CAD Print Conflicts with the Customer Supplied Paper Drawing

[R. Webb]

Is there a standard or accepted practice when a CAD file submitted by a customer conflicts with the customer supplied paper drawing? In the customer initiated rush to production a small detail on the paper drawing was overlooked. However, the detail was not in the customer supplied CAD file used to program the machines that blanked out the part. I am not sure how to proceed with root cause analysis as we check the part using the CAD file.

 

[SteelMaiden]

Re: CAD Print Conflicts

Well, first of all, your customer doesn't have very good control of his system does he? So, is the part(s) you have made nonconforming, or did you catch it before production? IMHO, the one they gave you last should be the one that is correct, so if they gave you a paper copy then sent a CAD drawing the expectation would be that the CAD drawing superceded the paper. They should be responsible for reimbursing you for the product that has been produced (realistically, you will need to come up with an agreed upon figure as they probably will not want to pay full price). Good luck.

 

[trainerbob]

Re: CAD Print Conflicts

This is the wrong forum for this question. This situation requires discussion with your customer. Hopefully you get it ironed out before it costs either of you too much money.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Is there a standard or accepted practice when a CAD file submitted by a customer conflicts with the customer supplied paper drawing? In the customer initiated rush to production a small detail on the paper drawing was overlooked. However, the detail was not in the customer supplied CAD file used to program the machines that blanked out the part. I am not sure how to proceed with root cause analysis as we check the part using the CAD file.

As far as root cause is concerned, there are two issues, one of which deals with liability, the other with protecting yourself against stupid customers.

As far as liability is concerned, I think the customer should take responsibility and pay for whatever this winds up costing. Assuming that the CAD file and its paper counterpart do not conflict is reasonable; one has to assume some level of control on the part of the customer, especially if, as you suggest, you were being rushed (although the customer being in a hurry should be considered a warning).

As for your own contract review process, you now know that you need to make sure that there are no conflicts in the specifications, regardless of the medium of transfer. I know of companies that make explicit statements on drawings that the CAD file is "master," but you can do something similar by adding language to your agreements with customers to the effect that when specifications are provided as CAD data and paper drawings, the CAD file will be considered master in the event of conflicts.

 

[Marc]

Re: CAD Print Conflicts

This is the wrong forum for this question. <snip>

Essentially the idea is to get some feedback here, and hopefully some ammunition for the eventual showdown.

I've been through similar situations. If a contract is agreed to based upon a paper print and then the customer sends a CAD file later, the CAD file is checked against the print. If they don't match perfectly the CAD file is rejected back to the customer. When a customer submits a CAD file and it doesn't match or is revved (say the original paper print was rev. 2 and the CAD file was rev. 3), and the customer decides the CAD file is what they want (rather than the original paper file that was agreed to) it triggers a new contract review cycle including possible cost increases if extra costs would be incurred due to the change.

Jim has some very good points on this type of situation in his post, by the by.

 

[R. Webb]

Re: CAD Print Conflicts

Marc, Jim and Steel - Good answers. In a small shop like I am in we don't have the resources to review things twice. I will see if putting language in the quote will pass muster with management.

Thanks again!

 

[Stijloor]

Re: CAD Print Conflicts

Marc, Jim and Steel - Good answers. In a small shop like I am in we don't have the resources to review things twice. I will see if putting language in the quote will pass muster with management.

Thanks again!

It's either that or pay the price :mg: ; something a small shop (or any organization) can ill afford...

Stijloor.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I tend to agree with both Jim and Marc here. The essential problem is a breakdown in your own organization's Contract Review. The fact the customer supplied conflicting prints (paper and CAD) should have been recognized BEFORE you began manufacture.

If I were the arbiter trying to sort out whether the customer owed you money for the SNAFU, I might have chided the customer for its laxness in configuration management, but I would assign 100% of the cost to your company.

ERGO: root cause is simple - your organization, when faced with instructions (the drawings) in two different media (paper and electronic), had a duty to compare the two for anomalies. Good practice would have dictated prior agreement with customer on how the manufactured item would be inspected, which most likely would have included a controlling document. Did your inspectors inspect while viewing the CAD file on a computer screen or did they work from a printout? IF from a printout, whatever happened to the original paper drawing supplied by the customer? Were CAD file and paper drawing dated or versioned? Was one more recent than the other? Were there any obvious alterations to the paper copy (redlining in aerospace) which might have been a clue to its being the more recent version?

In terms of making NICE NICE with the customer, you can hope for a negotiated delay to avoid nonconformance on delivery date, BUT be sure to nail down inspection criteria (characteristics, attributes, AND class of instruments used for each feature) BEFORE you start again. I would confess the discrepancy was not noted - remain quiet after that - the customer may "offer" to subsidize the extra cost out of guilt for its own laxness, but don't hold your breath.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I forgot to ask - who by and how was the discrepancy noted? By the customer?

 

[R. Webb]

Wes,
Ahhh theres the rub - the customer found it at their incomming inspection. There were not many parts or dollars involved so in this particular case the arguements are academic. However, I disagree with your analysis that the customer is not at fault for supplying two different specifications for the same part. The quoting process does not review two sets of drawings, electronic or paper, and the part is expected to be made from the CAD drawing as that is what programs our machines. That's why my company has a niche - if you give me a CAD file I can, in many instances, get you a part the same day. Even complex parts if they do not require outside vendors. Customers generally want part fast especially if there are only 5 to 10 pieces.

However, I agree that we should have caught it as well. Both companies are at fault in their review process. In the end though the customer will win as it is much easier to remove business from a vendor than to turn it away from a customer!

Again good discussion here on this one!