Configuration Management - AS9100 Requirements

Hiiii

We are in the process of AS9100Rev C implementation, please help me for configuration management, we have to prepare one procedure that is enough or we have to prepare configuration plan for every project. Ours is a service industry, we dont have a mfg. plant.

Re: Configuration Management

Kasturi.P.Shetty said:

Hi,

We are in the process of AS 9100 Rev C implementation, please help me for configuration management, we have to prepare one procedure that is enough or we have to prepare configuration plan for every project ours is a service industry we don't have mfg plant.

Click to expand...

The simple answer is "one procedure for the organization is sufficient"

You might benefit from this old post of mine written some time back:
There are two factors of configuration management which are critical. Everything else pretty much falls into place once you cover those two factors:

1. Have a clear understanding of what Configuration Management is.
2. Put someone in charge who has a good understanding of the processes, personnel, materials, and tooling required to produce a product or service for final presentation to a customer.

I've written on Configuration Management here in the Cove a number of times. Usually I include this example to illustrate the extent to which simple changes can have ramifications throughout an organization.

The basis of Configuration Management is to do the following, more or less simultaneously:

1. go through a formal process of revision and approval when you change any aspect of the part or document
2. make a determination about the compatibility of the changed part or document with all the other Associated Documents (a specific term)
3. determine if any of the Associated Documents must be revised to be compatible in form, fit, or function with the original changed document
4. notify all parties who may be concerned about the change and get acknowledgment that change is implemented and obsolete documents or processes are withdrawn
5. monitor the process to ensure all the changes work together

That may seem overly complicated. Let's explore a very simple change and see how the steps above would fit in.

One of my favorite examples I frequently use (to carry a premise of saving on assembly cost) is switching from Phillips Head fasteners to Torx drive or square drive fasteners for more efficient assembly. (Form and Fit of thread profile and length are the same, fastener Function remains - service personnel may need notice to add Torx driver to kit, but can replace with current stock of Phillips head)

On the surface, this is a simple change, but consider:

1. organization needs to make a formal document change on the part, checking and approving the change.
2. We check the compatibility with the mating parts, but we also have to
3. change work instruction, assembly tools, inventory (use up old inventory first?), purchasing (same or different supplier? same or different price?), repair instructions sent to field personnel, pricing on the final product, advertising, etc.
4. notify all parties - quality inspectors, assembly workers, quality inspectors at customer, suppliers, inventory clerks, repair stations, decide whether repair stations can continue to repair with Phillips head in inventory or must implement new Torx, decide whether recall is necessary to change out old parts,
5. continue to monitor how all parties adapt to and implement change and decide whether further modification of any of the steps is necessary

All of us go through these steps consciously or unconsciously. The key is to do the steps purposefully and consistently and to record the steps as they are completed to assure optimum efficiency. (It would be foolish to scrap or sell off all the old Phillips head fasteners and order in all new Torx ones, only to discover no one had thought to order new Torx drivers.)
The manual method most organizations used BEFORE computers was to keep a list of Associated Documents (about processes, personnel, materials, suppliers, tooling, costs, etc.) with each master file of a product or service provided by the organization.

Special formats for change requests (to revise a product or service master file) contained a "tickler list" to remind folks BEFORE approving such change or revision that those Associated Documents needed to be reviewed for any ramifications.

Click to expand...

Depending on how many documents an organization is shuffling, manual management is either a piece of cake or a nightmare.

Let's hear more about your specific circumstances before we build a chronometer if all you really need is a window to look outside to see if it's day or night. __________________

Re: Configuration Management

Thanks for your information. For manufacturing company design changes from customer engineering design change we will change the process sheet revision no release the process sheet to shop floor, but ours is one time job only conversion of 2D TO 3D some time outsourcing how we can implement this clause.

Re: Configuration Management

Kasturi.P.Shetty said:

Thanks for your information. For manufacturing company design changes from customer engineering design change we will change the process sheet revision no release the process sheet to shop floor, but ours is one time job only conversion of 2D TO 3D some time outsourcing how we can implement this clause.

Click to expand...

