4/13/2014

ETImail: Online Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) Newsletter

Effective Training Inc., Westland MI, 800.886.0909

Volume 02: Issue 2

A Tale of Two Companies: How GD&T Saves Money in Each Aspect of Design and
Production
Alex Krulik owsk i
Companies that use GD&T produce better designs, waste less time and save money. This article takes a look at
precisely how using GD&T saves money in each aspect of design and production.
The identities of companies described in this article were protected by altering their names and other characteristics, but the events and
results involved have been preserved. Any resemblance to real companies is strictly intended; any precise identification with real companies
is, I trust, impossible.
Over the past few years, I've had hundreds of designers write to me asking for advice on how to convince management that their companies
need to use GD&T properly. The common complaint is that GD&T is used, but little attention is paid to how correct the specifications are.
Too often, the people responsible for the specifications do not have the proper skills, and management is reluctant to invest the time and
money for training. Some management paradigms are:
"Our people know enough; they don't need more training."
"We had training a year or two ago; we don't need to train the same thing again.'
"We are building our products with the drawings now; they can't be that bad."
"Sales are down; we don't have money in the budget for training this year."
"We are too busy now; we can't afford to take the time for training."
"I can't justify the cost for the training."
"I don't have a cost analysis to show the return on investment."
At first glance, the investment for training can seem prohibitive, but management needs consider the costs that result from NOT training their
employees in the proper application of GD&T. Management needs to take a realistic look at the escalating costs that can result from from
poor drawing practices, overly restrictive tolerances, vague specifications, improperly built gages, parts that don't fit, and fixing problems in
production that could have been avoided in engineering. These costs cannot be ignored, and when compared to the cost of training, training
wins every time.
Last month's article, "A Tale of Two Cultures," compared the way two cultures handled GD&T training. It exposed the poor training practices
in the U.S. in comparison to India's extraordinary handling of employee training. This month, we'll take a look at two companies to illustrate
the time and expense companies waste due to poor drawing practices.
Case 1: The Oldtyme Axle Component Company
Oldtyme Axle Components has been around for decades and their product line hasn't changed significantly in the last 30-40 years. Oldtyme
has expanded operations to several plants in the United States. Oldtyme does not use GD&T on its designs. Let's look at a typical scenario.
Oldtyme moved some of their operations overseas to reduce labor costs. One of the parts they started to outsource was a rear differential
case. When the first container of parts came back from the "new" plant they were sent into the testing lab for "assembly and evaluation"
(testing to validate the parts). However, it was quickly discovered that the gears could not be assembled into the rear differential case as the
cavity was too small.
This case had been manufactured successfully for more than 10 years and you probably know someone with a vehicle using this case. So
why did the case come back from the "new" plant as scrap when the "old" plant had been making it for years? The quality department had
verified that the parts were "good," and they met the print, so why didn't the parts assemble? It was a real dilemma as the company wanted
to start ordering 100,000+ of these rear differential cases per year. Here are the expenses that resulted from this problem:
Event one: Create product detail drawings (Cost: 1 designer @ 140 hrs and 1 engineer @ 20 hrs)
The initial drawing was made and tolerances were established by several methods: copying from similar drawings,
asking the engineer, other designers, manufacturing, and guessing. Some tolerance specifications were vague and
some used coordinate tolerancing.
Event two: Preproduction pilot run of 40 cases. (Cost: $285 per case)
The tooling for the production pilot was based on overly tight tolerances and vague drawing specifications. Parts were
http://www.etinews.com/etimail/archive/volume02/issue03/companies.htm

Cost
$12,800
Cost
$11,400

1/7

4/13/2014

ETImail: Online Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) Newsletter

The tooling for the production pilot was based on overly tight tolerances and vague drawing specifications. Parts were
made to the best guess of what the drawing intended

$11,400

Event three: A department meeting was held to review the issue (Cost: 10 employees x hourly rate x 3 hours)
The parts met the print. Somewhere in the drawing were mistakes or vague specifications. After several hours, the
errors and vague specifications were identified as . . .
- not using GD&T in some areas that made the sequence of inspection vague.
- using GD&T incorrectly. The designer had not calculated several positional and profile tolerances, but
had copied them from another drawing assuming that he could use the values used inside another
differential case.
- Tolerance analyses not done. There were several areas where the designer had not done tolerance
analyses because he was under a great deal of pressure to release the drawing The tolerance analyses
would have shown that the parts would not assemble with the tolerances as specified.

