Drawing cleanliness

[gbelous]

As some of you know from my other thread, I have been trying to implement a new office standards when it comes to cad and printing, but another topic that I've come across is cleanliness within cad. Like making sure end points connect, lines are perfectly straight, basically not drawing half-assed. Does anyone have a system for making sure drafters draw cleanly in cad?

I know there are certain levels of drafting and everyone is different, but it just irks me when people don't keep their drawing clean and neat. Would this be just another topic in the office standards that everyone should try to do their best to follow or should there be some sort of weekly or bi-weekly review of cad drawings and maybe even "redline" within cad?

I don't want to go overboard, but at times it seems like details and floor plans, etc. are just thrown together and then it leads to trouble with accurate dimensions, hatching, all those things that are simplified by a clean drawing.

Thanks again for any feedback.

[ReMark]

Add to that the tendency for some drafters to not think about where callouts are going to be located thus having a spiderweb of leader lines crossing each other. One of my pet peeves for sure.

[BIGAL]

My pet hate is the guys here just freeze a heap of layers and never use them at all, I normally delete peramenant frozen stuff in our case a heap of info from our GIS system we normally copy the GIS from another drawing anyway or can produce again easy.

Opened a dwg the other day and could not believe the junk in it ! temporary stages, std drawings, copies of stuff.

Just try to set rules and keep asking everybody to clean the drawings.

[Crazy J]

I'd say it is certainly a worthy idea and desire to have things clean and as common as possible. The trouble is that everyone will think their way is right and/or more efficient. Add in all the customization possible within AutoCAD, and it's going to be a tough thing to enforce.

Do you have a drawing checker? Some years ago, my design dept took away the checking function from their department. The thought was that the engineers would do it. Some of the product engineers just didn't understand prints and they'd let mistakes go as well. Three years later I'd be referencing a print and find huge, glaring mistakes that no one ever caught.

Currently where I am working, I have inherited a drawing template, and it's got a lot of redundancy in it. If I were to be there long-term, I'd make some suggestions, but this is one-and-done for me there. So I am living with it. But a simpler system allows less errors. This sheet has the date on it in three places, for example. It has a rev. level and a version level. Which one do you change for what?:huh::unsure: And then, ironically, there is no revision history if I did now whether to bump the rev or the version level. I was going to add one and try to improve the template, but it's a small company and only one guy has been doing the drawings to this point, so I'm not gonna fight that battle.

All that said, I guess I'd suggest a checklist that both designer and engineer go through before the job can be signed off. It can't be too cumbersome or it will get ignored, but it could help with things like unused blocks and layers... getting folks to connect their lines and endpoints, well, that I don't know how to enforce....

[CJJ]

Most of the time, the project manager or lead engineer will check the drawings, but a lot of them only look at the plotted sheet and not the DWG itself. This means that the drawing might look good on paper, but is completely wrong. Drafters can take shortcuts by not using the correct layers or by not using Snaps when they should, and it never gets caught in the review process simply because the final product looks fine.

My advice would be to make sure your quality control process includes review of the DWG file itself, and not just the plots.

[MikeScott]

I used to randomly spotcheck DWG's to ensure that there wasn't too much nonsense going on. I didn't care if they had unrelated drawings off to the side, but I definately drew the line at faked dimensions. If the lines aren't meeting at corners, the dim lines rarely did either. The quick check was to create a hatch and see if the shape was closed.

I used to tell them we don't need artists here, we need drafters who fully control where their lines start and end, and whose drafting follows standard conventions.

If their corners don't meet, or their dimensions aren't running to where they're supposed to be, they needed to step up and do their stuff correctly. If it's a pattern, I started writing them up for it.

I'll do quite a bit, in terms of training them though, before any write-ups start. The stuff I was getting them for wasn't "preference" or anything, it was simply sloppy drafting.

Even if it WAS a preference thing, that's why we have standards: to have a unified drawing style, based on how the boss feels our company should be represented.

If everyone has a copy of those standards, then the only excuse for not following them is if you are unable to apply them. That's were refresher training comes in. It can cost time and money, but that's what sloppy drafting costs sometimes too.

I always let them know I was getting ready to spotcheck a DWG file, and would give them a chance to get in there and fix it up before I found anything. I told them I wasn't there to "get them" I was there so I could confidently tell my boss that I was sure we could stand behind the accuracy of our drawings, and that it was important to check every now and then.

[erratic]

how about you just hire better drafters... or TRAIN THEM!!!
that's what I would do... GET WITH IT OR GET THE 'F' OUT!!!

[ReMark]

First I'd give Mike's suggestion a try before I show them the door. At least no one can say you weren't fair.

[Crazy J]

One more thought....
Make sure you have a consistent purpose of your drawings... To explain this better, I'll relate my current situation. I am turning my solid model into prints right now. I am putting on dimensions "just for my reference here" I was told by the other guy who's done AutoCAD here for a while.

He and the boss are under the assumption that just b/c solid model math data is given to suppliers, that this means the parts will be exactly to print. And then they scratch their head and blame it on the machine shop using a dull tool when the parts don'tfit together. I'd heard this same story several times, and as I more recently dove into their standards (slim to none), I realized that the only reason the parts didn't fit is that they are not tolerancing anything.

So, I spent a chunk of time today determining if I was calling out holes properly and if all my dimensions were snapped to the same point (as the OP talks about... I don't want to leave them with lazy drawings). But I got thinking about it. If they don't expect the supplier to meet tolerances and these dimensions are just for reference onsite, why am I doing any of them at all? The compnay I am consulting for could always just go check a DIST if they need to know, and all this time on dimensioning could be saved.

I came up with a nice clean looking print and even had an enlarged view of the one hole and added a radius tolerance on the D-shape that allows mounting of a connector. The boss thought it looked nice with the ordinate dimensions of all the holes given, but I'm laughing a little b/c all they want is a fancy looking drawing and have no idea or big concern for the accuracy of the drawing, particularly since they believe the solid model/math data can take care of everything. This company does ones and twos of things, so GD&T and statistical quality controls are really of no concern to them or of much value. If a part is off, they just clean it up and go ahead with the build. But it kind of makes all the work I've put into getting the model and prints just right feel kind of wasted.. .oh well.:(

[CJJ]

One more thought....
Make sure you have a consistent purpose of your drawings.(

This is a problem where I work, too. We do civil design and land planning, so all of our drawings must be approved by various government agencies before they can go to the contractors for construction. I think a lot of drawings end up being drawn only for the reviewers, and not enough thought is given to the surveyors and contractors who are going to be using them to grade the site and pave the parking lots.

For example, the handicap accessible ramps that I was drawing looked fine to the reviewers, who already know the specifications by heart, so I wouldn't put too much detail into them. Then we'd get a call a few months later from the contractor who is trying to build it, and is asking for information that was missing from our plans. Or, worse, we'd get a call a year later from a developer who is upset that he's having to repave his wheel chair ramp because the contractor didn't built it to code the first time (because our plans weren't detailed enough). Now I draw for the construction site and not only the reviewer's offices.

[nukecad]

To get back to drawing cleanliness-

My pet hates; along with lines not being square and not meeting; are-

Stuff drawn on the wrong layer; ie details drawn on layer dimension, dimensions drawn on layer text, etc,etc.
Multiple layers for the same thing; ie DIMENSION, DIM, DIMS, DIMENSIONS, I recently had one drawing with all four of these layers on it and all used for dimensioning.
Drawings that have noy be Audited, Purged & Zoomed to Extents before saving.


Those are the top three that realy get on my wick.

[Crazy J]

Now I draw for the construction site and not only the reviewer's offices.

Very good point. I was in airbags before what I am doing now, and I created the content that was to go on the print. We had an airbag module that had the exact same features for three separate vehicles with the exception of the vent holes (which are simply a pair of 50 mm holes on the bag, and very easy to detail). So 95% of the bag was the same when produced. I got looking at the prints for the three products one time after an inquiry from the manufacturing folks at the plant. With just a quick look I noticed that all three were drawn a totally different way, yet were all manufactured on the same equipment and intended to be the same. I realized that it had been causing quality check issues and arguements from the operators, confusion and extra rejects/scrap when operators did not have a consistent method of checking parts.

A good deal of work later, we got the prints all the same, but had things just been done the same way at the beginning, with the operators in mind, so much time and energy and money would have been saved... oh well.

In my mind, a print should be many things. It should be a job instruction, it should be a design record, it should be able to show that the customer mounting points will be met, and it should be something that can be given to suppliers with confidence that you will get back the component as it was intended.

I see posts from students on here and I just hope that when they are in the classroom, that their instructors are stressing these points. As an engineer, the best designers that I have worked with are the ones who take the time to understand the customer's requirements (whoever that might be) prior to jumping into the job.

