To Start we don't normally design anything other than minor internal changes, and we usually only supply info to customers, we don't design for them.

Our Internal drawings (hand or AutoCAD), are used to make part or assembly drawings for use in the production area. They don't get updated often except for errors or lack of drawings (plenty of those).

I've never noticed any of our customer's title blocks having any type of control number or revision information on them. Yet some of their title blocks HAVE changed APPEARANCE over the years.

Should we / do we need to issue control numbers/revisions to our title blocks?

When I make quick hand drawings, I'd print out a blank page from within AutoCAD that has the title block on it.

I'm only asking because I just wrote a basic Work Instruction on Creating and Updating Internal Drawings, and I was not sure if we should bother attempting to control the title blocks. I created them about 4 years ago and have not updated them in about 3...

Thanks Bob_M

ADDED:
No this is not covered in our Document Control Procedure (which I have not gotten around to updating yet). We are updating to ISO9k2k from ISO9001:1994, but our procedures need alot of work for internal reasons not just ISO.

Okay, let's see what the standard says:

You need to:
1) approve documents
2) review/update
3) ensure that changes and current revision levels are identified
4) ensure documents are where needed
5) ensure that documents are legible and readily identifiable


So, does your system do those things? If I can "readily identify" the drawing, does it need a control number?
Do you identify the print by date, so folks know if it is current?

They don't get updated often except for errors or lack of drawings (plenty of those).

If I am using one of these documents, how would I know it was updated or not? Has lack of revisions caused ANY problems in the past?

No this is not covered in our Document Control Procedure

All of this really needs to be in the procedure.

Hope this at least gives you something to think about.

db,

Maybe I was not clear enough.

Our doc control procedure is OK for 1994 standard, but for 2000 and our need it definately needs some fine tuning.

Our drawings are controlled, revised, and approved as needed.

But does the Drawing Title block (I guess you could call it a blank form with our logo and room for DRAWING specific info).

Granted in the strictest terms the title block could/should be controlled,

But is anyone else assigning control number and revisions to BLANK company title blocks for drawings?

I've yet to see one from our QS customers. But I was curious.

Bob_M said:

Granted in the strictest terms the title block could/should be controlled,

But is anyone else assigning control number and revisions to BLANK company title blocks for drawings?


IMHO, a title block is a title block, they all have the same basic info, Drawing ID (title or job number, whatever) a place to put in the rev delta and explanation.

Typically for CAD drawings you take your print and make sure your delta level matches what is on the system. For vellums/mylars, you've continually added your revs to the original, thereby creating your master copy that you can compare the print to. There is your control, right? If we/you decide today to change your logo on your title block on the CAD. but you haven't changed/reprinted every drawing to incorporate it, you have not made a revision to the drawing, you have only excercised corporate responsibility by saving a tree or two.

I worked in engineering before going into QA, and engineering drawings were the least apt to cause a problem with uncontrolled documents. I have to say that of all the corporate types, accountants and engineers are the most anal.:biglaugh:

Just jokin' with ya, don't take offense!:truce:

Sorry, Bob, I did misunderstand your question. It was not as scary as I had orignially thought. I agree with most of SteelMaiden's comments, although I disagree with her savage attack on engineers. Okay, maybe not so savage.

We must apply a certain level of reasonableness here. Is it reasonable to control absolute every form and data block? Probably not. We must be careful here....is your dayplanner on the master list? If you NEED to control the information on the data block, then set up controls that protect that information. If you don't NEED to the information, then don't worry about it.

db said:

Sorry, Bob, I did misunderstand your question. It was not as scary as I had orignially thought. I agree with most of SteelMaiden's comments, although I disagree with her savage attack on engineers. Okay, maybe not so savage.

We must apply a certain level of reasonableness here. Is it reasonable to control absolute every form and data block? Probably not. We must be careful here....is your dayplanner on the master list? If you NEED to control the information on the data block, then set up controls that protect that information. If you don't NEED to the information, then don't worry about it.

I guess that makes me an anal Quality Manager, since I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering and I'm also the company's ONLY Engineer. :frust:

Well both of you gave me the answer I felt was true and hoped was true.

Its really the Drawing that needs control, not the title block or "background". (We're simple here, AutoCAD and plain paper A size or 11x17 print outs)

There is an Engineering Drawing Standard, available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Engineering Drawing PracticesY14.100M-2000
describes everything you need.

There is an Engineering Drawing Standard, available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Engineering Drawing PracticesY14.100M-2000
describes everything you need.I probably should have joined that society a long time ago (B.S. Mechanical Engineering). But at the moment, it would not be good investment...
I don't make many drawings at the moment, but I was just curious about "controlling" the title block format. I have changed it a few times since I first learned AutoCAD at my current job. (Overall structure is constant, I just tweaked it to my needs).

Standard is available to everyone, member or not, for a fee [of course] Almost all Standards are! Membership usually only merits a small discount.

My suggestion to many whose posts I have read during the past 24 hours is that it is nonproductive to create a system or process from scratch if there is an available standard or process to follow.

Two benefits:
1) It's usually a lot cheaper than the hours spent agonizing over details, format, and content.
2) Customers, regulators, and new employees don't have to be trained to follow it (customers and regulators when they audit; employees when they implement.)

Think how much easier it is to audit a supplier if his QMS follows the general plan of ISO9K2K.

Folks no longer create a spreadsheet or database from scratch (hard code)- they start with an engine like Access or Oracle or Excel. Same goes for Word Processing Software. (Are you ready to write all your documents in Basic?) Note that most software for drawing or writing documents is based on those Standards and contains features for easy implementation.

Two benefits:
1) It's usually a lot cheaper than the hours spent agonizing over details, format, and content.
2) Customers, regulators, and new employees don't have to be trained to follow it (customers and regulators when they audit; employees when they implement.)


Wes....if only it was so.

We are a sheet metal job shop. We only create in-house "sketches" to aid our manufacturing process. We use customer drawings 99.9% of the time. And I have yet to see consistency. Each customers format varies slightly....top that off with some HORRIBLE drafting techniques can make life difficult, at best.

Carol

Wes....if only it was so.

We are a sheet metal job shop. We only create in-house "sketches" to aid our manufacturing process. We use customer drawings 99.9% of the time. And I have yet to see consistency. Each customers format varies slightly....top that off with some HORRIBLE drafting techniques can make life difficult, at best.

Carol

I love the missing hole call outs or the hole that is really a slot! Looking at the GD&T usage between the OEMs it's like 2 or 3 separate standands! One says it's perpendicular to surface and to another it's perpendicular to the earth!

I love the missing hole call outs or the hole that is really a slot! Looking at the GD&T usage between the OEMs it's like 2 or 3 separate standands! One says it's perpendicular to surface and to another it's perpendicular to the earth!

I also love the useage of the "True Position" callout instead of perpendicularity (using a sledgehammer to swat a fly :bonk: )

Bill

Carol, Bill, Randy-
I'm just in the process of finishing a stint as QM of an aerospace company (FAA-PMA approval holder) and I agree with you that many companies do NOT follow Standards, but I also contend that many DO and when they do, they are a pleasure to deal with.

We outsource all the sheetmetal work. I rounded up every one of our design engineers on two continents and took them on a tour through an "average" sheetmetal shop ("average" being what I am used to and what I expect.)

Following that eyeopening experience, I took them on a tour of my favorite metallurgy lab (both standard and forensic investigations.)

Now, we no longer have "pie-in-the-sky" designs and everybody in the design function seems to have a better appreciation of some of the factors (chief among them being "cooperation") which go into turning a design into a finished product at a price we can make a profit on. Corners, angles, holes, and cutouts are now designed with a good idea of the process that will be used to execute the design. Carol definitely has her finger on the pulse of a major problem OEM's have in lack of consistency to a Standard.

There may be literally thousands of designs out in the world which have an engineering note which says "interpret according to ASME Y14.100M-1998" and no one in the design shop has ever seen the Standard and no one in the design shop even knows how to order one for review. If we send out a design with that note, we make sure the guy on the other end has the Standard or we give him ours.

A big part of our use of cooperation is Contract Review, both between us and our customer and us and our outsourced suppliers. Everyone we deal with seems much happier playing with the same tools. Our engineers no longer leave 3 decimal callouts on dimensions that are perfectly OK at one decimal. Funny thing is, our costs have actually gone down since the suppliers no longer have to build a "fudge factor" into their quotes for over-engineered designs.

If I had one piece of advice on this topic, it would be:
"When in doubt about something, ask!"

Wes

First of all - Welcome :bigwave: (I haven't visited the ASQ forums lately, so it's nice to hear from you again!)

I think its great that you were able to take YOUR engineers and "illuminate" them to the ASME standard. We are not designers (per se) other than designing a casting die. Our three Senior Quality Engineers have all been through two of the seminars Jim Meadows conducts and I feel we have a pretty good "base knowledge" and understanding of GD&T principles. The three of us are on "the same page". My biggest issue is with our OEM and Tier 1 customers (design responsible) whose engineers know just enough to be dangerous. Parts are "overdesigned" and the use of GD&T (or lack of) is, sometimes, atrocious. We can talk to the design engineer for the project and get blank stares or the "I know better" speech. I have gone so far as to demonstrate what a modifier does for their assembly. Some successes but far too many "failures". It almost seems that once a design is given to us, it's set in stone because noone wants to change a print and go through a PPAP. We (all automotive suppliers?) are constantly getting hammered for price reductions and "correct" useage of GD&T would be a giant step in allowing the supply base to help in that endeavor (IMO, of course).

I'm done rambling/venting - for now. I'm agreeing with you (I think) that if everyone followed the "same set of rules", and truly understood those "rules", life as a supplier would be much easier and both supplier and customer would reap the benefits.


[QUOTE]If I had one piece of advice on this topic, it would be:
"When in doubt about something, ask!"[QUOTE]
Utopian dream?? :vfunny:

Bill

The difficulty with being in Quality is echoed in thousands of throats throughout the world:
"The guys in charge just don't understand!"

For over 25 years, I've agreed with Deming that poor quality in any business process is the fault of management. I've been dedicating myself to using the tools of Quality to get to the root cause or common cause of a nonefficient business process and using those same tools to get to the root cause behind that root cause (i.e. "Why are the bosses not devoting resources to ameliorating the situation?")

My problem solving tasks are usually clustered around making the bitter pill easier to swallow for the bosses, confident the medicine will cure the "disease."

Am I always successful? Not by a long shot. However, each tiny success helps me bear the failures and keep trying. Experience has made me more efficient at the chore, but I am always on the lookout for information about the mindsets of bosses to help me become more efficient.

Bill writes:
"We (all automotive suppliers?) are constantly getting hammered for price reductions and "correct" useage of GD&T would be a giant step in allowing the supply base to help in that endeavor (IMO, of course)."

It seems to me our task in Quality is to get our own bosses to understand where cost efficiencies lie and enlist their help in dealing with the OEM's in "partnering" [Gee, isn't that a business concept honored in the breach by most OEM's?] :rolleyes: to enlist everybody's help up and down the line from designer to assembler of the final product to ferret out the most cost-efficient designs and methods of manufacture and subsequent assembly of components into a finished product.

Is it going to be easy? Heck no!
Will it be satisfying if we succeed? Darn straight!

Besides, I'm tired of having to pull out my entire dashboard to replace a 15 cent lamp!