The Problem of Inconsistent Drawings

Published in

Design Thinking

6 min readJun 18, 2024

The problem from my view:

The company I work for specializes in custom engineered products for a small niche industry. As a supplier of custom solutions we rely on technical drawings to convey our vision to clients and provide clear instructions to our assembly teams. However, inconsistencies in drawings, due to varying training and personal styles, lead to inefficiencies and confusion. This can cause assembly teams to make assumptions or seek repeated clarifications, slowing down production and increasing errors. On the flip side, overly detailed drawings can also be overwhelming and cause their own confusion.

In the past year I had put some thoughts into solving this problem, my initial plan was to develop clear guidelines, provide training, and implementing a peer review process to catch inconsistencies early. A part of the guidelines would include a checklist for designers and draftspeople that could help maintain consistent information. But that always seemed like an over-simplified solution, and I knew for it to be truly successful we would need to have buy in from the whole design team.

Since I started this design thinking journey, this issue seemed to be well suited to a human-centered design approach. The solution involves input from draftspeople, assembly teams, and clients to find a balance. An open brainstorming session and iterative problem-solving might be the key to addressing this fundamentally human issue once and for all.

What’s your problem [worksheet]:

What’s the situation: My company designs custom solutions for varying clients. The process requires a designer to evaluate the needs of the client, design a solution, produce drawings for the solution (often with the help of a draftsperson), and present it to the client. The process repeats until the client is satisfied with our solution. Once the client is satisfied, the material is purchased, the drawings are provided to our in-house assembly team, and then it is assembled, tested, and delivered.

Who is involved: Our clients. Our designers & Engineers. Our draftspeople. Our assembly teams.

What is the environment: Designers working on a solution in their own bubble. They rarely see their co-worker’s drawings. On top of that, these engineers often have strong opinions on the content and look of drawings, so it has been difficult to implement change up to now.

The problem is: Despite some efforts to standardize, the engineered drawings for each solution can be wildly different to the point that drawings are usually attributable to a specific designer or draftsperson without checking the “by” field of the title block. The information on the drawings is correct, and mostly consistent, but the look and feel is very different. This can cause confusion for repeat clients who can’t benefit from past experience with our drawings. It also causes inefficiencies on the shop floor as our assembly teams need to find information in different places on different projects.

Reframe your problem [worksheet]:

Write the problem in a single sentence: Engineered drawings produced by different members of my team have a very different look and feel which causes confusion and inefficiency for our clients and our in-house assembly teams.

What will change if a solution is successful: Increased efficiency of producing drawings. Quicker drawing review and approval process with clients. Increased assembly efficiency. Improved brand identity. Better interactions with repeat clients who are familiar with some of our drawings.

What are three things you could do to guarantee failure:

1. Ignore the problem and not suggest improvements as we see them.

2. Not listen to comments from assembly and clients.

3. Engineers not having an open mind or be willing to adjust.

Imagine, ten years in the future, the problem is solved beyond your wildest expectations. What will news headlines say? Be bold and sensational! Dream big!:

Create several “How Might We (HMW)” for this problem.

· HMW standardize the level of detail in all draftspeople’s drawings to ensure consistency across projects?

· HMW develop clear guidelines and best practices for draftspeople to follow in their drawings?

· HMW implement a training program to align all draftspeople on our expected standards and practices?

· HMW create a review process to catch inconsistencies and errors in drawings before they reach the assembly teams or clients?

· HMW use technology to automate the checking of drawings for compliance with standard guidelines?

· HMW facilitate better communication and collaboration among draftspeople to ensure uniformity in their work?

· HMW involve the assembly teams in the review process to provide feedback on the clarity and completeness of drawings?

· HMW document common issues and solutions to serve as a reference for draftspeople?

· HMW foster a culture of continuous improvement and learning among draftspeople to keep up with best practices?

· HMW use client feedback to refine our drawing standards and practices to better meet their expectations?

· HMW establish a mentorship program where experienced draftspeople guide less experienced ones on best practices?

· HMW integrate regular check-ins and updates with draftspeople to ensure ongoing alignment with project requirements?

· HMW create visual aids or templates that draftspeople can use to ensure they include the necessary details in their drawings?

· HMW measure and reward consistency and accuracy in draftspeople’s drawings to encourage adherence to standards?

My favorite from this list is: “HMW develop clear guidelines and best practices for draftspeople to follow in their drawings?” I feel that this is the most useful opportunity that can be implemented that can solve this problem permanently. However, there is significant work involved in developing the guidelines and best practices for the designers to use, so this is the longer-term goal.

Human Centered Design:

As I see it this problem directly affects 3 main groups, the designers/draftspeople themselves, the clients, and the assembly teams. I have gone through an empathy map exercise for each of these 3 groups. I took inspiration from a simplified empathy map I found on Miro, but I modified it slightly to align closer to Dave Gray’s map:

A permanent solution to this problem lies with the designers, draftspeople, and that team’s leadership. But they need help from both clients and assembly teams to help find a solution that works for everyone. All parties will need an open mind, and come to the table with collaboration in mind.

A common theme in the empathy maps is efficiency and lost time. As everyone leads busy lives, and efficiency is a universal currency that can be leveraged to impose change. Once this foundation is laid, the design team has an open mind, and everyone is willing to collaborate, real progress can begin.