Customer Drawing Approval - No approval signature on prints

[juliov]

I need your wise advise quality pros about the following question, I did searched the Cove's threads but did not found quite what is needed:

A company generates two types of drawings for their parts: a production print and a customer's print that is less detailed than the production print, now, here it goes, I did notice that the customers' prints in their information blocks show the initials of the person who did the drawing, date, name of part, however in the drawing there is an "APPD for approved" block and it is blank, there is no approval signature in the prints or in their updated revision blocks on the left side of the drawing document. Are the prints nonconforming? after being drawn the drawings are stored in a electronic CAD file in the engineering dept, the approval blocks in the stored drawings are without an approval signature or initials. The CAD Tech says that since the drawing are in the CAD files they are current and conforming. The prints when needed are printed in pdf format. What is your opinion?

Appreciate your input,

[SteelMaiden]

as a former draftsman (now known as detailer in the politically correct terminology) why have an appd field if it isn't going to be used? I would question this if I was auditing.

[ScottK]

What does the document control procedure say?
If it says that the APPD block needs a signature and there are none, then there is a non-conformance.

If the document control procedure doesn't say a thing about it then there is not necessarly a non-conformance, but certainly an opportunity for improvement by clarifying the issue or remmoving the block form the drawing template.

I've worked in a couple of places where there were drawings done for the benefit of the customer. They were for reference only but they were controlled so engineering had to keep a log of who had what drawing at what rev. They were not done for the customer to "approve".

[juliov]

Thanks, that is the question that came to my mind, why is the block here if it is not being used, now, can this generate a nonconformity during an audit?

[SteelMaiden]

In Reply to Parent Post by juliov

Thanks, that is the question that came to my mind, why is the block here if it is not being used, now, can this generate a nonconformity during an audit?

Well if you specifically say that it isn't used, I would say no.

BUT, if you do not specifically state that it isn't used, I would look at it just like any form and say that the drawing was not approved, therefore, it shouldn't be used. My thoughts are it would be easier to remove, fill in, or blank out rather than test the theory.

[juliov]

I believe the ISO 9k2k calls for approval of quality documents when released, since this is a drawing and only shows the person that drew the doc and initials, can a procedure counter or explain this? I imagine that if the blocks is to be removed it would create a large amount of work and would not be welcomed by our draftspeople, can a procedure do it, an example please?

[Crusader]

In Reply to Parent Post by SteelMaiden

as a former draftsman (now known as detailer in the politically correct terminology) why have an appd field if it isn't going to be used? I would question this if I was auditing.

+1. It would certainly raise a big flag!

[ScottK]

In Reply to Parent Post by juliov

I believe the ISO 9k2k calls for approval of quality documents when released, since this is a drawing and only shows the person that drew the doc and initials, can a procedure counter or explain this? I imagine that if the blocks is to be removed it would create a large amount of work and would not be welcomed by our draftspeople, can a procedure do it, an example please?

A procedure can explain almost anything.

Here's what I would do...

1. Rev the drawing template to remove the APPD box
2. Put into your drawing control procedure something along the lines that drawings prior to (date the template was rev'd) have an unused "APPD" box. This box has been removed and as drawings are rev'd it will not be included going forward.

Thus, the change for the draftspeople is simple and the old drawings are still valid and grandfathered in.