Q
QC Rick
In a nut shell, when dealing with customer Blue Prints (B/P) and the text within including Engineering Orders (changes to the B/P) how do individual companies handle Superseding Specifications (S/S) in that, I mean; when a B/P states a spec that has been S/S what do you put in your PO/Work Instructions/Etc?
So far, I have held employment in the north eastern Mid West (Ohio) and Southwestern (Arizona) territories. Nothing in both territories is different in that companies take verbatim the text on the B/P and apply to the PO/Work Instructions/Etc. without or minimal information of S/S requirements thus leaving all the research to whomever is involved with that particular spec.
In my field of expertise (Aero Space), customers are notorious for not updating B/P's and leaving information trails via S/S specs, a quagmire of information in many cases; the customer declares it is too expensive to update their B/Ps but I believe they fail to see the expense involved for all parties that have to interpret this muddled mess.
Personally I have always believed the PO/Work Instructions/Etc should state the S/S spec and reference the original spec. If the original spec is required specifically, then list it itself.
Example: (Passivation)
AMS-QQ P 35 "Passivation Treatments for Corrosion-resistant Steel".
S/S by SAE-AMS 2700 and S/S for DoD with ASTM-A967 (we actually have a customer who doesn't recognize ASTM-A967 and requires SAE-AMS 2700).
I believe in this case the S/S SAE document is verbatim of the AMS document, only control has changed, 98% of the time our PO/Work Instructions/Etc will state "AMS-QQ P 35", the B/P text.
Your opinions/suggestions and or information as always is appreciated!
So far, I have held employment in the north eastern Mid West (Ohio) and Southwestern (Arizona) territories. Nothing in both territories is different in that companies take verbatim the text on the B/P and apply to the PO/Work Instructions/Etc. without or minimal information of S/S requirements thus leaving all the research to whomever is involved with that particular spec.
In my field of expertise (Aero Space), customers are notorious for not updating B/P's and leaving information trails via S/S specs, a quagmire of information in many cases; the customer declares it is too expensive to update their B/Ps but I believe they fail to see the expense involved for all parties that have to interpret this muddled mess.
Personally I have always believed the PO/Work Instructions/Etc should state the S/S spec and reference the original spec. If the original spec is required specifically, then list it itself.
Example: (Passivation)
AMS-QQ P 35 "Passivation Treatments for Corrosion-resistant Steel".
S/S by SAE-AMS 2700 and S/S for DoD with ASTM-A967 (we actually have a customer who doesn't recognize ASTM-A967 and requires SAE-AMS 2700).
I believe in this case the S/S SAE document is verbatim of the AMS document, only control has changed, 98% of the time our PO/Work Instructions/Etc will state "AMS-QQ P 35", the B/P text.
Your opinions/suggestions and or information as always is appreciated!
Last edited by a moderator: