Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

Engineering Change Order...Modification Order

#1
A new drafter, along with my boss, have suggested an "ECO Modification Form" that would allow us to circulate a review and approval form and then attach whatever change was warranted to the most recent ECO, modifying the electronic bill of material without adding a new revision and ECO number.
For example, the drafter found a 10 year old BOM that is missing the drawing number for the assembly. We would just circulate the modification form, and after review and approval, add the drawing to the BOM electronically and put the most recent change in with the most recent ECO (5 years ago).

Pros (theirs):
Fewer change revisions on electronic BOMs
Less data entry

Cons (mine):
Developing additional documentation and training for a system with definitions of what kind of changes could be made via this method; when:
We already have an robust ECO system, and who cares if a BOM goes to rev AZ over 25 years?
Loss of electronically visible data on when and why changes were made to an electronic BOM.
It just violates my sense of how to control documents. I don't believe adding changes to a five year old ECO is good document control.

Anyway, I am having a hard time defending my position or seeing why theirs is an improvement. Thoughts, pro or con, from the experts, please.
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Trusted
#2
Who sees the rev numbers? Totally internal, or do customers/vendors also see them?

Point being, even for totally internal with an auditor, ... if I saw two drawings with the same rev, and there were differences between them...it would go a long way toward making me not trust a single other thing you said or did. Even if the only difference was the font you used.
An approved rev locks out changes...period...end of story. If it doesn't lock out changes, what else did you change...and why should I trust that you didn't change something else?

What is the point of tracking revisions? If it is a valid point, track revisions.
IMO, if the revision isn't worth tracking, it isn't worth doing. If it's worth doing, it's worth tracking.
I'm a little surprised you're having a tough time getting that through...makes me wonder who you're talking to and what level of understanding they have.

If they want to save time and paperwork, revise your ECO system, don't bypass it.
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#3
A system that is owned by its users may be good enough to replace yours.

I would listen well and encourage further user participation.

Normally though an ECR (request) is made, reviewed and approved before the ECO is issued for implementation.
 

Mike S.

An Early 'Cover'
Trusted
#4
I agree with Ninja, I don't see how their proposed change maintains control.

If they are trying to streamline the process, maybe streamline the current process if possible (i.e. maybe allow electronic review and signatures if it is a manual paper system now, etc.) but making doc changes without changing the rev level just doesn't make sense to me.
 

Jim Wynne

Super Moderator
#5
You should be able to correct errors/omissions on the BOM that don't affect the assembly without a concurrent drawing revision. If your system doesn't allow this, there's a flaw in the system.
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Trusted
#6
You should be able to correct errors/omissions on the BOM that don't affect the assembly without a concurrent drawing revision. If your system doesn't allow this, there's a flaw in the system.
I'm always torn on that one...let's use a reference dimension for example (could be anything, including just being the company logo on the BOM...)

1. It seems like a waste to find a reference dimension omission the day after revC is distributed, and have to go through the whole process again to put it in...and end up with rev D.

but...

2. If you don't, you can now have two revC drawings that are not alike...one has the ref dimension, the other does not.

From what I said above...if I was your customer, and I saw these two different things...both revC...with no other way for me to know which was "current"...it would put a huge ding in my confidence in you.

Many solutions here, including:
- going to revD
- having a robust recall process to destroy all "wrong revC" and ensure only "current revC" is possible
- Having something like a 'sub-rev' just for those 'non-material corrections'...a faster, simpler process to make revC-1
- I'm sure there are other ways

Either way, any way, one of the points of rev control is to ensure that the most current information is being used, and outdated info is not.
"Correction", "fixing", "tweaking", whatever it is called...how is it being ensured that only the most current info is in use?
How can you show objective evidence that you have this under control?
Everywhere I've been, which includes systems that I put in place, it was done by moving to revD.
 

Jim Wynne

Super Moderator
#7
I'm always torn on that one...let's use a reference dimension for example (could be anything, including just being the company logo on the BOM...)
I said nothing about drawing changes. I said that if the BOM needs to be changed to correct errors or omissions that don't affect the part, you should be able to make those changes without a concurrent drawing revision.
 

JimS

Registered
#9
We allow that clerical corrections can be made - change logo, misspellings, etc - without a rev change if they have no impact on the actual design. What saves this is that it still has to be recorded in the rev table. A line is added to the rev block with the same revision, but in parenthesis, and the change, date, etc are filled in. This means that you don't have two Rev B drawings that look even a little bit different with no explanation. The rev table shows it and our SOP allows it. The released drawing is replaced with the new one so the one location for released docs has the current, updated drawing. The ultimate decision on when to allow this lies with Doc Control - me - and I'm pretty conservative on when to allow this.
 
#10
Who sees the rev numbers? Totally internal, or do customers/vendors also see them?
Auditors and production people.
Point being, even for totally internal with an auditor, ... if I saw two drawings with the same rev, and there were differences between them...it would go a long way toward making me not trust a single other thing you said or did. Even if the only difference was the font you used.
This is my point.
I'm a little surprised you're having a tough time getting that through...makes me wonder who you're talking to and what level of understanding they have.
VP Ops and a draftsperson...zero quality training, never read ISO9001.
I agree with Ninja, I don't see how their proposed change maintains control.

If they are trying to streamline the process, maybe streamline the current process if possible (i.e. maybe allow electronic review and signatures if it is a manual paper system now, etc.) but making doc changes without changing the rev level just doesn't make sense to me.
This is my take as well.
You should be able to correct errors/omissions on the BOM that don't affect the assembly without a concurrent drawing revision. If your system doesn't allow this, there's a flaw in the system.
I don't have to change the drawing. However, I maintain that the electronic BOM (that currently doesn't contain a reference to the drawing), needs its own ECO number and rev change if I "correct the omission".
I'm always torn on that one...let's use a reference dimension for example (could be anything, including just being the company logo on the BOM...)

2. If you don't, you can now have two revC drawings that are not alike...one has the ref dimension, the other does not.

From what I said above...if I was your customer, and I saw these two different things...both revC...with no other way for me to know which was "current"...it would put a huge ding in my confidence in you.
Exactly. This is also the sort of thing that puts auditors into a finding frenzy.
Many solutions here, including:
- going to revD
- having a robust recall process to destroy all "wrong revC" and ensure only "current revC" is possible
Possible, yes. But why create this improbable solution when you already have one that works?
Either way, any way, one of the points of rev control is to ensure that the most current information is being used, and outdated info is not.
"Correction", "fixing", "tweaking", whatever it is called...how is it being ensured that only the most current info is in use?
How can you show objective evidence that you have this under control?
Everywhere I've been, which includes systems that I put in place, it was done by moving to revD.
That is my experience, as well.
We allow that clerical corrections can be made - change logo, misspellings, etc - without a rev change if they have no impact on the actual design. What saves this is that it still has to be recorded in the rev table. A line is added to the rev block with the same revision, but in parenthesis, and the change, date, etc are filled in. This means that you don't have two Rev B drawings that look even a little bit different with no explanation. The rev table shows it and our SOP allows it. The released drawing is replaced with the new one so the one location for released docs has the current, updated drawing. The ultimate decision on when to allow this lies with Doc Control - me - and I'm pretty conservative on when to allow this.
These are corrections to an Electronic BOM. The "rev table" is contained in the electronic BOM.
 
Top Bottom