The task of formal drawing check is no longer required according to PLM and 3D CAD vendors. I think it will make a comeback after one big disaster, but I digress. Whether checking a drawing or document a similar danger of blindness exists.
In my last corporate job, I did a rough estimate and determined I had checked over 10,000 drawings. The following observations and recommendations are based on that experience not a scientific study. Your mileage may vary.
I still use Red, Yellow, Green/Blue color code for checking. I have explained this process to drafters/designers/engineers. Whether they have employed the method or not, becomes apparent very quickly when reviewing their work.
When a document is plagued with many errors, some errors will obscure other problems in the document. In addition, the correction of one error may render other portions of the document in error. In a situation as this, it is impossible to correct, everything in one pass and multiple passes diminishes the objectivity of the checker. With repeated reviews, the checker begins to see in their mind’s eye what should be there vs. what is. If the checker believes they are doing other’s work apathy also takes its toll.
When a document has many errors, it is best to stop the check and sit down with the author. Are they being lazy? Are they lacking in self-checking tools such as Red, Yellow, Green/Blue mentioned above? I have heard some say “let the checker find it.” That mindset results in documents coming back from check looking like a drop cloth at a barn painting.
A properly done drawing should require one check and then one back-check to verify the corrections. A second back-check for minor issues can be expected perhaps 25% of the time. If multiple check cycles are required with each iteration revealing additional errors, the checker is likely to become as blind as the author to the remaining problems.
If right out of the box, you find error after error return the document and review self-checking methods with the author. “Letting the checker find it” can cause blindness.
In my last corporate job, I did a rough estimate and determined I had checked over 10,000 drawings. The following observations and recommendations are based on that experience not a scientific study. Your mileage may vary.
I still use Red, Yellow, Green/Blue color code for checking. I have explained this process to drafters/designers/engineers. Whether they have employed the method or not, becomes apparent very quickly when reviewing their work.
When a document is plagued with many errors, some errors will obscure other problems in the document. In addition, the correction of one error may render other portions of the document in error. In a situation as this, it is impossible to correct, everything in one pass and multiple passes diminishes the objectivity of the checker. With repeated reviews, the checker begins to see in their mind’s eye what should be there vs. what is. If the checker believes they are doing other’s work apathy also takes its toll.
When a document has many errors, it is best to stop the check and sit down with the author. Are they being lazy? Are they lacking in self-checking tools such as Red, Yellow, Green/Blue mentioned above? I have heard some say “let the checker find it.” That mindset results in documents coming back from check looking like a drop cloth at a barn painting.
A properly done drawing should require one check and then one back-check to verify the corrections. A second back-check for minor issues can be expected perhaps 25% of the time. If multiple check cycles are required with each iteration revealing additional errors, the checker is likely to become as blind as the author to the remaining problems.
If right out of the box, you find error after error return the document and review self-checking methods with the author. “Letting the checker find it” can cause blindness.