical, and that the military does not want to rely on you as the supplier. I do not see how you can generate Level_3 drawings without following a standard that defines what all the notations on the drawings mean.

If the drawings stay in-house, you can get away with a fairly eccentric drawing procedure. It may even be a good idea for some industries. When your drawings go out of house, you have a contract or a PO that states that parts are to be fabricated to drawings such and such. These drawings are part of the contract, so they have to be clear and unambiguous. A rectangular plate with plus/minus dimensions for the length and width actually is ambiguous unless a standard explains what it all means.

ASME Y14.5M-1994 meets lots of non-military requirements. I do not see it as something exclusively military.

There is a lot of interesting history on military requirements. Read up on the Thomas Morse scout planes. Also, read up on the Brewster Aeronaughtical company.

JHG

 

[MikeHalloran]

I wanted to make the point that there are valid reasons for making drawings that are not standards- compliant, or easily understandable, or correct, and that a unilateral decision to make your company's drawings 'better' could be a career decision.

Yes, the military needs drawings that are good enough so that any low bidder can make a good part ... because the military has put most of its suppliers out of business. In the process, they lost the information that didn't appear on external drawings, and the information that didn't appear on _any_ drawings. ... All done to promote competition.

Competition didn't need promoting. An NDA is not going to prevent an unscrupulous customer from sending your perfect drawing out for bids. He needn't fear you, because you won't be able to pay your lawyers.

In Kenat's case, the company appears to be just FUBAR. Any company that expects a checker to change the corporate culture is doomed.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[debodine]

My thought is not directly in line with the OP, but MikeHalloran had a (sadly) astute comment as his last line: "Any company that expects a checker to change the corporate culture is doomed."

I have to agree, except it may be KENAT and his team that is doomed in such an atmosphere. I think KENAT will face a continual uphill battle unless the senior executive staff is constantly educating, motivating and directing the engineers to change to the standards being created by KENAT's team. KENAT, I hope you are not out on a limb like that.

To your OP, let me say that we are an entirely commercial organization (on the engineering side, on the mtc side we do a very small amount of DOD work at one location out of about six), and our drafting standards are based (loosely, but still based) on ASME. I hope that helps a bit.

debodine

 

[KENAT]

FUBAR, that may be what you think but I couldn't possibly comment!

Out on a limb, varies by the day of the week and what mood the VPs etc are in.

Doomed, possibly, perhaps probably.

Gotta go, may post again later.

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

 

[joebk]

KENAT

I feel your pain. I am unfortunately in the same rapidly sinking boat.

For about 20 years the company I work for never had any standards for drawings and checking was done by unqualified folks according to their own opinions concerning format and intent. In addition, mfg and QA use their own interpretations concerning GD&T to make and qualify parts. So who knows what was the real design intent and what we have manufactured?? This has resulted in extremely costly problems. So we have a huge mess on our hands.

Now this system (or more accurately lack of a system) is so darn ingrained that it is all but impossible to change. I even have the VP of sales arguing the finer points of GD&T with me on a daily basis - these are really fun "conversations".

The president of the company wants standardization (rightly so) and has charged me with the task. So we adopted ASME Y14.5-1994, state this in the title block, and are checking/drawing as closely as we possibly can to the standard.

But the organization overall is completely unwilling to entertain change of any kind even if it proves to make us more profitable and makes product easier to manufacture. Everyone would prefer we continue to make the same costly mistakes forever to avoid change and a system in a state of flux.

The common argument is "if you are going to make a change to one drawing, make it to all drawings at the same time". When we have over 1500 drawings, finite resources, and design responsibility for new product this is not possible unless we devote all resources to this alone. In this regard, we slowly revise older drawings when the time is right.

So what the heck to do when the president demands change, we follow his instructions, and everyone else fights us tooth and nail to the bitter end?

IMO this is a no-win situation. The president wants standardization but nobody else buys into it and training resources are not available to key people - so it is either going to be terribly painful or will flat out fail (more likely).

My personal strategy is to soldier on and remain committed to standardization and try to work with the other departments to bring them up to speed. I continue to make changes, check drawings, and generate new drawings according to our standard but I make it a point to spend the time to document and discuss the "why" of any aspect of these drawings in the simplest terms possible with whoever would like to discuss this information. Correlating formatting or interpretation problems related to engineering drawings with real world problems (sometimes extremely dangerous problems) tends to help drive home the point. I also try to push the economic advantage to management, this is really what they care about.

This is very difficult, painful, and time consuming. But I hope by educating everyone as best I can and stressing the advantages of standardization (or more accurately, indicating to each department how they stand to gain) I hope to eventually win support. Basically, I am salesman and evangelist for standardization and proper use of GD&T within our organization.

Will this work? Will I get burned out? Will I get fed up and quit or get fired? Who knows for sure but at this point I am not sure if the light at the end of the tunnel is a train or not. I do think that it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, so I will fight the good fight and see where it leads me (maybe to a different job that is less stressful).

Best of luck to you KENAT!!

 

[fcsuper]

KENAT,

I appreciate you relating your experience, but I'm also fearful for your. You are talking in some detail about your company. I know you don't mention which company it is, but this could backfire.

That said my comment regarding this statement, "The president wants standardization but nobody else buys into it and training resources are not available to key people..." is simply that the President needs to be a leader and get people behind the decisions they are making. Your job (I assume) should be made very easy by simply bring up his name every time someone tried to argue with you.

