Informal Drawings being Used by Manufacturing

9

93ramvert

#1
I have encountered more resistance to the quality system, currently the procedures call for all drawings to be released as a formal drawing with title block, rev status, and approvals, etc. We recently had an issue where the engineer did not take into account a change to the drawing and put in an incorrect depth for drilling and taping holes which broke through material. All issues taken care, we came up with a fix and now it's time to come up with a way to make sure the fix worked. Any way a test piece was needed, and was actually done up on solidworks, but the engineer decided to say to heck with procedure and tried to get the piece made without it going through the release procedure because this test piece would basically be a throw away piece. He argued the point with the Pres. and here I am trying to see if anyone has ever been posed with this type of thing. It's really just a a way to say oh we need this now let's throw quality to the wind and do it. Personally I think it's crap. But I was told to see if there was a good way to do this.

Any thoughts anyone? Sorry so Long winded
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#2
Re: Informal Drawings

I have encountered more resistance to the quality system, currently the procedures call for all drawings to be released as a formal drawing with title block, rev status, and approvals, etc. We recently had an issue where the engineer did not take into account a change to the drawing and put in an incorrect depth for drilling and taping holes which broke through material. All issues taken care, we came up with a fix and now it's time to come up with a way to make sure the fix worked. Any way a test piece was needed, and was actually done up on solidworks, but the engineer decided to say to heck with procedure and tried to get the piece made without it going through the release procedure because this test piece would basically be a throw away piece. He argued the point with the Pres. and here I am trying to see if anyone has ever been posed with this type of thing. It's really just a a way to say oh we need this now let's throw quality to the wind and do it. Personally I think it's crap. But I was told to see if there was a good way to do this.

Any thoughts anyone? Sorry so Long winded
If all that was needed was a single piece for test purposes, why do you feel that a formal, fully-vetted print was needed? I presume that if the test piece proved out, the necessary changes would have been formally incorporated, no? It sounds to me like maybe your written procedure calls for something that might not be necessary, unless I'm missing something.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
Re: Informal Drawings

I have encountered more resistance to the quality system, currently the procedures call for all drawings to be released as a formal drawing with title block, rev status, and approvals, etc. We recently had an issue where the engineer did not take into account a change to the drawing and put in an incorrect depth for drilling and taping holes which broke through material. All issues taken care, we came up with a fix and now it's time to come up with a way to make sure the fix worked. Any way a test piece was needed, and was actually done up on solidworks, but the engineer decided to say to heck with procedure and tried to get the piece made without it going through the release procedure because this test piece would basically be a throw away piece. He argued the point with the Pres. and here I am trying to see if anyone has ever been posed with this type of thing. It's really just a a way to say oh we need this now let's throw quality to the wind and do it. Personally I think it's crap. But I was told to see if there was a good way to do this.

Any thoughts anyone? Sorry so Long winded
If all that was needed was a single piece for test purposes, why do you feel that a formal, fully-vetted print was needed? I presume that if the test piece proved out, the necessary changes would have been formally incorporated, no? It sounds to me like maybe your written procedure calls for something that might not be necessary, unless I'm missing something.
Actually, you describe a relatively common situation. In "document terms" here is what is really taking place:
  1. Despite FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects Analysis), the drawing was allowed to proceed to the next stage, PPAP (Production Part Approval Process)
  2. The design flaw was discovered/detected in the PPAP stage, at which point, production was suspended while a root cause analysis and a tentative Corrective Action were proposed.
  3. The designer made a "temporary" change to the initial design for a prototype "research" piece to be manufactured and evaluated for suitability to function according to the design.
  4. If the prototype research piece passes function evaluation, designer will "redline" the drawing as a new revision, getting approvals of the redline changes from the entire list of approvers normally used for ANY revision.
    (redline is ONLY used in lieu of formal revision when time to prepare complete new drawings and go through formal approval process would create economic hardship for supplier or customer or both.)
  5. Production may continue with redline drawing while designer works up complete new revision drawing which goes through formal revision/approval process.
  6. When new revision is ready, redline drawing is superseded with new revision, but there is no change in production which continues.
With modern computer drafting and combined manufacturing direct from computer assisted drawing, the concept of redline (once using actual red ink on the engineering drawings) may not be necessary because the computer can generate complete drawings incorporating design changes faster than a human can add red ink changes to a paper drawing. The same technology allows geographically scattered approvers to view changes on a computer screen via internet and add electronic approvals so formal revision could actually happen faster than formerly using redline approvals on paper drawings.

