Outsourcing Checking 9

[KENAT]

About 2.5 - 3 years ago a team was started here to improve the quality of documentation and part of the approach was to introduce checking.

The experienced, good, fast... checker we had was laid off last June and I got the job

This coincided with Manufacturing/operations finally deciding that they wanted everything checked not just some stuff, and so the work load doubled or more.

Since then there has been a massive backlog and/or stuff not getting checked.

We now want to outsource parts manufacture to Asia to save $ but, our drawings for the most part are still too poor for this.

They now have a plan to 'outsource checking'. Apparantly because they don't want head count to increase they don't just want to hire someone as a temp or contractor so...

So, does anyone know of any design houses or the like that do checking to ASME standards?

Also pointing out any of the obvious problems etc is fine by me.

Ken



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

 

[KENAT]

BARM/Xplicator, I tend to agree with most of what you say, or at least sympathize.

I did have one chuckle though Xplicator

To me the only people who should be checking are people who truly know what the functional intent is, have validated the dimension scheme thru tolerance analysis and can spell GD&T correctly. Perhaps the engineers themselves could actually do this before signing off on a spec instead of passing off there responsibility.

In fact I'm still laughing. The engineers here, for the most part, seem to think that minor concerns like having good product documentation that addresses tolerances etc, isn't their job/is below them/wasn’t covered in their degree… so they shouldn’t concern themselves with it.

That and the fact that I barely meet some of the above requirements.

Oh well, hopefully tomorrow I’ll actually get to some checking having spent most of today doing CAD modeling that no one else here is apparently capable of.

(Oops, is the above me being indiscrete again.)


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

 

[Dave K]

Kenat,

I company I used to work for (Belcan), has done some outsourced checking, so you could check with them. I worked at the office in Florida, so I can't speak for the other offices, but they had good checkers.

-Dave
Everything should be designed as simple as possible, but not simpler.

 

[Xplicator]

Kenat,
You're welcome, my sarcasm regarding my fellow engineers for whatever reason is reality in a lot of situations. Some, if not most, seem to think that once they hand off the requirements there responsibility is done. Its probably because they don't really understand variation analysis and GD&T thus revealing that they aren't as smart as they think they are. The only thing that concerns them is schedule; not if the spec defines and communicates what is needed so they just have a sign-off party and move on, how sad! This is a direct resultant of a poor product development process.

I could go on, but feel I am getting off the OP. If for what ever reason you are forced to outsource. I would highly recommend combining the checking with performing tolerance analysis studies as well, this way the outsource would have to understand the function and ensure that the specs meet the requirements. It will cost more but definitely be worth it in the end. Otherwise as I said earlier you will more than likely get compliant prints that compromise the integrity of the product.

As always hope this helps.

 

[KENAT]

Gunman, thanks, I'll look into them.

Xplicator, for us tolerance check usually forms a major part of the checking process, we rarely just check for completeness/format/standards compliance.

This is part of the reason it's so time consuming, and hence I have a backlog.

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

 

[Xplicator]

Good for you, seriously. If thats the case then I would search for sources who provide tolerance analysis as a primary service and ensuring the spec dimension schemes match the results including ASME standard compliance as a sub-deliverable.

 

[BARM]

KENAT,

Have you approached your company about hiring a recent grad?
The grad doesn't need to be a graduate engineer. They will work at the lower end of the pay scale, learn from you, provide backup to you etc.
Don't forget how you got your start in the working world. Perhaps it's time to give someone the same opportunity you were given.

My 2 cents,
Brent

---SolidWorks 2008 SP3.0---

 

[fcsuper]

I think a grad would make a very poor checker though. IMHO, it is the kind of thing that requires years of experience.

Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group

 

[KENAT]

BARM, a graduate is not appropriate for the checking role. Qualifications for checker were discussed in an earlier thread of mine thread1103-193286. In fact I am barely qualified for the position.

I remember how I got my start and it wasn't full time checking. I did in fact do a little checking on ECO incorporation but it was laughable as I had no idea what I was looking at and was all but a waste of time.

I have however suggested getting new grad or even high school grad enrolled part time in our local community college studying design/drafting or similar to train up as drafter/designer but it is unlikely to go anywhere. We are not really hiring and apparantly for cheap labor our preference is foreign interns who are here for 6 months or a year at a time.

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

 

[pierdesign]

Hello. Sorry for late response.

"... or did you have a kick off meeting and occasional follow ups as required ... Yes, this way.

"We'd be looking for them to check not only completeness and standards compliance but also tolerance, at least basic interfaces. We may also want some manufacturability review." Yes, this is what we did. It was actually rather simple and we had some fun at it too tearing into someone else's design.

"To do this thoroughly I find I often need some understanding of the function, especially If I don't have all the other data such as dimensions/tolerance info of off the shelf parts etc." You say this because it's your or partially your own design and are intimately aware of failure modes. These should have been caught in design; a checker can interpret whether a part or component interferes based on data provided regardless of function or failure mode. Someone detached from the design usually will be more thorough. However, if you cannot provide full specifications of the parts' assembly components, no one can adequately do the job you require.

However, complete data packs is an oxymoron. If you know data is missing identify it and ask your outsource checker+ to design it in and proceed accordingly. At least there will be completeness, hopefully correct or adequate.


We did about 80-90% of the work at our office with occasional site visits. Memory isn't exact, but the project entailed interpreting unto reverse modeling legacy CAD models, their legacy drawings including GD&T, redoing or improving the drawings and design of automation assembly fixtures picking up on some of the feature datums.

