Last night during one of my inspection rounds, I was checking a punched stainless steel part that was going through our grinding department. This is a regular reorder part that we have made dozens of times. I was looking at the manufacturing print and noticed that it wanted the deburring operation done on all edges on both the punch side and the burr side of the part.

From my initial observations, both visual and running my index finger around all the edges of the (punchside/nearside) of the part. It was perfectly rounded with no microjoints or slivers present. This, I could tell was mainly attributed to the excellent CNC programming done for the punch press.

I made a copy of the operation sheet and a copy of the manufacturing print and highlighted the appropriate sections. I, included a note to recommend that the deburring operation be removed on the punch side edges of the part and submitted everything to my department manager for him to look at Monday morning.

This morning I was reading a text from one of my university notebooks that caught my attention:

"The computerization of process planning efforts can greatly reduce the tediousness while simultaneously standardizing similar operations. At the same time lead periods for generating process plans can be significantly shortened. Yet, managers often encounter seemingly irrational resistance from planners to implement such obvious labor saving techniques. The resistance to change along with job insurance, a frequently hidden motivator or detractor, depending on one's vantage point, frequently sets in. Constructive management actions and skills are needed to convince process/manufacturing planners that the time saved from manually generating or revising detail instructions can be much more effectively utilized by preventing future problems with the designers and solving potential or actual difficulties on the shop floor."

It is a given that I am going to face this type of resistance to having this particular operation changed. My only solution at the current moment is to keep submitting the same documentation again and again, whenever that job appears, until the change is implemented.

Does anyone have any better suggestions? I would surely appreciate the input.

Last night during one of my inspection rounds, I was checking a punched stainless steel part that was going through our grinding department. This is a regular reorder part that we have made dozens of times. I was looking at the manufacturing print and noticed that it wanted the deburring operation done on all edges on both the punch side and the burr side of the part.
Was this "grinding" operation done for deburring purposes? Usually deburring is called for without specifying which side of the part gets deburred, so I'm a little confused about the part's geometry.

From my initial observations, both visual and running my index finger around all the edges of the (punchside/nearside) of the part. It was perfectly rounded with no microjoints or slivers present. This, I could tell was mainly attributed to the excellent CNC programming done for the punch press.
This could be more a function of good tool maintenance than programming. Of course if it's a larger hole that's being "nibbled," programming may come into play as well.

I made a copy of the operation sheet and a copy of the manufacturing print and highlighted the appropriate sections. I, included a note to recommend that the deburring operation be removed on the punch side edges of the part and submitted everything to my department manager for him to look at Monday morning.

This morning I was reading a text from one of my university notebooks that caught my attention:

"The computerization of process planning efforts can greatly reduce the tediousness while simultaneously standardizing similar operations. At the same time lead periods for generating process plans can be significantly shortened. Yet, managers often encounter seemingly irrational resistance from planners to implement such obvious labor saving techniques. The resistance to change along with job insurance, a frequently hidden motivator or detractor, depending on one's vantage point, frequently sets in. Constructive management actions and skills are needed to convince process/manufacturing planners that the time saved from manually generating or revising detail instructions can be much more effectively utilized by preventing future problems with the designers and solving potential or actual difficulties on the shop floor."

I'm not sure how the quoted passage relates to your issue--it seems to be saying that sometimes planners are reluctant to adopt automated methods of generating documentation, for a variety of reasons.

It is a given that I am going to face this type of resistance to having this particular operation changed. My only solution at the current moment is to keep submitting the same documentation again and again, whenever that job appears, until the change is implemented.

How about talking to the people involved? Not only are you more likely to get an answer, you might also learn something in the process. I've seen many instances where people suggested process (or other) changes, only to find out that there was a reason for doing things the way they were being done, and the person asking for the change had no way of knowing about it.

Is there a standard process where you work for submitting change requests? If not, there should be. Maybe you can make that suggestion as well.

I just noted the reference to CAPP in the post title, which I take as Computer Aided Process Planning. Are saying that you want to initiate or suggest some sort of automated engineering change process?

Was this "grinding" operation done for deburring purposes? Usually deburring is called for without specifying which side of the part gets deburred, so I'm a little confused about the part's geometry.


Jim, at our company, the grinding department is generically labled. The personnel in that department are responsible for deburr, timesave, grind, tumble, shot peen, operations, etceterra, depending on what operation is called out on the operation sheet.

You have some great suggestions, I'll try it. But of course, I'll have to do it through proper channels. Over stepping my bounds is the last thing I want to do. :)

I just noted the reference to CAPP in the post title, which I take as Computer Aided Process Planning. Are saying that you want to initiate or suggest some sort of automated engineering change process?


That is absolutely correct.