Same Engineer Checking and Stamping a Calculation 3

[Deflected]

Is it wrong for an engineer to be the designated checker of a calculation and stamp the calculation with his seal?

Scenario:
EIT prepares calculation based on design that was directed by the PE. The PE checks the EIT's calculation. The PE then stamps the calculation.

Thanks for the input.

 

[rowingengineer]

sounds like normal practice to me

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[Ron]

Same here. Been doing it for years. What is it that you seem to think is wrong?

 

[Deflected]

I was told that if you are checking then that means you did not have input. If you don't have input, then it is not responsible charge...

 

[Ron]

I'm not sure who told you that, but in general practice it doesn't work that way. In a strict manufacturing quality control atmosphere that might be the case; however, in consulting engineering, it is common practice for the engineer in responsible charge to direct and check the results of activities on a project, including calculations. Further, it the responsibilty of the engineer in responsible charge to do so.

 

[IRstuff]

"I was told that if you are checking then that means you did not have input. If you don't have input, then it is not responsible charge..."

If you found an error, I'd bet good money that you would have "input" to get it fixed before you stamped it. The stamp is your certification that the analysis is correct; would you trust someone else to check something that you're going to stamp and incur liability on?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[Deflected]

Very true IR and Ron. Thanks for the advice.

 

[GregLocock]

I think whoever came up with that confused the function of checker and signing authority. A checker is employed by an organisation to reduce the probability of error, whereas when you sign a drawing or calculation off you are taking responsibility for the errors. If you are signing something off then a third party checker is a nice thing to have but doesn't reduce, never mind eliminate, your duty of care.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

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

 

[fel3]

Deflected…

You might be confusing the functions and responsibilities of the PE and a separate QC reviewer. As the PE, you are responsible to check any and all work that will receive your stamp, whether done by an EIT, a subordinate PE, or by yourself. So, if an EIT is doing a calc for you, you should have an appropriate level of input from beginning to end of the calc process. For example, you should establish the criteria and objectives for the calc, provide relevant information, answer questions, and, yes, check the final product.

If your company has a formal (or even informal) QA/QC process, then another PE, with at least your level of experience, will be called upon to review the project at some level of detail. In my experience, minor calcs don't usually get reviewed, but critical calcs should be separately reviewed along with the plans and specs.

I hope this helps.

Fred

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[Deflected]

Would you say that it is up to the company's policy to determine the QC requirements or is there a standard to follow (that may vary state to state)?

 

[JAE]

I don't see that the US states mandate QC procedures - only who is ultimately responsible and that the EOR must have supervision and direction of the design.

How you get to good quality is usually left up to the discretion of the firm or the engineer.

 

[fel3]

Deflected…

QC requirements and procedures are company-specific and vary quite a bit. The larger firms tend to have very formal and elaborate requirements and procedures. Some small firms I know of (mostly development engineering types…a.k.a. "land butchers" ) have no QC program in place or just the bare minimum. One engineer I know, who used to work for a low-quality firm, told me that their QC program consisted of submitting their plans to the local agency and having the agency check the work. That's one reason he didn't stay there very long.

That being said, even the best QC program and the best QC reviewers cannot find every errors or even every major error. That's why the PE who is putting his/her stamp on the work must be rigorous about checking it, and even then errors can slip through.

Fred

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[IRstuff]

In the US, industry standard dictate that you have a documented quality control structure and policy, not what's contained in it, per ISO9001. Assuming you have a decent QC checklist, you should be not much worse off if you don't have a dedicated QC person, but that assumes that the engineer responsible is disciplined enough to follow through. Naturally, all that comes back to the PE that ultimately seals and signs off.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[fel3]

IRStuff…

A point of clarification: Most civil and structural consulting firms that I know of are not ISO certified and I suspect this is true nationwide. As far as I know, only the largest consulting firms are ISO certified. In my line of work (mostly municipal infrastructure planning and design), I have never encountered a requirement from a client to be ISO certified.

Fred

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[IRstuff]

Wasn't implying that one had to be ISO certified, just that if you did look for a standard, ISO9001 would be a valid standard.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[cry22]

IR,

sorry to say but ISO 9001 is total BS

ISO 9001 consists of issuing a paper stating you have your own In-House QC program.
Say you are manufacturing junk, in the assembly line you have a person checking that only Junk is produced, if a good part is produced, you remove it and say AHA, this is not junk.

and there you have it, you are ISO 9001 certified.

Most companies with ISO 9001 don't have a clue about their own QA/QC program even with their ISO 9001 on the bragging board. there is nothing measurable, ISO does not offer any tools to perform the so-called QA/QC. ISO is in the business of selling hot air, typical of anything coming from Europe.

ISO is a rip-off for US businesses. For our industry in the US, try Energy Star
Energy star has done a comparison with it's ISO counterpart (ISO 54001), you'd be amazed on how BS these ISO falks are.

 

[TomDOT]

I thought Energy Star (for appliances anyway) was mostly a "trust the manufacturer, don't bother with 3rd party verification" type of stamp.

 

[Enginerd9]

"Scenario:
EIT prepares calculation based on design that was directed by the PE. The PE checks the EIT's calculation. The PE then stamps the calculation."

Isn't the point of being an Engineer In Training that you do work as directed by a Professional Engineer, then the Professional Engineer checks to make sure the work is done correctly. If so, you get a sticker. If not, you get remedial training?

Also lol@ ISO. I love reading "We're ISO 9001 compliant / certified!" It's basically an expensive pat on the back for doing what you say you'll do, and having a documented procedure for saying it.

Experience: accumulated knowledge over time.

Talent: the ability to use experience.

Which is more valuable?

 

[TenPenny]

Yes, anyone who understands the ISO9000 process knows that it simply means you document what you do, and make sure you always do it, and have a procedure to deal with instances where you don't.

It has nothing to do with 'quality', unless you document your quality requirements and verifications as part of your procedures.

 

[KENAT]

Actually, anyone who understands the ISO9001 process knows that often it simply means that at some point in history you documented what you thought you were meant to do, you now lie about always doing it when being audited, and cover up any time not following it causes a problem.

Oh, and this is based on ISO9001 as I saw it in Aerospace/Defense where they tend to care more about such things than in many other industries.

Or is my cynic setting on high this morning.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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