1. Introduction
When a component is manufactured, it deviates from the concept as a result of the manufacturing process. To ensure functionality, these deviations must be limited. According to the current state of the art, the Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) standards system must be considered. Technical drawings as part of the Technical Product Documentation (TPD) are used to describe the product characteristics. The responsibilities and activities involved in the creation of technical drawings are described in GPS standards such as ISO 8015:2011 and ISO/TS 21619:2018. Accordingly, the designer has the idealized task of defining tolerances in the design phase, based on product requirements, without setting specifications for manufacturing or quality control.
Few studies have focused on collaboration within the different specification activities of the three disciplines of design, manufacturing and quality control. However, teamwork skills are essential when collaborating and coordinating at the same and different levels within an organization, and also externally with suppliers or customers (Reference Albers, Denkena and MatthiesenAlbers et al., 2012). Employees often face challenges in their professional environment. This can be due to a lack of specific knowledge and expertise, but also a lack of teamwork and soft skills.
In order to identify these difficulties in collaboration and communication between departments and to develop countermeasures, the current status in the industry is analyzed with a focus on the technical drawing as a document. The possibilities offered by standardization, which proposes different types of documents for specification, are examined and supplemented by existing studies. The conclusion will show the direction in which interdisciplinary collaboration could develop in the future in order to minimize the challenges perceived by employees in the field of technical drawings and GPS.
2. State of the art
2.1. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)
The standards system of the Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS), developed by the ISO Technical Committee 213 (International Organization for Standardization, 2025), can be used to describe the geometry of components. Since manufacturing deviations always occur during the production of components, these must be limited beforehand in order to fulfil the function. For a complete description it is necessary to cover different areas of the GPS standardization. In Figure 1 a possible categorization of the GPS system by Reference Sersch, Sauder, Steger and GustSersch et. al (2024) is shown. It implies that not only datum and datum systems or dimensional and geometrical tolerances need to be considered but also surface texture and general tolerances. In addition, the GPS standards define the inspection of existing deviations and their comparison with the specification, the so-called verification of conformity or nonconformity.
Figure 1. Categories of the GPS system (based on Reference Sersch, Sauder, Steger and GustSersch et al., 2024)
Although the application of the standards is basically voluntary, the GPS system is considered to be state of the art. In March 2025, the set of standards comprises a total of 147 valid ISO standards (International Organization for Standardization, 2025). The numerous possibilities for specification in technical drawings and the scope of standards present a challenge to users in both industry and education (Reference Kong, Li, Zhang, Xu, Luo, Fu, Zhu, Ming and YuKong et al., 2022; Reference Maltauro, Meneghello and ConcheriMaltauro et al., 2024a; Reference Sersch, Sauder, Steger and GustSersch et al., 2024), also with regard to the lack of teaching approaches (Reference Gust and SerschGust & Sersch, 2020).
As a non-verbal, international symbolic language, GPS is applied for communication in the field of Technical Product Specification (TPS) in mechanical engineering. In the following, the term ‘drawing’, as used in the fundamental GPS standard ISO 8015, is generally understood as ‘the total package of documentation specifying the workpiece’, regardless of the type of representation.
2.2. Model-Based Definition (MBD)
As digitalization of technical communication progresses, the Model-Based Definition (MBD) approach has been developed to take advantage of the computer-aided design (CAD) of the product throughout its life cycle. It is ‘an annotated model and its associated data elements that define the product in a manner that can be used effectively without a drawing graphic sheet’. (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019). Requirements for the digital product definition data, depending on whether the application is based only on the 3D model or a combination with the 2D drawings, may be found in ISO 16792:2021. With the 3D application alone, most of the product data for design, manufacturing and distribution is contained in the 3D CAD model with MBD. For example, geometric dimensions, roughness and tolerances are integrated as Product Manufacturing Information (PMI) or even non-geometric, technical information such as the title block.
The use of MBD ensures a high degree of data consistency, as only a single reference document, the 3D Master, is used. In a non-MBD environment, on the other hand, a fragmentation of the data for a single product is observed (Reference Alemanni, Destefanis and VezzettiAlemanni et al., 2011). At the same time, the focus is different when exchanging information between CAD systems and other software such as CAM (Computer Aided Manufacturing) or CAI (Computer Aided Inspection). PMI annotations must be machine-readable as semantic PMI, not only human-readable as graphical representation (Reference Bijnens and CheshireBijnens & Cheshire, 2019). The approach of coloring the geometry based on rules within the CAD software enables both human readability and automatic further processing in subsequent processes (B&W Software GmbH, 2024).
2.3. Collaboration
During the path that a product takes from the initial idea through manufacturing to recycling information and documents are created, which in turn form the basis for the subsequent phases. Throughout the entire product development process - i.e. in the product planning, development and manufacturing phases (Reference Bender, Gericke and LindemannBender & Gericke, 2016) - an iterative way of working and close coordination between the various departments are inherent characteristics of projects and are beneficial to success (Reference Hillebrand and BiemansHillebrand & Biemans, 2004; Reference Wynn and EckertWynn & Eckert, 2017).
2.3.1. Collaboration in industry
Collaboration is described by Jeanes (2012) as an ‘action of two or more parties (individuals, groups, or organizations) who are working together to achieve something’. In order to achieve the group-oriented goal, the sub-areas of collaboration - cooperation, communication and coordination - also need to be considered (Reference LeimeisterLeimeister, 2014). Reference LozanoLozano (2008) provides a definition of these terms.
In view of modern challenges in engineering and design, such as globalization and time pressure, the concept of collaborative engineering is increasingly coming to the fore (Borsato & Peruzzini, 2015).
Similar to Concurrent Engineering (CE) and Integrated Product Development (IPD) - another ‘CE way of working’ -, the focus is on the cross-functional thinking of technical and non-technical disciplines in order to reduce time and cost (Wognum & Trienekens, 2015). This is achieved, for example, by integrating tools and participants at an early stage and sharing information in the design process. Collaborative work processes can be beneficial, but they can also present challenges for those involved. Unreliable information, conflicting objectives or a lack of communication are examples of problems, mentioned by Reference LeimeisterLeimeister (2014).
2.3.2. Collaboration within GPS
In standards and literature, the activities of specification - functional, manufacturing and verification specification - are usually presented and considered without any link to each other.
For example, the designer should ideally define the specification independently of any requirements on how it should be manufactured or what measurement equipment should be used later (see duality principle ISO 8015:2011). Furthermore, ambiguities in the specification process, if the function is to be approximated by the specification, are his responsibility according to the responsibility principle (ISO 8015:2011). The decision on how to translate the GPS specification into manufacturing or quality control is made on the basis of internal information within the departments. An example of this is the measurement uncertainty specified in the standard, which is a decision criterion for the metrologist on how to proceed metrologically.
But, according to Reference Anselmetti and LouatiAnselmetti and Louati (2005), a link between functional and manufacturing specifications is essential to ensure that the manufacturer’s specifications match the designer’s requirements. Reference MorseMorse (2019) examines the interaction between the designer and measurement processes and proposes the concept of ‘Design for Metrology’, which implies the idea of sharing responsibilities within different departments. Reference Maltauro, Meneghello and ConcheriMaltauro (2024b; Reference Maltauro, Hofmann, Concheri, Meneghello and Gröger2024c) focuses on examining the relations between relevant specification activities and different specification types, as well as analyzing the responsibilities in more detail. This is because the different types of documents and their hierarchical relations are also only briefly discussed in ISO/TS 21619:2018.
A distinction is made between the functional specification (FUN-SPEC), the manufacturing specification (MAN-SPEC), the verification specification (VER-SPEC) and the contractual specification (CON-SPEC). The designer is responsible for creating the technical drawing that describes the function of the component, the sub-assembly or the assembly, which is also known as the FUN-SPEC. Derived from this master specification, one or more MAN-SPEC or VERI-SPEC can also be used as CON-SPEC within a company. In order to create clarity in the technical drawing and to document which type of specification is involved, the abbreviations mentioned above can be placed in or near the title block. The basic descriptions in the standard enriched by Reference MaltauroMaltauro (2024b) with the activities between the three departments are explained using the scheme in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Types of documents within departments (based on Reference MaltauroMaltauro, 2024b)
The FUN-SPEC is passed from design to manufacturing and quality control in the form of a technical drawing. Taking into account the detailed knowledge of the manufacturing processes, the manufacturing department is able to develop the MAN-SPEC. Not only technical information, but also economic information is taken into consideration here. Together with the manufactured component, it is sent to the quality control department for inspection. Quality Control then derives the VERI-SPEC from the FUN- or MAN-SPEC, again using the department’s internal knowledge of the verification processes. Measurement results are returned back to the two departments as feedback. At each stage of ‘translation’ into the department’s own specifications, the aim is to minimize ambiguity in the transfer. This is the responsibility of the department producing the document. Simultaneously, the document is enriched with information, for example to assure manufacturability or measurability (Reference Maltauro, Hofmann, Concheri, Meneghello and GrögerMaltauro, 2024c).
3. Method
As explained in the state of the art (section 2), the goal of GPS is to facilitate international technical communication. The standardized symbols provide the user with a toolbox to describe components more clearly. But relevant specification activities and different specification types when creating technical drawings are only marginally covered in standards and literature. In this study, collaboration and communication in technical drawings based on GPS will be analyzed in more detail to understand industry perspectives and approaches. The aim is to use the employees’ assessment to find out how existing ideas about collaboration and responsibilities can be adapted to make working with technical drawings more efficient and clearer.
Employees working in mechanical engineering were surveyed in November 2024 by means of an online questionnaire (LimeSurvey GmbH, 2024). Many contacts were made at a GPS conference in Germany with around 220 industry attendees. There were no other restrictions regarding the sector of the companies. The survey was designed in such a way that no conclusions could be drawn about individual participants. This anonymity allows employees to answer the questions honestly and without fear of embarrassment. Overall, the survey focused on the following research questions:
-
How do employees rate the current state of communication between the different departments?
-
Are the document types of ISO/TS 21619:2018 known within the departments?
-
What challenges do employees face in terms of collaboration and communication and where do they see potential for improvement?
The questionnaire consisted of 13 questions divided into four subject areas, ensuring a logical flow and comprehensive coverage of the topic. The subject areas, corresponding questions, and answer options are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Subject areas, corresponding questions and answer options of the survey
The first subject area aimed to characterize the employees and companies (department, sector, years of experience, frequency of work with technical drawings, etc.) in order to deepen the results of the rest of the survey with this information. The second subject area addressed the current state of communication in the departments, mainly using Likert scale questions to measure the perceptions of the employees. The awareness of document types (ISO/TS 21619:2018) was analyzed using multiple-choice answers in the third section. The fourth subject area provided space for open-ended responses, allowing participants to elaborate on challenges, potential improvements, and possible measures. The inclusion of free-text responses allowed for deeper qualitative insights beyond pre-defined answer options.
4. Results and discussion
In the following, the results of the study are presented and discussed. They are organized in accordance with the four subject areas mentioned above.
4.1. Characterization of companies and employees
The survey was completed by 42 employees. Employees were first asked to identify the department(s) in which they work. They could select multiple departments, including design, manufacturing, quality control, quality management, standardization, distribution, work preparation and procurement. An ‘other’ option allowed individual responses. Most participants worked in design (57%), followed by quality management (19%), quality control (17%), and standardization (14%). Other departments were selected by fewer than 5% of participants. In the ‘other’ entry option, tolerance management, material compliance, education and development were listed separately.
Regarding their own company sector, 38% of the participants worked in household appliances, 24% in automotive engineering, and 19% in general mechanical engineering. The remaining 19% were spread across medical technology, measurement technology and consumer goods, among others. According to the European Commission’s (2003) definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and large companies, 90% of the participants worked in large companies, while 10% were from small and medium-sized enterprises.
The employees were also asked about their interaction with technical drawings. Most (17 respondents) work with them daily, while 13 do so four times a week. Fewer participants reported working with technical drawings three (5), two (4), or one (3) day per week
In terms of the participants’ professional experience, 50% had over 10 years in their department, 33% had 5–10 years, and 17% had 2–5 years.
Overall, most respondents were employed by large companies in the household appliance, automotive, and general engineering sectors. The dominance of designers (57%) may be due to an increased awareness of GPS, similar to the teaching of technical product designers in technical vocational colleges compared to other training occupations (Reference Gust, Sersch and GrafenGust et al., 2022). Respondents had significant professional experience, with most working with technical drawings frequently, often daily.
4.2. Current status of the departments’ communication
The next three questions were included in the survey in order to obtain the respondents’ views on the importance of interdepartmental communication in the creation and interpretation of technical drawings, and to obtain a picture of the current state of communication within the respondents’ departments.
The possible answers to the first question on the importance of interdepartmental communication were: very important, important, neutral, less important and not important. In the responses, 88% of respondents rated the communication as very important and 12% as important.
Satisfaction with communication between their own and other departments regarding technical drawings and the application of GPS could be rated on a scale of 1 to 5. The results are presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Assessment of the department’s communication
The lowest rating of 1 point was given by 4 employees. 5 employees rated the communication in their own department with 2 points and 8 employees rated it with 3 points. The largest number of employees (23) chose the 4 point option. An even higher rating of 5 points was given only twice.
All respondents answered ‘yes’ to the third question ‘Are you generally motivated (also by your working environment) to acquire knowledge from other departments?’.
When comparing the employees’ own ideas with the current situation in the company or in the department, a difference can be identified. All respondents consider the issue of communication to be very important or important, but the majority of respondents did not score the maximum number of points for satisfaction. Nevertheless, the respondents are generally motivated (also by their working environment) to exchange ideas with other departments and to increase their own knowledge and learning through this interaction. Perhaps this contradiction, that many employees are motivated to interact with other departments but still see room for improvement in terms of satisfaction, can be linked to the challenges of communication (see section 4.4).
4.3. Application of the document types of ISO/TS 21619:2018
The next multiple choice question was whether one or more of the document types of ISO/TS 21619:2018 (section 2.3.2) are used for the specification in their company. Both the abbreviated forms of the names and the full names were given in the survey: functional specification (FUN-SPEC), manufacturing specification (MAN-SPEC), verification specification (VER-SPEC) and contractual specification (CON-SPEC). There was also the answer option ‘I’m not familiar with the document types’.
According to the results in Figure 4, 18 of the 42 respondents indicated that the FUN-SPEC master specification is used in the company. The VERI-SPEC (10), MAN-SPEC (8) and CON-SPEC (7) follow in terms of absolute frequency of use. For 23 employees, the document types are unknown.
Figure 4. Application and awareness of document types
When analyzing the results, it can be seen that the functional specification is used in almost all companies if the types of documents are known. According to the standard, the use of the FUN-SPEC is a must when creating technical drawings according to GPS standards. This result may be due to the dominance of designers among the respondents. The mostly experienced designers are usually aware of the focus of the GPS on the function. In addition, the overall results can be distorted by the weight of the designers in comparison to other disciplines. In comparison, the remaining document types are used less, especially the contractual specification. One reason for this could be, for example, that although the various document types are used in the company, the individual departments have too little exchange with the other departments in their activities and responsibilities, as in the idealized concept of the standard ISO/TS 21619:2018.
One of the key findings is that more than half of the employees are unaware of the document types. Apparently, the standard is not yet part of industry practice as, in the authors’ experience, it is rarely covered in training courses. This indicated that there is still a need to increase exchange and awareness within companies.
4.4. Challenges, potentials and possible measures
In the final part of the survey, employees shared challenges and potential communication improvement.
A ‘lack of understanding’ was the most common issue, mentioned 28 times, covering different or lacking knowledge of ISO-GPS, technical drawings, technology in general and technical terms. Communication problems arose from different strategies (functional, manufacturing and quality control strategy) and different requirements from the departments (8 respondents), lack of time (7) and ignorance of decision-making responsibility (4). Information silos (4), i.e. areas in the company where information is not shared with others, resistance to change (4) and unsuitable and decentralized systems for collaboration or system breaks (3) were also highlighted. In teams, language (3), physical distance (3) and new product developments (2) were considered challenging.
When asked about the department with the greatest potential for improved interdisciplinary collaboration with regard to technical drawings and GPS, the majority of respondents identified design as free text, followed by quality management and quality control. Some suggested collaboration could be improved across all departments or by focusing on individuals instead of departments. There was also a suggestion from one participant that the focus on departments was wrong and that there should be an interactive network.
Measures for improvement included cross-departmental drawing reviews and early involvement of all departments in the design phase. Other ideas from the participants included training and regular meetings with a pre-planned time. The possibility of having one or more permanent contact persons (GPS experts) in the company for drawing problems, possibly also as a ticket system as in IT, was also mentioned. How this idea of a specialist - here facilitator - can be implemented in a company is discussed by Reference LeimeisterLeimeister (2014). To implement the measures, the establishment of an understanding of ISO-GPS in management was stated. However, it is not only management that should consciously accept its responsibilities, every employee should do so - also as a transfer of responsibility.
The analysis revealed a range of challenges and opportunities, both internal and external. The lack of time, understanding and coordination were recurring themes, which are also described in the literature as challenges to collaboration (Reference LeimeisterLeimeister, 2014). While no single department was identified as having the greatest potential for improvement, all departments showed potential for better collaboration, and an interactive network approach was suggested. All of the measures mentioned for improving communication can be summarized under the term ‘support’. In addition to time for regular, cross-departmental meetings and management awareness of the topic’s significance in the area of technical drawings, GPS experts and a simplification of standardization were also addressed.
5. Conclusion
This paper examines the collaboration and communication in technical drawings based on GPS. After presenting the possibilities of ISO/TS 21619:2018 to use different document types and supplementary work on activities such as that of Maltauro (2024b; 2024c) to clearly assign responsibilities, the application in industry was analyzed. For this purpose, an online survey was conducted in which 42 employees from different companies in Germany participated. A limitation of the study was the small number of participating employees. A larger sample with a higher probability of obtaining responses from employees from more evenly distributed disciplines should be analyzed and compared in future studies at national and international level.
In the survey it was found that, with the exception of the FUN-SPEC, the document types as well as the associated possibilities of defined specification activities and responsibilities are not widely used in the industry and unknown. Further results on the importance of interdepartmental communication for the creation or interpretation of the technical drawing, potential for improvement, challenges and countermeasures showed similarities to existing studies (see section 2.3.1). The participants realize the importance of the topic of communication in everyday professional interaction. Challenges between the departments working together in the product life cycle were, for example, a lack of understanding, coordination process and lack of time. Countermeasures were summarized as support from management, GPS experts, regular and cross-departmental fixed appointments and training.
A new insight, however, was that there is a significant difference between standardization, as it currently defines the responsibilities and activities involved in the creation of technical drawings, and the (working) reality, in which collaboration plays a major role. One important question, that has emerged from the survey results, is: What improvements in collaboration and communication can be achieved by consistently implementing the ideas of ISO/TS 21619:2018 - in combination with the supplementary work on activities? Could this raise awareness among employees who do not yet see the need, including management? And finally, what impact will this have on the entire product life cycle, especially the product development process? A cost analysis of the cost of errors due to poorly defined responsibilities could be helpful here. Many employees are motivated to collaborate with other departments, as the survey showed. The next step is to break down the barriers to bridge disciplines.
Open access