[Crazy J]

Multiple layers for the same thing; ie DIMENSION, DIM, DIMS, DIMENSIONS, I recently had one drawing with all four of these layers on it and all used for dimensioning.


I agree, but let me ask you.. .have you ever used the "set profile" button or command? I am trying to figure it out. But it appears that the command is used to take a solid model from model space and create profiles of the regular lines, hidden lines, and something else. Then in your layout tab viewports you turn off the layer of the solid model and only show the two sets of lines. But as soon as you do this command it creates three new layers for each of the components and/or viewports you do it for. So if you have a housing assembly say of six components, and you are showing this in Top, Front, Back, Right, and Ortho views, that's 6 x5x3=90 layers that would need to be created. What a mess!!!:shock: And the model I am currently working on has many more components than that. I got my Omura book out and turned to that chapter and started down that path, but quickly realized I could not handle that many layers. Unfortunately, the command makes these layers that are un-purgable (so far as I could attempt, anyway). And of course I did it on my first print, which I then used as a template for all the other components. I stopped after making 9 useless layers, but it's still a mess and bugs me.

Back to the OP's topic, that gets back to corporate standards and training. The company I am working for does not care if hidden lines don't show as dashed (rather all their prints have solid lines everywhere-- I feel like I must be Superman looking at something). It drives me crazy, coming from a company with a strong design dept and standards, but they don't care. So I stopped trying when I realized that it was going to make a mess of layers vs having a messy drawing with the wrong types of lines....

[cadvision]

I hate crap left in the model, if you bring in another drawing to copy from or symbols delete them when you finish. I have an old lisp that deletes everything outside a window. Great. I do that, I run another that deletes lines that are overlapped, small line segment under longer line. I purge or wblock out the file, These are all things that we had to do in the early years when space was expensive, but are good habits. Use OTHO, FILLET 0, make sure your geometry is correct, match items to correct layers. TAKE SOME PRIDE IN YOUR WORK. I would get a clip arond the ears when I was a you drafting cadet if I didn't remove my pencil conctruction lines, we inked all out work. DRAFTSMAN (WOMAN) is a profession, you are to convert ideas to a picture to tell a 1000 words. Pride in your work!

[ReMark]

"Take some pride in your work." I couldn't agree more with that statement. I remember when drafting was a profession and not just a task.

[MikeScott]

To get back to drawing cleanliness-

My pet hates; along with lines not being square and not meeting; are-

Stuff drawn on the wrong layer; ie details drawn on layer dimension, dimensions drawn on layer text, etc,etc.
Multiple layers for the same thing; ie DIMENSION, DIM, DIMS, DIMENSIONS, I recently had one drawing with all four of these layers on it and all used for dimensioning.
Drawings that have noy be Audited, Purged & Zoomed to Extents before saving.


Those are the top three that realy get on my wick.

You can run CAD's built-in standards checker to fix a lot of that sort of stuff.. Compare drawings against a standard and it'll red flag the extra layers and stuff.

I used to get my guys to run that comparison before bringing it to me to check.

I forget the commands to do it, but I recall it was listed in my start-up menu, "batch standards checker" separate from CAD.

[ofirefly]

In reply to all the posts on this topic. I can't help but add my 2 cents. If I read between the lines correct we take pride in our work because we come from old school board and ink. It had to be right the first time even though you knew the engineer would change it. The new kids pick up the programs faster but have no background. They just want to knock it out and let someone else clean up after them.
If you have the power, give them the standards, let them figure out how, don't waist money on training for what should have been the first thing they learned in CAD school, then write them up. Don't have to show them the door, just let them know, no increase till they take responcibility. Most will respond, if not they will leave.
In the future test them pre hire. Just the basics like the pet peaves mentioned. If they have to do it to get hired, then they have to maintain. No excuses.

I can't speak from experince as a manager due to lack of CAD. I'm the newby. Under 2, self taught, no board and ink. I am greatfull for the oppertunity to learn CAD on the job. But trust me, because of the existing dwgs my learning curve has been substantial. No 2 dwgs a like. I have to purge, space, straigten every dwg I open. Started on basic 07, now trying to adjust to 10 and Elec 10. Augh theres no end to the frustration of CAD. You'll be seeing more of me under Electrical topics.

PS it's refreshing to be among others who don't point out spelling errors.