Your details are sketchy, but what I think you are saying is:
The service you provide is converting 2D drawings to 3D drawings.

It is unclear whether the 3D drawings (computer files?) go direct to the processor who will convert them into a product or whether they go back to your original customer (the provider of the 2D drawings) for approval before releasing to a processor.

If it were MY operation, I would ensure the 2D drawing stays with the 3D drawing of the same revision level to avoid any confusion which is the valid document. Further, I would ensure there is an approval process of the 3D drawing which includes the organization (not necessarily the original author) which created or supplied the 2D drawing.

Sometimes, in my experience, processors create "shop drawings" of products (often including trade secrets of processing) when making custom products from another organization's original drawings. These shop drawings are not necessarily sent to the originating organization for approval because there is a desire to protect trade secrets. If your 3D drawings fall into the category of "shop drawings for manufacturing purposes," you probably don't want to run them by the organization which created the drawings, but only by your direct customer who provided the 2d drawings for conversion.

A likely scenario (of an entity providing someone else's 2d drawings) might be a machine job shop which requests conversion of a 2D drawing (provided by the machine shop's customer) to a 3D drawing as a prelude to programming a CNC lathe or machining center to actually produce the product.

For myself, I don't see a substantial difference between a 2D and 3D drawing of the same revision level which would require changing the revision level - I think of it in the same vein as changing the drawing scale (say from 1:24 magnified to 1:12.) because the end result (form, fit, and function) of each is the same product.

Hi,
Would a trail audit eg from the customer eco up until the product is shipped out be considered as part of a configuration audit. How about a product audit. In my company, what we do is do an audit o fthe actual against the customer drawing. Would that too can be categorised as configuration audit?

Ahnan E. Ramasamy said:

Hi,
Would a trail audit eg from the customer eco up until the product is shipped out be considered as part of a configuration audit. How about a product audit. In my company, what we do is do an audit o fthe actual against the customer drawing. Would that too can be categorised as configuration audit?

Click to expand...

I don't believe I've ever come across the term "configuration audit" before.

Checking the documents used in the actual production against the most recent ones on file to assure they are all at the same revision level could probably be termed a "configuration audit."

Checking through the various processes performed on a product going through the manufacturing process to assure each step in the production cycle is using the most recent version of documents would seem to be just a part of that "configuration audit."

Checking whether the products made conform to the most recent revision level seems a normal part of inspection, regardless if it is First Article, PPAP, or in-process inspection as part of an SPC study does not seem to merit a special designation of "configuration audit."

Are we talking about product data management here? Ie CAD parts being put together to make a CAD product?

In my experience (wing design) configuration is a key part of the QA activities, i.e. configuration of a total wing when any part of that wing is changed. I agree with the above posters that checks need to be made of the changed part, the impact on the main assembly, and also the process (Manual or Automated) that ensures revision control of the assembly itself.

We get round it by having a single process controlling configuration management of wing assemblies, but which has sub processes depending upon the aircraft programme we are working on as they all use different data exchange systems. It has been auditable up to now although it can get extremely complex. Would this approach work for you?

Hi,
Its in the new revision of the AS9100 standard, clause 7.1.3 (e). Anyway, thanks for your input which gave me a good idea on what to do.

Ahnan E. Ramasamy said:

Hi,
Would a trail audit eg from the customer eco up until the product is shipped out be considered as part of a configuration audit. How about a product audit. In my company, what we do is do an audit o fthe actual against the customer drawing. Would that too can be categorised as configuration audit?

Click to expand...

ISO 10007, a non-normative standard referenced to in AS9100 states

Normally there are two types of configuration audits:

• a functional configuration audit; this is a formal examination to verify that a configuration item has achieved the functional and performance characteristics specified in its product configuration information;
• a physical configuration audit; this is a formal examination to verify that a configuration item has achieved the physical characteristics specified in its product configuration information.

Click to expand...

Hi. I'm the QM of a CNC machine shop where we machine parts. Drawings and CAD models are provided by the customer.
I want to know what has changed in Configuration Management from AS9100 Rev C to Rev D.
What do we do differently in Rev D?