TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: jonesy on February 15, 2005, 06:49:50 AM
-
Looking for experienced Cad Managers input on this. (but other opinions would also be helpful!)
I am in the process of writing a procedure for auditing and "spot checking" drawings comply with the company standard.
http://www.theswamp.org/lilly_pond/jonesy/Drawing%20Audit%20Procedure.doc?nossi=1
and
http://www.theswamp.org/lilly_pond/jonesy/Cad%20Audit%20form.doc?nossi=1
As I am taking my first "baby steps in the field of Cad Management I am looking for the advice of the "been there, done that" people.
This will sit alongside the standards checker command in Acad, but I am just trying to formalise this.
Is there any better way to do this?
-
No takers?
I'll just have to presume its perfect :lol:
-
when you audit the drawings, are you going to allow for going through the errors with the person responsible for the initial creation?
-
when you audit the drawings, are you going to allow for going through the errors with the person responsible for the initial creation?
Yes.
The boss here is now very keen to standardise all outgoing drawings. He has said he will back me up with ensuring the users do then make any changes. After 3 "smack on wrists" its back in your own time to finish the drawing to the standards.
If the fault is minor (ie it is quicker for me to do it while the drawing is still open) I was thinking of doing it myself, but make a comment on the audit form.
Along with this there will be "educational sessions" where regular problems are highlighted, and if neccessary, training will be given.
Is this what you mean?
Any thoughts
-
maybe you should include the drawing originator/revisor information on your audit sheet.
-
maybe you should include the drawing originator/revisor information on your audit sheet.
Cool, I'd not thought of that one.
The trouble I can see with that though is our drawings dont tend to be drawn from start to finish by one person (which is why the boss is so keen and will back me up 110% for the standardisation)
But I think I could use the "team name" for the originator maybe.
Does your company do anything similar?
If not how do you control standards?
Many thanks for your input
-
I take 10% of the drawings from each job and audit them for compliance with our standards.
Our projects are done by a design team, with the same CAD operator doing a complete service of this job, he may only do one service for that project, but by drawing the complete one at least all the drawings are consistent.
-
I have a couple of cad staff, for full time cad drawing. I also do some of the work myself. We work for 4 engineers.
Then we have "Technicians" whose main job is the design/engineering side for 1 engineer, but they also do a fair amount of Cad work themselves.
This way of working does foul up the accountabilty somewhat :cry:
-
Hi Tracey.
First: It's 4:40am where I am. I should be sleeping but I woke up from a real lousy dream. Haven't had coffee yet. Grumpy, incoherent, can barely focus my eyes. In short, I shouldn't be posting.
Yet here I am.
Couple things.
Do you guys use xrefs?
Do you use Paperspace (PS) / Modelspace (MS)?
Where do you annotate, PS or MS?
Do you use text styles?
Do you use dim styles?
Do you use custom blocks?
Do you allow user defined blocks?
Do you allow custom shape files?
Do you allow custom/3rd part hatching?
Has the drawing been cleaned of rougue appids, bogus groups, null text ad nauseum?
etc.
I ask these questions because I didn't see provision in the audit form to assess adherence or proper use in these regards, and these are typcially the areas where standards divergence occurs. Of course, mileages vary.
I realize you're looking for procedural advice, not grammatical. Yet, I can't help myself ...
Anyway, with that as a backdrop, this statement just leaps off the page at me "The Cad Manager shall be Tracey Jones, unless another person is nominated by the current Nottingham Office Quality Co-ordinator". I think you should lose it. It might need to be stated somewhere, but I don't think it belongs in the "Drawing Audit Procedure" document.
I would change "Whoever carries out the drawing auditing (the Cad Manager*) ..." to "the CAD Manager shall ...".
Oh yeah, Cad is spelled CAD or CADD, not Cad. Sorry, a weird peeve of mine.
Finally, once old-cadaver sees your post you'll get fixed up good. :)
Mommie, where's me dang coffee?
-
Do you guys use xrefs?
Do you use Paperspace (PS) / Modelspace (MS)?
Where do you annotate, PS or MS?
Do you use text styles?
Do you use dim styles?
Do you use custom blocks?
Do you allow user defined blocks?
Do you allow custom shape files?
Do you allow custom/3rd part hatching?
Has the drawing been cleaned of rougue appids, bogus groups, null text ad nauseum?
etc.
All the above items we use are already set in the template, I will look at the form and see how I can reword it to encompass those thing we do use
Anyway, with that as a backdrop, this statement just leaps off the page at me "The Cad Manager shall be Tracey Jones, unless another person is nominated by the current Nottingham Office Quality Co-ordinator". I think you should lose it. It might need to be stated somewhere, but I don't think it belongs in the "Drawing Audit Procedure" document.
I would change "Whoever carries out the drawing auditing (the Cad Manager*) ..." to "the CAD Manager shall ...".
It was worded this way ONLY because that particular document is part of a QA document, and that is the way the rest of the QA docs have been written - I was just butchering an existing document, I will have a word with the QA team to see if your wording is ok
Many thanks for your input, and pleasant dreams :wink:
-
(http://www.theswamp.org/screens/mp/mpzzz.gif)
:)
-
Finally, once old-cadaver sees your post you'll get fixed up good. :)
Where is the main man, I havent seen his name floating around for a couple of days