Configuration Management for Build to Print Company

P

ProDad

Hi,
AS9100C 7.1.3 has the "as appropriate to the product" phrase in the requirement. We are a low volume, job shop for government spares and OEM parts. We have no design function and just build to spec. Specs can include multiple documents like drawings, parts lists, CAD data, tech data, etc etc. Each document has a revision, of course.

We cover clauses a., b. and c. of 7.1.3, by making sure all of our documentation matches the revision level of what we are making. We rarely have a change from a customer that even impacts what we do, but when that happens we are able to control having two configurations working their way through production. (We have no FG inventory.) No problems there.

My question is about d. and e. Configuration Status Accounting and Configuration Audit. I assume e. (audit) means that we need a process to verify that a part we are shipping matches the configuration called for on the PO. Do we just have to do this periodically and document it? Should it be part of the inspection plan for every part? Is it up to us how we do it?

And I'm not sure I understand what "Status Accounting" is or if it is appropriate to our product. Can someone enlighten me about that?

Thanks!:thanks:
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
Hi,
AS9100C 7.1.3 has the "as appropriate to the product" phrase in the requirement. We are a low volume, job shop for government spares and OEM parts. We have no design function and just build to spec. Specs can include multiple documents like drawings, parts lists, CAD data, tech data, etc etc. Each document has a revision, of course.

We cover clauses a., b. and c. of 7.1.3, by making sure all of our documentation matches the revision level of what we are making. We rarely have a change from a customer that even impacts what we do, but when that happens we are able to control having two configurations working their way through production. (We have no FG inventory.) No problems there.

My question is about d. and e. Configuration Status Accounting and Configuration Audit. I assume e. (audit) means that we need a process to verify that a part we are shipping matches the configuration called for on the PO. Do we just have to do this periodically and document it? Should it be part of the inspection plan for every part? Is it up to us how we do it?

And I'm not sure I understand what "Status Accounting" is or if it is appropriate to our product. Can someone enlighten me about that?

Thanks!:thanks:

Have you read ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q10007-2003?

If not send me a PM (private Massage)

or

Check this web page!

http://www.sae.org/servlets/registr...HGeneral&PAGE=getSCMHBOOK&vgenNum=115&scmhs=1
 

Big Jim

Admin
If you sign off the steps of production and inspection on the traveler as they are completed, you are practicing configuration accounting.

If you confirm that all configuration requirements have been met as part of final inspection, you are practicing configuration audit.

What's the problem?
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
If you sign off the steps of production and inspection on the traveler as they are completed, you are practicing configuration accounting.

If you confirm that all configuration requirements have been met as part of final inspection, you are practicing configuration audit.

What's the problem?
I pretty much agree with this. If you use any type of "traveler" (hard paper, bar code, etc.) so that you have traceability of each part anywhere in any stage of production to assure part and print are the same version, you are certainly "accounting" and
if sampling (the audit snapshot) confirms your practice is consistent, in my opinion, then, you have fulfilled the requirement.
 
P

ProDad

If you sign off the steps of production and inspection on the traveler as they are completed, you are practicing configuration accounting.

If you confirm that all configuration requirements have been met as part of final inspection, you are practicing configuration audit.

What's the problem?
Thanks for the reply. There's no problem. I just wasn't sure if I was reading more into that requirement than what was there. Sounds like we have it covered.

Thanks again.
 
M

Mike_H

As a form of config audit, would it be enough to verify the revision level of the final assembly is per the released engineering revision level or is it a case of showing you are auditing the configuration to a larger extent? The AS9100 7.1.3 states "...as appropriate to the product" so this seems to give you flexibility to audit to whatever build level is acceptable to ensure configuration is in control. I don't see anywhere that "all configuration requirements" need to be audited, just those you think are appropriate. True?
 
Top Bottom