The important factor
is a prototype research piece may be manufactured WITHOUT a formal drawing or approval process. I am reminded of the days when design models of cars used to be made in clay with various folks tinkering with the design by adding or removing clay and then the final drawings "reverse-engineered" from the final clay model to build the sheet metal tooling for the production design. In concept, tinkering with the depth of tapping holes in a machined piece is the same process.
 
9

93ramvert

#4
Re: Informal Drawings

Actually, you describe a relatively common situation. In "document terms" here is what is really taking place:
  1. Despite FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects Analysis), the drawing was allowed to proceed to the next stage, PPAP (Production Part Approval Process)
  2. The design flaw was discovered/detected in the PPAP stage, at which point, production was suspended while a root cause analysis and a tentative Corrective Action were proposed.
  3. The designer made a "temporary" change to the initial design for a prototype "research" piece to be manufactured and evaluated for suitability to function according to the design.
  4. If the prototype research piece passes function evaluation, designer will "redline" the drawing as a new revision, getting approvals of the redline changes from the entire list of approvers normally used for ANY revision.
    (redline is ONLY used in lieu of formal revision when time to prepare complete new drawings and go through formal approval process would create economic hardship for supplier or customer or both.)
  5. Production may continue with redline drawing while designer works up complete new revision drawing which goes through formal revision/approval process.
  6. When new revision is ready, redline drawing is superseded with new revision, but there is no change in production which continues.
With modern computer drafting and combined manufacturing direct from computer assisted drawing, the concept of redline (once using actual red ink on the engineering drawings) may not be necessary because the computer can generate complete drawings incorporating design changes faster than a human can add red ink changes to a paper drawing. The same technology allows geographically scattered approvers to view changes on a computer screen via internet and add electronic approvals so formal revision could actually happen faster than formerly using redline approvals on paper drawings.

The important factor
is a prototype research piece may be manufactured WITHOUT a formal drawing or approval process. I am reminded of the days when design models of cars used to be made in clay with various folks tinkering with the design by adding or removing clay and then the final drawings "reverse-engineered" from the final clay model to build the sheet metal tooling for the production design. In concept, tinkering with the depth of tapping holes in a machined piece is the same process.
Well not exactly Wes, although most of what you described is correct, the drawing I speak of is a bolt with a hole through the middle to apply air pressure to the tapped hole to see if the "Redline Drawing" fix did the trick. Engineering had to design a bolt that would thread into the hole at torque specs, but also would accept a hige pressure air fitting. As I said they did this in solid works, and are putting it through the system to have it manufactured.

If as part of a corrective action it states that the fix has to be tested, shouldn't I expect that the proper procedures be followed in order to test the fix. I mean if an auditor comes in and sees this corrective action, and obviously there will be a lot of direction with it,and part of that fix is this testing fixture, he certainly could go through to see if that testing fixture was made in accordance with the quality system, No?:confused:

I quess what I may be looking for, is there a good way to side step processes such as formal drawings released to the floor, so that a one off part can be made but it will also fall with in a process so that it's covered in the case of an audit.
 
G

Geoff Withnell

#5
Re: Informal Drawings

Well not exactly Wes, although most of what you described is correct, the drawing I speak of is a bolt with a hole through the middle to apply air pressure to the tapped hole to see if the "Redline Drawing" fix did the trick. Engineering had to design a bolt that would thread into the hole at torque specs, but also would accept a hige pressure air fitting. As I said they did this in solid works, and are putting it through the system to have it manufactured.

