Re: P&ID

Wow, and I thought I was the only verbose and alone and correct person.

It's great to see individual thoughts that seem to align -- after all we've been doing this for a hundred years or so. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

PipimgDesign.com is a loose cannon.

Paul

> I think that when things were designed by T Square and slide
rule design
> required far more people. Checking was far more thorough than it
is today.
> Because there were larger engineering offices there was room for
"seniority".
> You know those old grey balding sods who had lived through years
of their own or
> other peoples mistakes. The lesser lights were left as "iso
bashers" whilst the
> brighter draftsmen progressed to become design draftsmen or
checkers once they
> had sufficient experience. The same occurred for engineers.
There enough people
> around so that if you didnt cut the mustard you were relegated.
>
> I am afraid these days the accountants have got it in their head
that to pay for
> all the high tech computers & software they can cut down the
staff numbers. With
> the cost cutting goes the whole culture of "seniority". I
understand that
> computerisation allows a greater in depth analysis of a problem
as what if
> scenarios can be reviewed far more quickly. However if the
original premise is
> wrong you just end up with far more alternative rubbish
solutions.
>
> Computerisation does allow efficient transfer of data between
applications and
> this rules out repetitve human error. Thus it is to be
applauded.
>
> The focus these days appears to be on quality assurance and not
quality control.
> So rather than having experienced people checking for the
quality of the design,
> fabrication, installation or operation we have people checking
that a piece of
> paper has been signed off. All that guarantees is that mistakes
will be made and
> the mistake will be consistent with the first time it occurred.
>
> Rather than promoting the idea of throwing out the computers I
recognise the
> benefits of these wonderful tools. Its just the quantity and
quality of people
> we need to make sure the design is conceptually correct and that
the detail is
> checked.
>
> One of my pet hates is the design that states that it must be
inaccordance with
> manufacturers instructions. This to me shows pure ignorance on
the part of the
> designer. If the engineer cannot interpret the requirements of a
particular
> piece of equipment and specify same in a generic fashion he
should go sell
> newspapers for a living. Thsi particular method of risk aversion
is just
> avoiding one's own responsibilities as a designer..
Received on Sun May 27 01:26:00 2001