Cost
$2,400

Event four: Analyze tolerances (Cost: 48 hrs of an engineer's time, including eight hours of overtime)
Conduct a tolerance analysis to determine what the print tolerances should be, based on the functional requirements.

Cost
$4,100

Event five: Meeting to discuss how to handle tolerance analysis results in the product revisions. (Cost: 8 plane
tickets, hotel rooms, rental car, meals, hourly rate x time, etc.)
A one-day product meeting between key individuals from plants in different locations: the gage supplier, the casting
source, and the machine builder. In this meeting, the discussions included what the drawing should have said; what
changes are required in the casting, tooling and fixtures, and gaging of the part; how to get the changes done quickly to
reduce the impact of the delay to the customer; how to minimize the cost impact of the revisions.

Cost
$9,200

Event six: Drawing changes. (Cost: 12 hours of design time, 8 hrs of checking time, 4 hrs specifications time)
After the product meeting and the analyses were complete, an engineering order was written to update the product
drawings.

Cost
$2,100

Event seven: Gage costs. (Cost: price of gage)

The gage purchased for this part was based on overly tight tolerance specifications and assumptions from not using
GD&T or using it incorrectly. The gage did not check the design intent in several cases. The revised drawings require
significant rework on the gage.

Cost
$81,000

Event eight: Gage revisions (Cost: revisions of gage)

The gage required several significant revisions to ensure that the dimensions were being measured as intended.

Cost
$15,000

Event nine: Tooling and fixture costs (Cost: price of tooling and fixtures)
The tooling and fixtures purchased for this part were based on overly tight tolerance specifications and assumptions
from not using GD&T or using it incorrectly. The fixture did not hold the part properly in several cases. The revised
drawings require significant rework on the tooling and fixtures.

Cost $144,500

Event ten: Tooling and fixture revisions (Cost: revisions of tooling and fixtures)
The fixtures required several significant revisions to ensure the rear differential case was held in a manner that would
produce the dimensions as intended.

Cost
$11,400

Event eleven: Correct 40 cases for pilot build (Cost: revisions to cases)
The cases had to be sent out for welding and machining. The cost to make the revisions was $150 per case x 40
cases.

Cost
$6,000

Event twelve: Sales engineer had to contact the customer and inform him that the first shipment would be
six weeks late. (Cost: 4 plane tickets, hotel rooms, rental car, meals, hourly rate x time, etc.)
A 3 hour meeting was held between three key customer employees and four Oldtyme Axle Component Company
engineering manufacturing and management representatives to discuss what happened and how to avoid problems in
the future.

Cost
$5,400

Event thirteen: New production pilot run. (Cost: $285 per case)
A new production pilot run was needed to demonstrate to the customer that all the problems were solved.

Cost
$5,700

Event fourteen: Management decided to conduct a GD&T training program. (Cost: 12 employees x hourly rate x
24 hours + $4000)
Management conducted a GD&T training program. (However, only about a third of the people who make or use drawings
were able to take the class, the rest were putting out fires.)

Cost
$29,100

Total cost for this problem was approximately $348,100.

Not all of this expense was avoidable, but as you will see in the next section of this article, there was a lot of room for cost
avoidance/savings. A significant portion of the expense came outside of engineering.
Let's not underestimate the other "costs" of this problem: the negative impact this event had on Oldtyme's customer, the risks to the
company's reputation, and a lower employee morale. Because there were always several of these types of problems going on
simultaneously, the employees were so stressed and busy putting out fires, they didn't have time to build their skills.
Plus, after all this effort, Oldtyme is still at risk for additional changes that will probably be necessary in the near future because they solved
one problem rather than using a system approach to understand the component requirements.
http://www.etinews.com/etimail/archive/volume02/issue03/companies.htm

2/7

4/13/2014

ETImail: Online Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) Newsletter

one problem rather than using a system approach to understand the component requirements.

Case 2: The Strategic Axle Component Company

Strategic Axle Components has been around for decades and their product line hasn't changed significantly in the last 30-40 years. Strategic
had expanded operations to several plants in the United States. A few years ago, they realized that using GD&T could save them time and
money, and they had ETI provide onsite training in fundamentals, advanced concepts, and tolerance stacks to all of their departments.
Strategic moved some of their operations overseas to reduce labor costs. One of the parts they started to outsource was a rear differential
case. When the first container of parts came back from the "new" plant they were sent into the testing lab for assembly and evaluation
(testing to validate the parts). The gears were assembled into the case perfectly.
Let's look at how GD&T helped this company throughout the product development process:
Event one: Management decided to conduct a GD&T training program (Cost: 38 employees x hourly rate x 24 to
78 hrs + $18,000)
All the people involved with the design, manufacture, and inspection of the component attended the training. Thirty-eight
employees attended one or more classes as needed, based on the skills required to do their jobs.

