Customer Drawing Approval - No approval signature on prints

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Customer drawing approval

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.

What if there were a space marked "Rhinoceros?" It would certainly be a point of curiosity, but there's no nonconformance if there's nothing in the documentation to tell what it means, and no one does know what it means. Just because the space is marked "approved" doesn't mean that the document isn't approved if the space is blank.

Here's the deal: If, in the juliov's situation, the CAD guy says, "I know it's approved because of where it is," I would ask how it got there. How did whoever put it there know that it was okay to put it there? There needs to be some form of documented way of moving a drawing (or other document) from one status to another, and a readily-discernible trail. If such a scheme is in place, and the depository of "approved" drawings has been duly circumscribed, then it's not necessarily a problem if some people say that they know the drawing is approved because of where it is. "Control" doesn't happen though, by conversation and tribal knowledge.

 

[JaneB]

Re: Customer drawing approval

what about the approval, being a quality doc shouldn't it have somewhere in the doc something that validates the doc? with an approval of sorts?

You say there are 2 kinds of drawings: a production print and a customer's print that is less detailed than the production print. If the customers' prints don't fill in the 'APPD' block, but the production print does AND if it can be reasonably & satisfactorily demonstrated that there is no chance that the two will diverge, then you could just write in a rule in your procedure that 'APPD is not filled in for customers' prints'.

But please note the 2 strong provisos there.

Jim's right in saying: "Control" doesn't happen though, by conversation and tribal knowledge.'

In fact, that always, but always! breaks down. The only question is whether it's sooner or later.

Clause 4.2.3 says you have to have a documented procedure that, among other things, 'shall define the controls needed ' ... to approve documents for adequacy prior to issue'.

So, what controls do you have?

(the box) only shows the person that drew the doc and initials

OK... but who is it that takes responsibility for saying 'this file/drawing is now correct and can be used, ie, sent to the customer? And where is that captured in your system?
You can write almost anything into your procedure & make it reflect what you do.

 

[jrubio]

Dear Juliov.

The PPAP Drawing (Is the Drawing supplied to the Customer) is part of the documents supplied in the PPAP (Level 3 and more levels) and if you receive the sign in the PSW from your Customer (OK), all the documents within are approved by your Customer even the Drawing with the revision level.

So the PSW signed and Contract Reviews signed are the approval of your Customer for all Document concerning a part.

Therefore the latest PPAP with the Drawing revision lavel is the approved from your Customer, if you want other becouse your production Drawing has changed you have to tell your customer to raise a new PPAP Drawing with the significant change and raise a new PPAP with the new Drawing (You can submit them a Draft with the change in order they can issue the new release).

If the Drawing with the rev level is supplied by your Customer, is your Customer responsability to correctly define well the blanks to fullfill, (Not yours).

Therefore the PSW with the revision level is the approval of your Drawing with revision level. Here you have your Customer approval.

And I would not raise a NC, may be to your Customer, not you

Dear JaneB

In the PPAP and in the system implemented in the Pattern Controls of Parts fot the part given and Customer given.

Generaly production Drawing are not the same than PPAP drawing (Control ones)

But for sure the Production Drawing, must have minimum the charasterists cover in the PPAP drawing, whether not raise a NC and hold the PPAP and stop shipments and raise a desviation document.

 

[jrubio]

Deleted.

 

[Colin]

Just because clause 4.2.3 states that documents must be approved, does not mean they have to be signed.

I come across this regularly, people seem to have an obsession with signatures. I also find that drawing templates and forms etc were often developed when signatures were the norm and they are no longer required.

Rather than raise an NC at this point, my option would be to check how often the system has broken down to see how effective the current process is. If it ain't broke ...... This is a logic I apply to most audit situations - sure, look at the procedure but look at the output too, that is more important in most cases.

 

[juliov]

Re: Customer drawing approval

Discordian, thanks for the input, I noticed that you mention a "drawing control procedure", we have a document control procedure but not a drawing control procedure, should there be a drawing control procedure as well?
controlled by Engineering? Engineering being part of the QMS should be following the QM procedures, thus, the revisions and approval of documents should follow the requirements listed under ISO9k2k. Comments?

 

[juliov]

Thanks for the input Colpart, what do you mean by the following statatement
"I come across this regularly, people seem to have an obsession with signatures. I also find that drawing templates and forms etc were often developed when signatures were the norm and they are no longer required.
you mention that signatures are no longer required, not clear on this, how do docs then get approved or could be controlled.

 

[juliov]

Thanks Javier for the reply, the question I do have is that the customer print has a blank "Approved by" block with no signature, the question is how does this align with the requirements of controled documents in ISO

 

[ScottK]

Re: Customer drawing approval

Discordian, thanks for the input, I noticed that you mention a "drawing control procedure", we have a document control procedure but not a drawing control procedure, should there be a drawing control procedure as well?
controlled by Engineering? Engineering being part of the QMS should be following the QM procedures, thus, the revisions and approval of documents should follow the requirements listed under ISO9k2k. Comments?

Based on the conversation so far, it sounds like your drawing revs need to be controlled.
If drawings are controlled you need a document to explain how they are controlled.
If you want to write a separate "drawing control" procedure or include the process in your document control procedure is up to you.

I included the drawing control process in my document control procedure.

 

[Ajit Basrur]

Re: Customer drawing approval

Discordian, thanks for the input, I noticed that you mention a "drawing control procedure", we have a document control procedure but not a drawing control procedure, should there be a drawing control procedure as well?
controlled by Engineering? Engineering being part of the QMS should be following the QM procedures, thus, the revisions and approval of documents should follow the requirements listed under ISO9k2k. Comments?

You can include drawings in the doc control procedure. It should mention how you number the drawings and how are they controlled akin to documents.