[adamshive]

The entire purpose of using CAD is to eliminate the need to hand-sketching. When endpoints of lines don't snap to each other it violates ISO criteria (at least in my place of work) because the part in model view would not precisely represent the actual part. Unfortunately, even with our ISO accred on the line, the engineering dept continues to draw stuff extremely crappily. They'll draw a 2 inch hole as being smaller than a .5" hole, labeling them with a text box instead of a dim-dia, for example.

Plus, they our engg dept doesn't believe it's necessary to draw to scale or proportion-even knowing full well that the parts will be made on a CNC Punch. So, as the CNC programmer, I have to fix all the engineering mistakes.

Some of our engineers are extremely precise and do the drawings to the standards I learned in school, but some of the others work is just drivel. I don't know how to get everyone to do it all correctly.

I've gone to school specifically for CAD and I don't think I even know how to draw parts out of scale and proportion in a vector program. I'd have to use a raster program like MS Paint.

[adamshive]

In reply to all the posts on this topic. I can't help but add my 2 cents. If I read between the lines correct we take pride in our work because we come from old school board and ink. It had to be right the first time even though you knew the engineer would change it. The new kids pick up the programs faster but have no background. They just want to knock it out and let someone else clean up after them.
If you have the power, give them the standards, let them figure out how, don't waist money on training for what should have been the first thing they learned in CAD school, then write them up. Don't have to show them the door, just let them know, no increase till they take responcibility. Most will respond, if not they will leave.
In the future test them pre hire. Just the basics like the pet peaves mentioned. If they have to do it to get hired, then they have to maintain. No excuses.

I can't speak from experince as a manager due to lack of CAD. I'm the newby. Under 2, self taught, no board and ink. I am greatfull for the oppertunity to learn CAD on the job. But trust me, because of the existing dwgs my learning curve has been substantial. No 2 dwgs a like. I have to purge, space, straigten every dwg I open. Started on basic 07, now trying to adjust to 10 and Elec 10. Augh theres no end to the frustration of CAD. You'll be seeing more of me under Electrical topics.

PS it's refreshing to be among others who don't point out spelling errors.

I'm a "new kid" and my drawings are always extremely precise, scaled, proportional and crisp. On the contrary, the guys from the old "board-and-pencil" days incorrectly use CAD as just an extension of that practice. The problem is simple:

Hand-drawn- drawing means nothing-text means eveything, but then there are grey areas like bend lines, hidden features, etc.. that break the rules extremely often

CAD-drawn- model means everything - text is secondary. The model creates the part, no ifs ands or butts.

CAD computer/workstation should be viewed like any machine out in the shop, commands are entered to "build" the part.

[CJJ]

I work in Civil Engineering, so some of our drawings come from surveyors first, then sometimes will go to a developer/site planner, and even from architects, before they get to us. I've noticed that a lot of the "old school" draftsmen tend to be much more worried about the finished product (i.e. how the drawings look when plotted) than about drawing cleanliness. I've seen drawings that have everything on one layer, or that have boundary lines around the site that don't meet at the corners, or that aren't even aligned to north but instead rotated to fit in the title block. Even within the company, the CAD guys in the survey dept. are drawing just to get their plats made or just to do the bare minimum to get all of their points and data on the page, without regard to the planners and engineers who will be using the files next.

Now that isn't always the case, and it seems like these offensive drawings tend to come from smaller firms or from developers who are just doing the bare minimum to get their design ideas across, but still it just means a lot of wasted time down the road for our draftsmen who have to spend hours cleaning up the old files before we can start doing our production work to them.

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind is the final purpose of the drawing. Who will be working on this file next? What parts should I pay extra attention to in order to make sure it's detailed enough and drawn to the right scale? Will the next guy who opens this file understand my layer naming convention? If I take a shortcut now, it may save me some time, but will it slow things down somewhere else down the production line?

[CJJ]

Hand-drawn- drawing means nothing-text means eveything, but then there are grey areas like bend lines, hidden features, etc.. that break the rules extremely often

CAD-drawn- model means everything - text is secondary. The model creates the part, no ifs ands or butts.

CAD computer/workstation should be viewed like any machine out in the shop, commands are entered to "build" the part.

I agree with this, this goes along with what I just said about the final purpose of the drawing. If you're making a sketch that will be done by hand on a table saw and with a measuring tape, then the guy using the drawing the file will be reading the text, so that is the most important aspect, so as long as your dimensions say the correct numbers, it's not the end of the world if your model isn't exactly to scale. However, if you're drawing for a CAM or CNC machine shop, then the model had better be exact, regardless of what the dimension says.

[Dana W]

I've seen drawings that have everything on one layer, or that have boundary lines around the site that don't meet at the corners, or that aren't even aligned to north but instead rotated to fit in the title block. Even within the company, the CAD guys in the survey dept. are drawing just to get their plats made or just to do the bare minimum to get all of their points and data on the page, without regard to the planners and engineers who will be using the files next.

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind is the final purpose of the drawing. Who will be working on this file next? What parts should I pay extra attention to in order to make sure it's detailed enough and drawn to the right scale? Will the next guy who opens this file understand my layer naming convention? If I take a shortcut now, it may save me some time, but will it slow things down somewhere else down the production line?

First paragraph - Wow, that is scary.

Next Paragraph - I do some free lance civil drafting for my father-in-law, who is a Professional Land Surveyor here in Maryland. One of my drawing projects for him recently ended up in court as Plaintif's Exhibit "B", because it is an accurate drawing of a contested condition on some other recorded Plats fudged by a large developer.

Since our drawing makes it possible for the judge to understand the details better, the plaintif is likely going to win, and correct an injustice done to some local families. It seems a developer "conveniently" left a previously recorded access right of way dating back to underground railroad days off of a new subdivision record plat. This would have left some 3rd and 4th generation land owners high and dry with useless land and probably "convinced" to sell out to "some" developer for a seriously minimal amount of money.

Sounds just like the old west, huh?:wink:

Where is that drawing going to end up, indeed?

[jwkilgore]

My company's main problem is that we've historically worked with one main client. This client has been involved with CAD for decades, and had a few very sharp people involved early on. They have custom menus, scripts, buttons, routines, even their own custom-made font. Unfortunately, the main early developer (I've met him - he's still extra sharp) left the company a decade or so ago and his successors never updated their custom stuff to match newer capabilities of AutoCad. Layers are still PEN1, PEN1H, PEN1D, PEN2, etc. (for red cont., red hidden, red dashed, yellow cont., etc., from back when they used pen plotters). Dimensions are never associative. Things are rarely drawn to scale. There's no such thing as paper space or external references.

My problem is that we have drafters who don't know any other way to work. They have no idea how to set up text styles, dim styles, paper space layouts, etc. One guy had no idea that you could actually draw OUTSIDE THE TITLE BLOCK. They've never had to learn, because that's what the little buttons and drop-down menus are for. And as long as they're working for that client, then all is good with the world.

Unfortunately, I mainly work with our OTHER clients. Some of them have very strict drafting standards, some don't care. All it takes is one click on the wrong button and suddenly the drawing is filled with all these extra layers, dimstyles, and fonts. Even the clients that don't have specific standards start to care when they get all these "font not found" errors when they open the file.

[adamshive]

I agree with this, this goes along with what I just said about the final purpose of the drawing. If you're making a sketch that will be done by hand on a table saw and with a measuring tape, then the guy using the drawing the file will be reading the text, so that is the most important aspect, so as long as your dimensions say the correct numbers, it's not the end of the world if your model isn't exactly to scale. However, if you're drawing for a CAM or CNC machine shop, then the model had better be exact, regardless of what the dimension says.

Exactly- we've had a CNC punch for 16 years and the engineers have yet to catch on that the drawings need to be to scale, proportioned and annotative. Maybe I'm being too hard on them..let's give it until the 17th year...

[ReMark]

It's said that you can't teach an old engineer new tricks. Or was that a dog? Can't remember. Could be both.

[Dana W]

I agree with this, this goes along with what I just said about the final purpose of the drawing. If you're making a sketch that will be done by hand on a table saw and with a measuring tape, then the guy using the drawing the file will be reading the text, so that is the most important aspect, so as long as your dimensions say the correct numbers, it's not the end of the world if your model isn't exactly to scale. However, if you're drawing for a CAM or CNC machine shop, then the model had better be exact, regardless of what the dimension says.

I spent some time as a drafter for a very high end custom cabinetry and millwork shop. While they had CNC machinery all over the place, I mainly did AutoCAD drawings for the Master Cabinet Maker who made everything by hand, of course using appropriate power tools.

We were not permitted to use hand drawn sketches, even for one-off keepsake boxes. Everything had to be kept in a *.dwg.