A drawing checker interpreting GD&T does not require knowledge of part function anymore than a machinist does. He is proofreading the physical QC checking of the fabricated part. Our team lead came from aerospace where he had been a machinist, a CMM programmer, a CAD designer; in other words he could read these sorts of drawings like a newspaper article, spot inaccuracies and recommend better dimensioning and control schemes. Which we did, as part of the project, concurrently designing the automation assembly fixtures.

 

[KENAT]

pierdesign,

The quality/completeness of some of the packs being proposed to go to this out source checking is very low. So

However, if you cannot provide full specifications of the parts' assembly components, no one can adequately do the job you require.

will almost certainly be an issue.

Thanks for the feedback though.

I can see how a more or less complete pack could be sent out for review, in fact this sort of gets done on some military jobs.

However, when the pack is far from complete e.g. little or no assembly drawings or formal assy documentation, incomplete part drawings, lack of full definition for many off the shelf components etc. I'm not sure I can see how it will work.

This is where being in the office, being able to talk to people face to face, look at hardware, imply stuff from other designs etc. helps fill in the gaps.

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

 

[KENAT]

Well the latest, some of you pre-empted our management. Apparantly checking is looking at being outsourced to India after all. Should be interesting...

I find it particulary amusing/interesting that the senior management of a company hadn't heard of checking 3 years ago is now so expert in it and its implications/requirements etc that they have forseen all potential pitfalls of out sourcing it abroad and are going full steam ahead by the sounds of it! ;-)

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

 

[ctopher]

Sounds like Management, finance, purchasing and marketing had a meeting...without engineering, again.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 06/08
ctopher's home (updated Apr 30, 2008)

 

[ewh]

KENAT,

You had better get your blood pressure script updated!

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[CheckerRon]

India??? Oh Boy!
I feel sorry for you and your Boss, KENAT.
This is not exactly software or PC design your out sourcing. It will be interesting to hear what the foreign product looks like.

By the way, regarding pierdesign's comment above that a checker doesn't require knowledge of a part function to interpret GD&T. Without that knowledge, the GD&T and dimensioning method could be totally misapplied and how would one know?
A checker is nothing like a machinist. He/she needs to be a designer first---then a checker.

A GOOD checker has 2 initial questions regarding any part drawing they are asked to review:
What does it do?
What does it mate to?

 

[KENAT]

That can't be a good sign, when the guy that got let go feels sorry for the guy that didn't!

Now sounds like the India checking isn't quite a fait accompli but we'll see.

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

 

[drawoh]

CheckerRon,

A checker is nothing like a machinist. He/she needs to be a designer first---then a checker

I strongly agree. GD&T conformance is a minor detail compared to dimension errors, bad tolerances and general disfunctionality.

There is one other detail here which has not been mentioned yet. If your drawings are checked in house by an experienced designer, your drafters, designers and managers get direct feedback on the quality of the work, and on their conformance to in-house standards. You don't need to wait until three or five years after you hired someone to find out that they have not the faintest idea of how to do their job.

How are these people in India going to sign off the drawings?
JHG

 

[KENAT]

One of the things I like about checking is the feedback loop, you learn to make better drawings by having yours corrected and having to make corrections. We already miss part of this because a lot of the time redlines get incorporated by junior staff or interns, rather than the original engineer. As such some of the engineers drawings aren't getting much better.

Also like you say if managers want to know how people are complying with standards/quality requirements then you have some information.

As to how people in India or any out source sign off drawings. Our initial thoughts/plans were that the drawings would get redlined, the redlines would get incorporated in house and at some point someone familiar with the product would check to see no new problems got introduced. There first few packs would be scrutinized closely and if they looked good they might be asked to incorporate redlines on later packs.

Now it sounds like the whole shooting match might get sent out from the start, and I'm not confident what they will do will get adequate review.

I don't see any way it's going to be easy or perhaps good, right now I'm just trying to minimize the pain.

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

 

[drawoh]

...a lot of the time redlines get incorporated by junior staff or interns, rather than the original engineer.

KENAT,

If I were one of your designers, this would piss me off. Aside from the fact that the feedback probably is good for me, there is design intent. Perhaps the checker did not understand it. What are the chances of a drafter or intern understanding or even caring about what I was doing?

The nature of mechanical design is that every part and every requirement can connect to everything else. This is especially true when you try to reduce the size, the weight, and the fabrication and assembly costs (DFMA?). Too many people who look over our shoulders are narrowly focussed.

JHG

 

[KENAT]

drawoh, the actual designer/Engineer is (meant) to be given a chance to see that any changes made are OK and my preference is that they make them.

However, most of them don't value the check feed back and see incorporating redlines as wasted time/beneath them so are happy for someone else to do it - I think some don't even look at the changes made. I don't think they're ever forced to have an intern do it, usually they're glad to let them do it.

If an error gets introduced they're also sometimes only too happy to blame the checker - just ask CheckerRon!

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

 

[wallyd999]

I've just got myself in a similar position. I'm a checker for processing on aircraft parts a new company which is trying to establish a manufacturing house in Romania. The talent pool is not there yet but it will be. They have been trying to get the place up and running for approx 3 years. It is working but sometimes they fall and skin their knees and we have to pick them up. If your management is serious and they have the patience it will become a good deal. Remember we are at 3 years now.

But if it is like my last company and all they hire are kids good luck! You will need 2 full time checkers and have to check the simple stuff 2 - 4 times and more on the more complicated stuff.

One thing you have to do is make sure you update all the drawings that you send to the shop, Production time is pretty valuable. You don’t want the same mistakes 2 years from now.