【转帖】drawing checkerapprover qualifications

yang686526

drawing checker/approver qualifications
sorry for yet another post but:
for those of you who have a formal drawing check process (not just dedicated checkers) what are typical minimum qualifications/job requirements.
just to narrow the field, i don鈥檛 just mean a vague peer review but thorough checking for completeness, correct gd & t, standards compliance, basic form/fit/function, tolerance analysis, dfma etc.
i tried looking at job postings but almost all of them listed previous checker experience as being a requirement and i鈥檓 just looking for bare minimum.
it鈥檚 come up because we only have one 鈥榓pproved鈥?checker, me (and frankly my qualifications for the position are questionable) and people are complaining about the back log and asking why they can鈥檛 check etc.  we鈥檝e had at least one engineer send several messages saying that someone with a masters prepared the drawings she with bachelors already reviewed them, why isn鈥檛 that sufficient.  i just finished checking the first pack from her earlier today and, lets just say they weren鈥檛 good.  
we have a check policy that says my boss maintains a list of approved checkers, i鈥檓 the only one on it for now.  we want to formalize our requirements for being a checker so that we can defend our stance of not letting just anyone with a pulse check and also hopefully so it can help us find someone else to share the load.
for starters i鈥檓 thinking:
1.  minimum 5 years preparing drawings to asme y14.100 (or equivalent).
2.  skilled in the application and understanding of gd&t (asme y14.5m-1994), preferably at least gdtp technologist level or broadly equivalent combination of training and experience.
3.  experience with 鈥榃orst case鈥?stack up tolerance analysis including impact of gd&t.
4.  familiarity with common manufacturing processes preferably with knowledge of dfma principles.
5.  good communication skills to explain drawing changes, standards requirements and represent documentation requirements at meetings etc
6.  internal candidates should have a proven track record of complying with relevant company policies and procedures.
i have my doubts about academic qualifications (other than gdtp etc) having much direct relevance though maybe a minimum of high school wouldn't be a bad idea.
any suggested changes or additions?
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
i think you have a good start.
for #1, i would suggest min 10 years.
#5, good communication (written and verbal skills)
i think i would also add a good knowledge of machining practices.
chris
solidworks 07 4.0/pdmworks 07
autocad 06
thanks ctopher, i was originally thinking 10 years but don't want to disqualify my self, i only have approaching 7 years.
emphasis on machining is good idea, as that's how most of our parts are made.  also written & verbal, good point.
i'm pretty sure that whatever i come up with either i'll be disqualified or, i'll have to water down requirements so that i'm not.
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
kenat,
   i cannot see how someone can check mechanical drawings without extensive experience at mechanical design.  this gives them the training at gd&t and other drafting standards, and dfma.  extensive design experince in-house means they are familiar with your particular design problems, and they have a track record of good judgement and getting things done.  you can ask the fabricators how good their drawings are.
   i am trying to think back on how competent and knowledgeable i was with five years experience. i agree with ctopher about the ten years.  
   your tag line implies you were saddled with this.  you could state that five years is the minimum acceptable, but ten years is strongly preferred.
                        jhg
ken,
maybe number 7 on your list should read something like, requires the patience of job (biblical character) and the hide of an elephant. coming into a company as a design checker requires both (as i am sure you know) and you need to be sure that the person you get can stand up to both the natural resistance/obstinance of the designers (i freely admit that i have been like that in tha past but i have seen the light) and senior managers (usually outside an eng. dept) who want things 'now not tomorrow'
good luck finding the right person
kevin
鈥淚t is a mathematical fact that fifty percent of all doctors graduate in the bottom half of their class." ~author unknown
"if two wrongs don't make a right, try three." ~author unknown
i agree that familiarity with machining is desirable, as is extensive design experience.  you would also want someone who knows how to produce a good drawing, and is well versed in gd&t (inspection experience perhaps?).  you need someone who can manipulate the cad files to ensure proper modeling techniques are followed.  
if you add up all of the desired characteristics of a good checker, you will severely limit the number of applicants available.
this is probably the reason why the best checkers that i have known were not young.  it takes time to gain quality experience.  you might have to rank your requirements as to what is most important, and (i hate this) settle for the best you can get, and give the winning applicant the support necessary to improve to the level that you desire.
thanks gents.
i do not consider myself qualified/experienced enough to hold the position but as i've mentioned before our senior design checker got laid off and i've been determined the least bad candidate to fill the void.
drawoh, agree about the experience.  several people here have stated that we should be able to train checkers which i dont believe to be true.  we're trying to formalize what the bare minimum requirement is for experience/qualification.  we've only recently introduced industry drawing standards here and outside our department most people don't really follow them so hence the proviso on internal candidates and the fact i emphasize 14.100 in the experience.
prohammy, you're not wrong.  we actually have that (phrased differently) in our job description for hiring internally.  sadly given we just lost our checker to lay off this isn鈥檛 actually for a job posting for an external hire.
the purpose of this description is so we can end up with an internal 鈥榡ob description/minimum qualification鈥?to defend against the idea of any old joe doing it.  i plan on saying it was prepared after review typical industry requirements and consulting with industry experts (that鈥檚 you guys)
the other idea that鈥檚 been mooted is that we approve some existing engineers/designers as lower level checkers for simpler tasks.  
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
didn't see your post ewh, your points are well taken especially re 3d cad.  we aren't formally checking models yet but we have identified it as something we'd like to do and on one major program it's getting done to some extent.
as regards the settling, which i too hate, i haven't seen anyone here outside my department who comes close to being marginally acceptable!
i don't come anywhere near the previous incumbant of this position in terms of qualification or experience, i knew this before grudgingly accepting it and get reminded of it daily.  i'm not yet 30, he was past retirement age.  there's no comparison.
but i'm trying...
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
quote:
differently) in our job description for hiring internally.  
doh, what was that about strong written comunication skills.
should have been "... hiring externally..."
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
kenat,
   you cannot teach ten years of design experience.  
   having said that, there is a training issue with design checkers.  you need to be very organized at handling information.  with a good, methodical process, you can check a drawing package a day.  without it, you could take weeks.  
   if the checker has design experience, they will be familiar with design tools.  if a drawing package is well executed, it is extremely unlikely the designer does not understand cad thoroughly.  if the package is a mess, it is likely the designer is incompetent with cad, but sorting this out is not necessarily the checker's responsibility.
   the most important thing you need is the backing of management.
                        jhg
drawoh,
it seems that you don't place much value on a well constructed model.  with the power available in todays cad systems, this can be a serious oversight.  properly constructed and maintained, you can make a change to one part and have all related parts update automatically.  these changes can be simply changing an expression.
if the models aren't properly constructed, this simple change may turn into a complicated change involving many more man-hours to implement.
i agree about the importance of design experience.  i just wanted to emphasize that, while a model may "look" good, that it pays off in the long run if the model is indeed "good".
there are very many cad jockeys out there that can create models and drawings in very short time, but not all of them are methodical enough to create robust models (similar to the lack of good drawings we see today).  if your product involves any complicated geometry or assemblies, it is better to establish modeling criteria from the beginning.