Effective Training Inc., Westland  MI,  800.886.0909  
Volume 02: Issue 2

Known as the "Doctor of Dimensioning," Alex Krulikowski is a noted educator, author, and expert on Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T). He has more than 30 years of industrial experience putting GD&T to practical use on the shop floor. 

Alex has taught GD&T to tens of thousands through his workshops and seminars, and to countless others through his books, self-study courses, videos, and computer-based training programs.


Web Highlights

Companies with solid training programs will survive the future
Michael Long discusses the need for a sound training program to alleviate "the money lost in downtime, overtime, and quick fixes—not to mention loss of growth and new business," in this April 2005 article from thefabricator.com.

To read the article,
click here.

Thefabricator.com is the official Web site of the Fabricators & Manufacturers Association Intl.® (FMA)

Back to top


New at ETI

How well do you know GD&T?

Try the Free GD&T Skills Survey Today
Do you know the geometric symbols, each symbol’s requirements, tolerance zones, and limitations?

How much do you know about tolerance zones? Do you understand Rules #1 and #2; form and orientation controls; tolerance of position; runout and profile controls?

The GD&T Skills Survey is a free resource from ETI designed to challenge your GD&T knowledge so you can understand what level of GD&T training you need.

Click here to take the GD&T Skills Survey.


ETI Brings
Hands-on GD&T Training to You

Public Workshops Available Throughout the U.S.
ETI’s 2005 public workshop series brings GD&T fundamentals, tolerance stacks and solid model tolerancing workshops to a city near you.

GD&T Fundamentals
Tolerance Stacks
ASME Y14.41 - 2003



Dimensiones y Tolerancias Geometricas La Ultima Guia Del Bolsillo

Ultimate Pocket Guide Now in Spanish
Carry this pocket-sized reference contains over 50 detailed drawings, GD&T symbols/modifiers, datum application examples, surface texture, composite tolerancing, conversion charts and more...

At only $5.75, you can order one for each member of your team!

To read more about it, Click here




ETI Products

Monthly Web Special
ETI offers a special deal on a different product each month. Check out this month's Web Special.


Back to top


The GD&T Trainer Professional Edition—a virtual classroom at your desktop!

GD&T Training Made Easy
The GD&T Trainer Professional Edition (Y14.5M-1994) contains 28 student-focused lessons covering the fundamentals of GD&T. Instant lesson feedback and quizzes reinforce the material.

Click for animation sample

Highlights include a GD&T glossary, tolerancing application and inspection examples, audio narration, full-color technical animations, 3-D solid part examples, and a certification exam.
To read more about it,
Click here

To download a demo, Click here

Back to top



GD&T Advanced Concepts taught by the experts. . .

Advanced Concepts of GD&T Textbook
The textbook stresses the application of GD&T in industry and takes an in-depth look at many GD&T topics. Position, profile, and datums are are covered in detail. Covers common industry tolerancing practices not documented in ASME Y14.5M-1994. An indispensable on-the-job reference.
To read more about it, Click here

Back to top


Knowledge of stacks separates the exceptional engineers from
the rest

Learn Tolerance Stacks With On-The-Job Focus
Our stacks textbook stresses applications found in actual industrial situations. Solve tolerance stack problems involving flatness, straightness, tolerance of position, runout, concentricity, and more. Practice stacks are from actual drawings and provided in the Drawing Package.

To read more about it, Click here

Back to top


Teaching GD&T has never been easier: Digital kits put course materials on CD-ROM


Digital Instructors' Kits from ETI
ETI now offers all of our instructor's materials in a convenient digital format. Each kit includes everything needed to teach an entire course on one handy CD-ROM.
To read more about them, Click here
To download a demo, Click here

Back to top



The "Ultimate" GD&T reference tool is only available thru ETI

Economical Tool You Can't Afford To Miss
Carry this pocket-sized reference with you on the job and have a resource to all your GD&T questions at your fingertips. Order one for each member of your team!

To read more about it, Click here

Back to top



ETI Services


ETI offers convenient, customized, onsite workshops in a variety of GD&T-related topics.

ETI Offers On-Site Training 
Effective Training brings hands-on GD&T instruction right to your location. Workshops can be customized to include your drawings and parts.

ASME Y14.41 - 2003
GD&T Fundamentals
Fundamentals Overview

GD&T Advanced Concepts
olerance Stacks
ASME-ISO Comparison
Statistical Tolerance Stacks

To find out more about what ETI has to offer your organization.
Click here

Back to top


New Fundamentals of GD&T Class at the
ETI Learning Center

GD&T Web-Based Training Available
The ETI Learning Center brings GD&T training to your doorstep. We now offer training in. . .

Fundamentals of GD&T Call 800-886-0909 today to discuss the benefits that the new GD&T fundamentals web-based training can offer your organization.

To find out more about the course, click here

ETI's Discussion Board: Talk about GD&T issues with other peers and professionals.

ETI'S Discussion Board

ETI's website has an interactive forum that's easy to access and may give you a broader knowledge of GD&T-related topics.

To visit the board, click here.

Back to top


Quality Quote

Quality is everyone's responsibility.

W. Edwards Deming

Back to top

ETI Staff

Alex Krulikowski

Financial Administration
Pat Krulikowski

Product Development
Jamy Krulikowski

James Myers, Manager
Branny Mrljak

Website/Online Services
Brandon Billings

Graphic Design
Matthew Pride

Network Administration
Chris Wioskowski

Katherine Palmer

Order Processing
Gary Walls

Lindsay Carlington

Dimensional Engineering Mentor
Michael Adcock




Let us know what you think—take a short survey about ETImail.

ETImail is a regular online publication devoted to Geometric Dimensioning & Tolerancing. Each edition features a host of GD&T resources and links, as well as dimensioning tips by noted GD&T author and ETI founder, Alex Krulikowski. We also invite you to visit our website, etinews.com. To view past issues of ETImail, see the archives.

ETImail is now available in PDF format. To read the PDF file, you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader.

In This Issue
Here are this issue's highlights. Click on any link to jump directly to a feature:

Featured Article: A Tale of Two Companies: How GD&T Saves Money in Design and Production
ETI Mailbag: Datum plane callouts and datum targets
TechTip: Calculate your potential savings using GD&T
Feedback: Advice from readers about checking total runout

In the sidebar:
Web Highlights: The importance of a solid training program
New at ETI: GD&T Fundamentals Training Online, GD&T Skills Survey, GD&T Public Workshops
ETI Products: GD&T Trainer Professional Edition, Advanced Concepts and Stacks products
ETI Services: Web-Based Training; Onsite and Public Training; Discussion Board
Other Features: Quality Quote of the month

A Tale of Two Companies: How GD&T Saves Money in Each Aspect of Design and Production

Alex Krulikowski

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 made to the best guess of what the drawing intended

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
Event eight: Gage revisions (Cost: revisions of gage)
The gage required several significant revisions to ensure that the dimensions were being measured as intended.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)

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.

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.

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.

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%.
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.
Cost $58,000
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 $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:

Click on chart for larger view or download the 8.5x11 pdf version

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.

Click on chart for larger view or download the 8.5x14 pdf version

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.

New in 2005: ETI provides public workshops around the country. The workshops include GD&T fundamentals and stacks, and the new ASME Y14.41 Standard on Solid Model Tolerancing. See the complete list and information about these hands-on workshops here.

We welcome your feedback. Send comments about this article to ETImailbag.
Your opinions will be posted in the next issue.

This article may be reprinted free for use by your organization if our Reprint Policy is followed.
Back to top


The ETI Mailbag


I work in the aircraft industry. There are many times that a part will have two flat sides and the rest of the part will be contoured. Using ASME Y14.5M 1994, is it allowed to mix datum plane callout with datum targets? Shown below is a crude sketch.

Your comments would greatly be appreciated,


Click on figure for larger view

Yes, as long as each datum reference is used correctly.

Planar datums, feature of size datums, and datum targets are often used together. For example, a primary datum feature (lets call it "A") described with datum targets must be accompanied by a secondary and tertiary datum reference do be a repeatable datum. Therefore, the primary datum feature may also be referenced as a planar datum (let’s say "B") until a secondary and tertiary datum feature are established.

Just remember that if you specify a datum, it needs to be used (referenced in a feature control frame).

Best Regards
Alex Krulikowski

ETI appreciates your questions and comments.
Send your GD&T questions to: ETImailbag.

Back to top


Alex's Tech Tip

From teaching ideas to new products that will assist you in training or on the job, the ETImail Tech Tip will keep you informed about new technology and training trends. This month's Tech Tip: a new tool to calculate the impact of GD&T on your organization.

Businesses need to understand that training expenditures can actually save money in the long run. As this month's article explains, the costs of meetings to discuss drawings, scrap cost, gage rework, — and a company's reputation — can equal many times the cost of GD&T training. This ETImail Techtip takes a look at a valuable new resource for manufacturers.

GD&T Potential Savings Calculator
The GD&T Cost-Saving Calculator is the latest free resource from ETI. The calculator is a tool that helps companies understand the amount of unnecessary expenditures each year due to employees not knowing how to correctly apply and interpret GD&T.

Click here to try the
GD&T Potential Savings Calculator

A better understanding of GD&T can decrease costs associated with:

* Creating, interpreting and revising drawings
* Communicating or interpreting design requirements for suppliers and manufacturing
* Manufacturing expenses

Try the Free GD&T Cost-Saving Calculator, Today
The calculator can be used at the company, division, department or project level. It analyzes your data and estimates the annual savings your organization will realize in each aspect of design, inspection, and production. Enter information for whatever scope of analysis you wish to perform. Tool tips provide assistance with understanding data entry.

Even if you estimate conservatively, you'll be amazed at the impact that the correct application of GD&T will have on an organization's ability to cut costs. Try it for yourself. Go to the GD&T Potential Savings Calculator.

If you know about a new tech tool or an innovative idea that would aid 
our readers, please write us: ETImailbag.

Back to top

ETImail Feedback

Have comments about anything you've read in ETImail? ETI will post your comments here and provide a forum for more discussion about GD&T topics.

Total runout is not a very common specification. In the last issue of ETImail, Alex asked readers for advice about a setup that could be created to check it. We received many good responses. Here are a few:

From Don Jasmann, ES QA and Reliability Engineering Manager
One method for verifying total runout is to conduct the inspection on the machining center that produced the part. The dial indicator is mounted on the cross slide or carriage, the part is rotated and the indicator moved with the machine tool. The dial indicator must contact the part on the backside of the tool path (opposite side of the centerline), otherwise the indicator will always read zero.

Click on drawing for larger view.
The total indicator reading obtained will be twice the actual total runout. The total indicator reading is then divided by two and the result compared to the value in the feature control frame. If the machining center is not "chucking" the part on the appropriate datum, then the actual total runout of the datum must be considered as well. Please see attached for a visual description.

From Rob TerMaat, ATS Automation Tooling Systems Metrology Dept.
Good Day,
We are involved with shaft measurement continuously at our facility and have developed a dedicated fixture which serves perfectly for the chore of obtaining total runout.

Starting with a solid base, we have mounted 2 V-Blocks to support shaft by Journals (Datums). Next we mounted a high precision linear slide to the base for the purpose of holding the indicator. Next the indicator chosen must have a T.I.R. function, the Mitutoyo model 543-262 is what we are using.

As the indicator contact point sits on the shaft. We zero the Indicator, making sure the T.I.R. mode is activated, and begin to spin the shaft with one hand while the other pushes the indicator along the length of the shaft.

When the end of the shaft is reached the indicator will show you the total indicated distance the indicator spindle has traveled, This number we record as total run out.
Hope this helps, we have made an exact duplicate of this gage for our customer and all issues concerning measurement co-relation have since disappeared.

From Roger D. Lawson, TRW Inc
In regards to the question in last month's letter from Walve Nandkumar:
Remember that we use total runout to help control runout and straightness. Measuring total runout is the same as circular runout over the length of the feature.

Holding on the datums and rotating the shaft, start with your indicator set at zero at one extreme (end) and take a circular runout reading and with out resetting zero on the indicator take readings at several location along the length of the feature noting the highest and lowest readings on the indicator. The range of those reading is the total runout.

From Art Kietlinski, Industrial Measurement Tech II
In the shipbuilding industry I worked in a machine shop for 20 years, where we were called upon to do TIR (total indicator runout) checks on all types of shafting. The instrument we relied upon was an engine lathe.

A starrett surface gage, with pins built into the base that can be pushed out so they will ride on the edge of a precision table or slots on a machine table in conjunction with V-blocks can also be used.

The preferred method of choice for me now is 3-D modeling. I use Photogrammetry or Laser tracker systems to model the as-built features of the part for dimensional analysis.

From Dorin Stancu, Interiors AQE - GM Business Unit, Johnson Controls, Inc.
In a previous job at a manufacturer of precision shafts for the automotive industry, we routinely verified total runout (and harmonics, in some cases) using Taylor-Hobson equipment - see http://www.taylor-hobson.com/talyrond290.htm.

P.S. I am not affiliated in any way with this company, I just appreciated their equipment's capabilities and quality of support received from them.

Comments about "Tale of Two Cultures":
I could not agree more with your commentary in tale of two cultures:
Rewarding skills that enhance job performance. I forwarded it to a number of my coworkers and friends and they all have echoed the same sentiments. Your article touches the root causes of the decline of American engineering as a profession and output quality.

Communication and Leadership are overly hyped in the U.S. industrial culture. But then, we are seeing a live demo of what happens when communicators don't know much about what they are communicating for and leadership don't know what they are leading! I have developed a quote that I recite when defeated by such situations -- "If you can talk, you don't need to work" --is the rule of success in corporate America!
— Kalrav Buch

The article "A Tale of Two Cultures" was, sadly, very accurate. My current employer, a large manufacturer of industrial equipment, is a case in point. I recently completed a home study course in tolerance stacks, which I took at my own expense. When my boss found me at my desk doing a tolerance stack on a design I was working on, he told me I was “wasting time”. Now I hide in the cafeteria when I need to do a stack.

The cost of this kind of management behavior to a company goes beyond poor designs and high warranty costs. Ultimately, the most competent engineers and designers will become frustrated and leave. I have seen many of my best colleagues quit, and I am only still here because I am looking for another position in a very specific geographic
— Name withheld upon request.

ETI would like to hear from you. If you have an opinion about any ETImail article or feature, please write to our ETImailbag.

We would appreciate it if you'd keep us in mind when you need GD&T training, consulting, or GD&T products. Feel free to contact us by email or by phone at 734-728-0909 or 800-886-0909.

To subscribe to ETImail, click here.
To contact us with questions, comments, or story ideas, click here

To unsubscribe from ETImail, click here.

The contents of this newsletter may be reproduced if our Reprint Policy is followed.

Copyright © 2002 Effective Training Inc. All rights reserved.