Control of a Harness Board - Our auditor wants the engineer to Control

[Coury Ferguson]

After reading all of the posts on this subject, I noticed that there is no identification to what type of Auditor suggested this.

Was this a Third Party Auditor (Registrar/CB), Internal Audit, or 2nd Party audit (Customer)?

I am not sure when this question is answered that the original points would change. I am just curious on what type of audit it was.

 

[iso factotum]

Corey:
It was our registration auditor.

Thanks.

 

[Stijloor]

My company manufactures cable harnesses. Our auditor wants the engineer to control a harness board. Any suggestions or ideas on how that could/should be done?

Thanks!

The auditor can not "want" things. Where in the relevant documents (the appropriate standard and organizational documents) does it say that this board must be controlled? It may be a great idea, and it would make sense, but your CB/Registrar Auditor can not impose requirements upon you....

Auditors are not supposed to make recommendations.

Stijloor.

 

[Big Jim]

Re: Control of a Harness Board

No, it isn't. The board is an assembly fixture.Since you mentioned that the harness design gets revised and changes over time and the assembly board has to to be reconfigured to reflect the latest revision of the harness, the board should be "controlled". Something as simple as identifying in a corner of the board the revision level of the harness being assembled there and/or the ECO number for the latest revision of the harness.

If you are going to control the board, this is as good treatment.

I'm still not convinced it is really a nonconformance.

That said, it may be easier to comply that it is to appeal the finding.

What I usually see in wiring cable manufacturing facilities is a template made from a CAD drawing and printed on a plotter. The template is then attached to a board, often with nails in place to guide the wires during assembly. There can me measuring issues if handled this way. Sometimes that is overcome by checking the dimensions of each printout, but more often it is handled by calibrating the plotter to the CAD software. The printout includes the normal blueprint identification blocks with the part number and rev levels that can be matched to information on the traveler.

Maybe that is what your auditor is looking for.

 

[Al Rosen]

The harness board is analogous to an injection mold or die casting mold. You should control the harness board the same way you would control the mold. This is to prevent making the harness to the wrong revision.

 

[Al Hector]

The harness board is analogous to an injection mold or die casting mold. You should control the harness board the same way you would control the mold. This is to prevent making the harness to the wrong revision.

I agree with Mr. Al Rosen
I worked before in a cable harnesses factory with customers such as BMW, VW, Daimler Chrysler.
It’s very logical that you should control your boards to be sure that the board drawing is in the same version with the product drawing. In plus when the board is build or change you should check that all the nails, pins (or whatever technology you use) and all info from the Board have the same change level with the product drawing.
How is made the control is up to you. In my previous company the control was made by the persons who was in charge also for product audit or by the quality inspectors (and were qualified for this).
The engineer who is responsible for board drawing print a small label in which is describe what type of board is, for which product(s) can be use and the revision level. He signs this label.
If are some problem are found during the control, the person who made the control should inform the board drawing engineer and this must fix all the problems.
After all the problems are fixed the person who made the control also sign the label and the board is approved and can be use to produce harnesses.
I wish you all the best,
Alin

 

[tyker]

The only organizations in your field that I have direct experience of have been in the automotive supply chain. For them, TS 16949 clause 7.5.1.5 would apply as it requires production tooling management including control of engineering changes, modifications and so on.

I've seen two different systems applied and, as an auditor, accepted them both.
Some organizations simply write the modification level on the board with an indelible marker.
Others give the board a tool number and keep records of when it was modified. In this case, the mod level isn't apparent on the board itself but the control still exists.

If you're not TS then just ignore me.

 

[AndyN]

Your auditor was off in a couple of respects, as Jan states.

The 'document control' procedure isn't the correct one to cite, and no auditor can want you to do something. However, they were somewhat correct in pointing out that these types of assembly aids/tools do need (for simple practical purposes) to be under a control of some type.

Since it may not be possible to look at the board and know what harness engineering version is assembled using it, it would behoove you to put some form of identification as to the eng. rev of the harness. This can be as simple as a 'Dymo' label. It's normal to keep a master list of these boards and to remove/store them to keep them from being damaged (which also might not be obvious) - pins being knocked out etc.

So, although articulated incorrectly, I believe your CB auditor was on the right track.......

 

[bobdoering]

I like the idea of having a controlled template (paper or, better yet, mylar) to lay on the board for each unique part configuration. I would actually control it as a "gage", since it is verifying the layout. It would be effective at assuring the pins are all in the correct location for each setup.

Just one suggestion - one size does not fit all!