Now this MCM would have been in the casting auditions for the Travelosity Gnome. I think he even knew Merlin, but the MCM was much older.:wink:

Anyway... Invariably, this guy would lay a scale on the drawings and measure stuff, then if a discrepency turned up, go to the Boss instead if me, and ask which measurement to use. Of course I would be questioned as to the validity of the whole drawing. He would even check the molding profiles against our custom shaper knives even though there was a catalog number callout pointing to the molding on the drawing, and the same number engraved into the knife. Note: Not one single CAD molding profile block in that shop matched the custom hand ground knife for that molding exactly. Some inside corners just refuse to be ground into shaper knives.

I learned to treat EVERY drawing as though Commander Data of the Starship Enterprise NCC-1701-D was in charge of Quality Control. I still make mistakes, but simply don't take obvious shortcuts when it's so easy to do things the right way.

From day one, 40 years ago, at my very first architectural drafting position for a major local ticky tacky builder, I was taught that Rule Number One for the trades people out in the field was NEVER MEASURE a drawing.

On day number two, I went out to a jobsite and learned that Rule Number Two was apparently ALWAYS MEASURE a drawing rather than use math to figure out the ONE missing dimension. This was, and is still, done using a 1/4" scale drawing and a folding carpenter's rule.:shock:

My moral is use some sort of standards and QA checking.

[MikeScott]

I had a problem where as part of the engineering staff, we'd set-up holes for a CNC punch that simply didn't have the proper tooling. I'd think nothing of passing along a drawing with a .469 hole on it, because the CNC guy would say "Sure, I can do ANYTHING" and wouldn't get me a list of punches. As a result, I had holes with ragged edges (nibbled edges) or substituted hole sizes, and it'd sometimes be MONTHS before anyone found-out that our client was redrilling some of the holes in the field.

Sometimes, the hole sizes were arbitrary, and we had punches that were a slightly different size, and so the CNC programmer would manually make corrections/adjustments that we weren't aware of, and so when components or modules were added, it looked sloppy as hell, and took all kinds of extra time to program.

That's unacceptable.

You cannot work properly in a vacuum. Positive and negative feedback is essential. I'm there to do a job, and I make it my business to do it correctly.

Later, I started working with the client's quality control crew, and finally got a list of availible punches, and availible clearance dies from the CNC guy. When I place a hole, it's either the correct size, or the client is informed, or we order the stuff we need.. there's no fourth option of "oh well.. maybe this is good enough"

The guy bending the metal on the brake, was also having problems because he was making adjustments to my bend calculations in-order to get the required dimensions. He'd never spoken a word of it before. I was using bend deductions taken from recordings of piles of test material, but it had been bent by a previous operator, who apparently did things differently.

I also discovered that the brake operator ALWAYS assumed the part was being illustrated face down, despite proper rotations, notations, etc. He'd grab a piece of metal from the punch operator, and use the burr as his guide as to which face to use, irregardless of instructions to the contrary. That meant that my orders stating "other side bend opposite" was rarely followed until an extra part was discovered, and it's opposite match missing. Sometimes that wasn't discovered until after welding and powdercoating, and assembly was underway, with a looming deadline.

The shop foreman HATED me.. his guys were wasting time, and generating improper parts that didn't match drawings, and he was getting complaints from the sales department who was fielding complaints from the client. I then simply went through every stage and determined exactly what was needed, and adjusted my drawings accordingly.

I finally started getting feedback from everyone, and I smoothed-out all the production kinks without taking any significant extra time to do it.

None of it was my fault.. I had inherited a system (and a lot of re-used prints/drawing files) from a predecessor that had no clue why everyone hated the engineering department, and apparently no inclination to do the job right for anyone actually using the prints, instead merely placing blame on the shop for not following his prints.

Hell, I even discovered that our brake operator rounded to the nearest 1/8th (sometimes up, sometimes down).. he had a computer driven brake, and still only used 1/8 because it meant he could check his work easier. Once I knew that shortcoming, I catered to it and saved everyone a lot of headaches when it came to sizing/adding weldments, assemblies, door hanging, and any other number of processes some of the parts had to go through.

Soon I received word that when a Mike job came through (something I'd drawn up), they were happy to get it and knew it'd have exactly what they needed to do their jobs correctly and by the prints... and that's what a drawing is supposed to do, no matter the company size.

Sure, sometimes they nitpicked, but in the end, it was totally worth the effort, and gave them the power to take pride in, and responsibility for, the quality of work and the resultant end products. We also regained control over what we produced.