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

 

[KENAT]

Thanks for your concern FC, may have said more than was expedient on 31st, good call.

However I think you may be confusing joebk post with mine.

Jobbk, good luck, I feel your pain.

Foolishly checked my mail from home earlier as I'd left something unfinished yesterday. Appears someone is sawing the limb. Same person who got the last Checker laid off, seems they didnt' like that checker doing their job and point out mistakes made on a product release that was, to use Mikes phrase, FUBAR.

Sure makes me want to do a good job.;-)

However, this has gotten a bit off topic, thanks everyone for the replies sympathy etc.



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

 

[fcsuper]

KENAT,

Just to make it clear, this is what I was talking about:

The president of the company wants standardization (rightly so) and has charged me with the task. So we adopted ASME Y14.5-1994, state this in the title block, and are checking/drawing as closely as we possibly can to the standard.

But the organization overall is completely unwilling to entertain change of any kind even if it proves to make us more profitable and makes product easier to manufacture. Everyone would prefer we continue to make the same costly mistakes forever to avoid change and a system in a state of flux.

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

 

[MikeHalloran]

Kenat The Flag Bearer will fail in his mission unless his flag is borne on a pike.

Too allegorical? Okay. He can't effect change without authority. E.g., the authority to fire someone, _anyone_, for not doing as the Prez says he wishes.

Chances are he'll be ignored _until_ he fires someone, and makes it stick.

That could be an opportunity. If all the incumbents really are too valuable to lose, consider hiring an actor to ingratiate himself with the status quo folks, become their point man, and be fired, as publicly as possible.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[KENAT]

FCsuper, that was joebk, not I.

Failure is indeed impending but we've been thinking that for almost 2 years and we're still here (except the laid off checker).

Authority to fire, they don't like to fire people round here. Many people are treated with kid gloves and allowed to get away with murder it it's thought they have rare technical expertize.

One of the Directors did fire someone that refused to tow the line and ever since everyone in his departement has been trying to undermine him.

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

 

[fcsuper]

man, yup. Ok, so my comment is for both of you. lol I shouldn't do this when I'm half asleep.

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

 

[Tunalover]

Sorry for the soapbox but I want to emphasize that the drawing is a legal document between the manufacturer and buyer and should portray the end-item as succinctly as possible. Also there are uncounted reasons that it is unwise to use it as the sole manufacturing instruction. Whether the mfgr is in-house or not should not concern the draftsman. He should resist the temptation to "give mfg what they want." I know it's tough because mfg pays the bills but I've seen too many drawings turn into detailed assembly instructions that would produce a very expensive product if given to a contract mfgr.

What happens if business conditions change and the machinists are so swamped with work that outsourcing is required? Or what happens if the customer paid for the drawing pkg and took it to another supplier? There is no room for "company quirks", unstated (yet "understood") requirements, gut-wrenchingly detailed "how to" notes, and so forth.

I had a checker tell me that the installation hole size for a captive fastener MUST be called out on the drawing because "the machinists like that." I explained to him that the future may contain a scenario where the originally-specified fastener (called out on a separate parts list) was unavailable and that one from another mfgr would be used. The new part may not be suited for the hole called out on the drawing. I asked him to leave the "install per the manufacturer's recommendations" note and leave the installation hole off the drawing. He wouldn't. And this guy had thirty years of experience!

BTW I'm an engineer and not all of us are sloppy or cavalier with the drawings. Maybe this is because I haven't always had a draftsman or designer to do the drawings for me. For years I've had to do my job and theirs too (frequently at the expense of dulling my analytical skills).



Tunalover

 

[MikeHalloran]

Tuna, I'd side with your checker.






Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[drawoh]

MikeHalloran,

I side with tunalover on this one.

The note "INSTALL AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS" tells the fabricator to read the manufacturer's literature and follow all the instructions. In the case of PEM fasteners which I use a lot, this means that there is a hole size with tolerances, that the holes should not be deburred, and that you should not use a hammer. Providing the diameter of the hole and other instructions implies that there is no need to read the literature.

JHG

 

[KENAT]

Tuna, you're preaching to the choir;-) I strongly agree with your first 2 paragraphs.

As to the inserts:

Treated as an inseperable assembly I think I'd side with tuna (at least that's what my last checker taught me).

Treated as a separate machined component that the inserts are later assembled to then, I side with Mike.

I've worked companies that did it both ways.

I too am an Engineer (at least I have my bachelors), that's why many of the arguments about Engineers not needing/being expected to do it lose their impact on me. That said I sometimes wonder about my analytical skills, but more with respect to potential future jobs than the ones I've had.

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

 

[MikeHalloran]

I've worked in places that did it both ways ... and other ways too.

Presence of a checker implies that you are mass producing stuff, i.e., the installer doesn't cut the holes, and the machinist doesn't press in the PEM parts, so you have to tell the machinist exactly what holes you want.

In a startup/ small craft shop, where everyone is an artiste, they get all huffy if you give them instructions... which they ignore anyway. They will almost certainly prove to you that it is possible to install a PEM part with a hammer, then blame you for buying cheap knockoffs when they end up cocked or fall out.

In a union shop, they do exactly what's on the print, and no more. Expecting them to read and interpret other people's directions changes their labor grade, so you have to pay them extra ... and provide a copy of the outside instructions with each lot's paperwork.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA