Hi all.:)

I searched but did not find the answer to what I was looking for. Any input will be much appreciated.

The company where I work is doing Engineering Development on some electronic equipment (prototype). In order to test the prototype, they also designed a jig whose outputs are measured by calibrated test equipment. The jig itself is mostly used as a signal source that drives the electronic equipment and is not used for acceptance. It is more an accessory to allow some other measurements to be made.

This jig is not covered by released drawings nor parts lists. The Engineering Department had the jig built by an external supplier using simple sketches made by Engineering. So basically that’s all there is….

My question: Should this jig have released drawings, be properly tagged with an asset number and have it’s status indicated (sticker that says the jig does not require calibration). Production jigs are presently controlled like this, but not the Engineering ones.

The company stated that they do not need to control this jig in any way simply because it is not used for acceptance of the product. A registrar who was here recently also said as long as the jig is not used for acceptance of products, it does not need to be controlled.

Regardless of what the registrar has said, what do you think?

Thanks in advance.
:thanx:

Hi all.:)

I searched but did not find the answer to what I was looking for. Any input will be much appreciated.

The company where I work is doing Engineering Development on some electronic equipment (prototype). In order to test the prototype, they also designed a jig whose outputs are measured by calibrated test equipment. The jig itself is mostly used as a signal source that drives the electronic equipment and is not used for acceptance. It is more an accessory to allow some other measurements to be made.

This jig is not covered by released drawings nor parts lists. The Engineering Department had the jig built by an external supplier using simple sketches made by Engineering. So basically that’s all there is….

My question: Should this jig have released drawings, be properly tagged with an asset number and have it’s status indicated (sticker that says the jig does not require calibration). Production jigs are presently controlled like this, but not the Engineering ones.

The company stated that they do not need to control this jig in any way simply because it is not used for acceptance of the product. A registrar who was here recently also said as long as the jig is not used for acceptance of products, it does not need to be controlled.

Regardless of what the registrar has said, what do you think?

Thanks in advance.
:thanx:

What risks are involved in not controlling it? Putting it another way, what are the advantages of control? Here are a few possibilities:

The jig may be changed from its original configuration without accounting for information necessary to using it properly.
You might need another one at some point and having the original design specifications will prevent having to do it all over again.
Future users might not properly understand the theory of operation of the jig and misuse it. (What would happen if the person who designed it, and everyone who understood its use weren't there?)
You need to consider what control will do for you, and how waste and expense might be prevented by invoking control. You might find that control really isn't necessary, but at least your decision will be based on something other than "The auditor said we don't have to."

Hi SRT-4
my modest opinion

if the signal source (jig) is under "constant" control by calibrated test equipment when it is used for any activity abouts prototype it is ok it can not be "calibrated/validated"

but expecially if the prototypes are sold or used for some validation steps and the signal is not under constant control by a calibrated test equipment I suppose the jig is working as a part of the gage/control system and should be calibrated.

Hi all.:)


My question: Should this jig have released drawings, be properly tagged with an asset number and have it’s status indicated (sticker that says the jig does not require calibration). Production jigs are presently controlled like this, but not the Engineering ones.

Do you state anywhere in your documentation that there is no control on your engineering jigs? If you do, then it´s OK to do it like that. I would recommend that you do identify them as being engineering jigs and in your documentation state that they are not subject to control or calibration.


Regardless of what the registrar has said, what do you think?

Thanks in advance.
:thanx:

With the stated facts above, I would agree with the registrar´s position.

Thanks for the inputs - all good points....

Yes, the company needs to look at the pros - cons - risks.

Nonetheless, I think creating drawings for this jig and controlling it just like any other production jig would be considered a good practice.

- It standardizes the jig control process accross the board.

- It ensures continuity if someone needs to build another one in case all the original Engineers are gone. It saves a lot of work instead of having to "reverse engineer" another one.

If the company decides to process the Engineering jigs differently from the ones in production, then I also agree that they will have to document this in their procedures.