Cost $124,500

Event two: Create product detail drawings (Cost: 1 designer @ 100 hrs and 1 engineer @ 8hrs)
The initial drawing was made and tolerances were established by identifying and specifying the functional requirements of
the component. The tolerance specifications were clear and provided maximum tolerances.

Cost
$8,600

Event three: Analyze Tolerances (Cost: 40 hrs of an engineer's time)

Conduct a tolerance analysis to determine what the print tolerances should be, based on the functional requirements.
This was conducted simultaneously with event one and the results were incorporated into the initial drawing release.

Cost
$3,200

Event four: Preproduction pilot run of 40 cases. (Cost: $225 per case)
The tooling for the production pilot was based on maximum allowable tolerances and clear drawing specifications. Parts
were made to meet the drawing specifications. Note that the use of functional dimensioning and GD&T reduced the cost
of the rear differential case by approximately 20%.

Cost
$9,000

Event five: Gage costs. (Cost: cost of gage)

The gage designed for this part was based on functional tolerance specifications and properly specified GD&T.
Event six: Tooling and fixture costs (Cost: cost of tooling and fixtures)
The tooling and fixtures purchased for this part were based on functional tolerance specifications and properly specified
GD&T.

Cost $58,000
Cost $106,000

Total cost for doing the design right the first time was approximately $309,300.
Compared with the cost from the Oldtyme example: $340,100.
This represents a $30,800 savings over the time and money Oldtyme spent fixing a flawed, vague design and Strategic didn't
have to make any embarrassing apologies to their customer.
Remember, this cost includes a one-time GD&T training expense. The additional investment in ensuring that the proper people had the skills
for doing the job correctly paid off and will continue to save money each time the skills are used. Next year's savings will be even greater.
Many companies operate like Oldtyme Axle, where they spend much of their effort putting out fires instead of building the necessary skills in
their employees to do the job properly. With increasing competition, this method won't work for very long. These companies will not be
competitive, won't be able to keep good relations with their customers, and will disappear.
Understanding GD&T is vital to an efficient product development process. The following questions will indicate if understanding GD&T is a
problem in your organization:

http://www.etinews.com/etimail/archive/volume02/issue03/companies.htm

3/7

4/13/2014

ETImail: Online Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) Newsletter

http://www.etinews.com/etimail/archive/volume02/issue03/companies.htm

4/7

4/13/2014

ETImail: Online Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) Newsletter

If you answered yes to three or more of the above questions, your company can benefit from GD&T training.
Take a look at the chart below to see the potential savings GD&T provides at each stage of product development.

http://www.etinews.com/etimail/archive/volume02/issue03/companies.htm

5/7

4/13/2014

ETImail: Online Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) Newsletter

As you can see, the benefits of training your employees in GD&T across all departments far outweigh the costs. One drawing error can result
in expenses that add up to a waste of time, money, and when you include warranty issues or product recalls possibly even your
company's reputation.
Some readers may suspect that I padded the numbers to achieve favorable results. I assure you, that is not the case. Actual examples are
difficult to find because companies are not willing to air their bad examples. You can create a potential cost savings analysis for your
company using the tools described below.
Calculate your potential savings using GD&T correctly
ETI has created a tool to help companies understand how much they can potentially save annually using GD&T. The GD&T Cost Saving
Calculator analyzes your company's data and compares your current expenses with an estimate of the potential savings available from
training your employees. For more information on this valuable tool, see this month's Tech Tip.
Another valuable tool is the GD&T Skills Survey that your employees can use to measure their existing GD&T skills. For more information on
this valuable tool, click here.
Try the cost-saving calculator. Measure your employees' skills. See the benefits of GD&T training. Then, call 800-886-0909 to schedule
onsite training for your company. ETI can also provide computer-based and web-based training for your employees.
To subscribe to ETImail, visit http://www.etinews.com
The contents of this newsletter may be reproduced if our Reprint Policy is followed.
Copyright 2002-2005 Effective Training Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.etinews.com/etimail/archive/volume02/issue03/companies.htm

6/7

4/13/2014

ETImail: Online Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) Newsletter

1-800-886-0909

Effective Training Inc

http://www.etinews.com/etimail/archive/volume02/issue03/companies.htm

www.etinews.com

7/7