Engineering 101 Updated
I took a looked at some engineering problems in the current news and thought "What is going wrong"? Engineering is not "Rocket Science".. oops wait, yes it is! Engineering has operated on set standards that were established decades, if not, centuries ago. The goal of all engineering standards is "Murphy Proofing".
Today, it seems like those standards have been tossed into the wind and are being replaced by those that have no applicable engineering experience.
With the introduction of 3D MCAD there seemed to be no need for the draftsman, which I must agree. But there was no transition plan to move the new 3D CAD engineer to take over the documentation responsibilities.
I have realized that today there is no "Engineering Documentation" training. I have heard of management even ignoring standards of the past stating "They are only guide lines" and I chuckle at the convoluted PLM and MBE trying to manage the documentation. Most documentation standards are now being made on the fly. Don't believe me? Take a look!
Take a look what made these projects fail, hello, Mr. Murphy.
What is standard engineering?
That is it
Note: Documentation includes the 3D Model.
No matter the size of the manufacturing company those are the only steps that make up the engineering process
I am going to make this a continuing report on our industry!
Engineering's total purpose is to make available concise, complete and
Engineering's total purpose is to make available concise, complete and
This is the first Boeing Airplane designed without draftsman. Today, Boeing requires a BSME to be a designer. The problem is that drafting was the watchdogs of the design and documentation. They checked all of the documentation for errors or even a better design. Today, engineers are not trained in documentation creation and checking. There is no defined checker in the group and checking is not part of the document release process. If there is any checking at all, it is casual peer checking! It looks like many of the steps above were missed!
Could this attitude extend into manufacturing?
If you do not have a functional checking
On first look you could assume the parts were manufactured incorrectly. That is impossible. One thing manufacturers and companies do is inspect the parts and make sure they match the documentation.
Pre-3D MCAD the drawing was used for two purposes:
Since it could not be badly manufactured parts it can only be poor design. Engineering failed at step 3. I completely define the problem in these three articles.
The elimination of the draftsman, the drawing and not preparing the engineer to provide the concise, complete and unambiguous documentation is obviously plaguing the industry.
Product knowledge, proven standards and work force continuity is the formula for design success.
1.3 million? Again this is due to step 3. Could this happen pre-MCAD? Maybe, but there were engineers, design draftsman, draftsman and checkers with years and years of experience that were reviewing the drawing? Today, engineering management is completely oblivious to the the need to have a thorough check of the design and documentation or they are purposely playing Russian Roulette betting that that things will go okay? The real reason: They are depending on the minimized process defined by PLM and the MBE system to assure the correctness of the design. Hello, Mr. Murphy!
Note: Pre 3D MCAD the drawing was the design!
Looks like step 7 was ignored. You cannot short cut any of these steps.
As a young draftsman we were thrown into a group of high experienced draftsman that took us under their wings, helping us do learn our profession. As we grew more experienced we also continued that tradition. Boeing would throw the new engineers into the Drafting Group for a year to learn form, fit and function design, drafting and detailing. Trust me, these kids are not engineers when they graduate from college, they truly have no clue about the engineering process and where they fit.
Do young engineers walk into a room of experience engineers, today? Or do they get put in a cubical in front of the CAD system and told "Get to work"?
The first thing a young draftsman was told is Murphy's Law.
"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong".
As we created our drawings and they were checked we would not only gain the knowledge of creating concise, complete and unambiguous documentation but we would increase the knowledge of the design of the product. Soon we would become design draftsman and one consideration of our design was to:
"Murphy Proof It!"
You would make sure it could only be installed one way. I have 54 years of design experience and have over looked this a few times. It is when a customer calls and says "the part doesn't fit". You bring up the CAD files and see that they have installed it backward. Of course, you make it their error. But you know who made the error.
The landing gear collapsed?? Really?
Again we have to review the engineering process. The 787 had many new technologies used in the creation of this airplane.
Now I am sure there were a few more. By the way this was 787 number 11.
Before 3D CAD we would have problems with parts not fitting. In aircraft manufacturing these were handled by Liaison engineers on the assembly line. The would find a problem and do a temporary fix and create a rejection tag defining that fix.
Let me give you an examples.
I was under contract to Gates Learjet in Tucson.
We got a rejection tag defining a problem with installing a fairlead. This was a phenolic block that would protect the control cable from hitting the clearance holes in the frames.
Fix: An alligator grommet around the hole. Hmm wonder it those planes are still flying, that fix was used until a permanent revision was released. Remember these fixes were to keep the line moving.
I investigated the problem. Remember form, fit and function design, drafting and detailing, investigation and revisions were the job of the draftsman.
The problem was they did not understand the drawing. It was complete and, in my opinion, clear. What was missed here Step 2. I drew up an ADCN (Advance Drawing Change Notice) clearing up the documentation.
Today many large companies have moved to MBE (Model Based Enterprise), this is where the 3D model becomes the authority. This really only affects CNC parts.
Now you have to change the model directly to affect any change adding weeks if not months to do a simple change. It has to go through another complete release cycle. Is there a thorough check to assure the complex history on the model has not changed? Do they completely document the change? There are so many places where this system can go wrong.
How much waste can this create? Is there a system to stop existing incorrect parts from being made? I think not! I wonder how many titanium parts are scrapped.
Tesla just gets a lot of attention, badly designed parts have been a part of engineering from the very beginning. But you would think on a mature assembly line these incorrect parts would have been discovered.
So there you go. Four problems that violated the engineering process. The tighter, simpler and standard the process the less "Rejection Tags" or God forbid "Deaths".
You cannot short cut engineering. But that is what is happening today. Engineering management is not in charge of engineering, drafting used to support engineering management and management trusted the released engineering was correct.
Today, they depend on PLM and the CAD vendor to manage engineering top down. Engineering costs are soaring! Without a good established checking process errors are also soaring. These people do not have the ability to differentiate between relative importance's that are so critical in engineering.
It really is time to review the current engineering process. Now the smaller companies have not moved to the PLM and MBE system. It is very costly to implement and maintain. They are still using the proven standard engineering process, and quite successfully.
For more information or to download IronCAD or ZW3D