huangyhg

outsourcing checking
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...
eng-tips forums is member supported.
isn't the classical method to simply send crappy drawings out, and fix them in response to manufacturer questions, or receipt of parts that look nothing like what is expected?

this sounds like purchasing wants to outsource checking.
the problem i see is anyone outside your company does not know your products. they can check per asme standards and certain specs are followed, but that's it. imo, it will cost more to outsource than to hire someone to check. for outsource: all dwgs will have to be sent to check form-fit-function, not one or two dwgs at a time like purchasing will do.
also, if your own inspection checks the parts, they will have to get up to speed with standards that the outsourced checker will add.
it will be a huge learning curve for all, possibly creating unseen issues later.
chris
solidworks/pdmworks 08 3.1
autocad 06/08
i agree with chris, and would like to add that, if in that situation, i would choose a contractor with suitable experience, and keep the work in house, if possible, until you were comfortable with the results. the problem with having it done off-site is trusting that it is indeed being done to the standards to the degree you require and as your company interprets them. if you have a comprehensive drm, on-site checking may not be necessary, but is still desirable. as you are aware, the standards allow for much that isn't necessarily good practice ("typ" for example "should not be used", but is not forbidden outright), and your interpretations may vary.
believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare.fff"> - robert hunter

mint, no the classical method here is produce a crappy drawing. have conversations with the machine shop on the prototype so that they get made right but not incorporate changes to the drawing, these changes often are re
ewh, we have a drm but it's not as comprehensive as it would need to be to support this.
i agree it's a dumb idea, my boss thinks it's a dumb idea, but his boss suggested it at a senior staff meeting so we're probably going to try and make it work.
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
in my experience our overseas vendor (china) quotes everything that comes across their desk. they only ask questions if the tolerance is tighter than +/-.005" and then they ask if it can be changed to +/-.020". otherwise the gd&t, if the print has any, is completely ignored and whatever we get, we get. we rejected several thousand dollars worth of product about 6 months ago and when we asked how they got the profile tolerance so screwed up, they responded saying they didn't know what that symbol meant. obviously i'm only talking about the one vendor that we use so it could be atypical...or not.
powerhound, gdtp t-0419
production supervisor
inventor 2008
mastercam x2
smartcam 11.1
ssg, u.s. army
taji, iraq oif ii
powerhound, i can imagine that happening.
a lot of our stuff is real precise, tighter than +-.005 due to function.
a lot of it is tight due to the people creating the drawings not understanding tolerance.
it sounds like it will be a contract with a supplier that we will then send most of our production machining to, not just the stuff from our site but from all our manufacturing sites.
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
"otherwise the gd&t, if the print has any, is completely ignored and whatever we get, we get." and "...they responded saying they didn't know what that symbol meant"
hunh. sounds like our experience with china also.
powerhound,
that has also been my experience.
i once had a part that was measured in microns. it was the size of a pin head. the dwg scale was 100/1. the guy in purchasing changed the tolerance to +/-.010 (the typ tol for someone that doesn't know what a tol is) without talking to engineering. this meant the part couldn't exist on the small side. but, it didn't matter, whatever to save $$ to them.
the part was sent to the china plant. 100% rejection on 50,000 parts.
the dwg was changed by purchasing (red-marked), appvd my prod and quality. guess who got reamed?! me! my name was on it. so, i refused to have my name on anything that i knew was outsourced (non-military).
it also depends on itar/export laws who you send the dwg to.
chris
solidworks/pdmworks 08 3.1
autocad 06/08
gee, if only i could have anticipated some of these issues.
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]