If as part of a corrective action it states that the fix has to be tested, shouldn't I expect that the proper procedures be followed in order to test the fix. I mean if an auditor comes in and sees this corrective action, and obviously there will be a lot of direction with it,and part of that fix is this testing fixture, he certainly could go through to see if that testing fixture was made in accordance with the quality system, No?:confused:

I quess what I may be looking for, is there a good way to side step processes such as formal drawings released to the floor, so that a one off part can be made but it will also fall with in a process so that it's covered in the case of an audit.
Well, as I see it, the bolt with the hole through it is not a "part". It is not something that is deliverable to the customer. If you feel it must be documented, the CA plan can state "prototype fix will be tested by using a suitable fastner with a hole and fixture for applying air pressure to validate fix." The document control system exists to make sure that the right information is available, and the wrong or outdated information is not. If a sketch existed, it could be appended to the CA documentation with a statement "test fixture fabricated per attached sketch" so you have a record of the validation setup. Don't overcomplicate things. Document control exists to protect the organization and its customers from the use of incorrect information. I don't see that as a danger here.

Geoff Withnell
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#6
Re: Informal Drawings

...
I quess what I may be looking for, is there a good way to side step processes such as formal drawings released to the floor, so that a one off part can be made but it will also fall with in a process so that it's covered in the case of an audit.

Why not just have the engineer sign and date the print/drawing/sketch, and ask that the part be made and tested.

Note: the ISO standards do not require drawings to be "formally released with title blocks and cad files," etc. They simply require that information (data, docs) be controlled [to ensure the information is correct, current and approve]. You decide the method(s) that can be employed. Many progressive companies have several different methods described and allowed in their doc control procedure.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Informal Corrective Actions - AS9100DCl. 10.2.1 A-H Nonconformance and Corrective Action 12
T What constitutes a Management Review? Informal Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 10
A Difference between formal and informal Kaizen Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 6
Hershal Only THREE foods - Informal sharing of tastes Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 17
L Do "Informal" Internal Audits count? Internal Auditing 18
errhine Career limiting statements - Informal discussion with a manager Career and Occupation Discussions 13
G Supplier doesn't share drawings IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
A Design History File - Not ready to share the design drawings or Bill of Material US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
A FDA and NB audit of Engineering Drawings in DHF and DMR. Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
N Non traumatic edge - Remark in some of my company drawings EU Medical Device Regulations 1
R Supplier related drawings and verification of process requirements - Source Inspection AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
M Interesting Discussion Curious old drawings about electrical shock and safety IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
B AS9102 FAI & Lower Level Drawings - How should we perform the FAI? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
S Is it okay to store the design files (device drawings) at contract manufacturer location? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
S Ballooned Drawings and Engineering Changes Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
S Graphic Overlay/Membrane Switch Drawings Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
pbojsen Supplier drawings used for purchase orders Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 6
S Document control for tooling drawings (Document control clause 7.5.3) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
N DFMEA, Drawings and PFMEA of an Assembly Process FMEA and Control Plans 12
S IATF 16949 Clause 8.3.3.3 - Documentation of all Special Characteristics in Drawings IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
Q Converting Manufacturing Drawings from a Contract Supplier ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
R AS9102 - Are FAIs against a Customer Red-Lined Drawings Allowed? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
M McDonnell Douglas Specification Control Drawings Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 4
R AS9102 FAI with No Drawings Supplied AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
Q Drawings from Client - ISO 9001:2008 Clause 4.2.3 or 7.5.4? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
L How do you manage your Inspection Drawings? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
G Implementation of Customer Requirements in Drawings Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 1
P CMM measurement using 2D drawings Calibration and Metrology Software and Hardware 1
I NCR for Customer not updating their drawings AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 14
B Creation of CAD solid models using customers supplied drawings AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 7
F Marking Requirements on Drawings (Prints) Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 1
N Inspection Requirements & Engineering Drawings - Measuring Shaft Dia. Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 16
I Drawing standard (VDA) - Drawings in 3 different status VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 4
D Should Customer Drawings be controlled per AS9100 QMS ? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
T Engineering Drawings - Once a customer has signed off on an engineering drawing ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
B How do design drawings affect QMS ? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 8
S Product Registration - Assembly Drawings Japan Medical Device Regulations 7
M Computer System for Inspection Balloons in Technical Drawings Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 8
D Best Engineering Practices related to Top Assembly Drawings Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 6
B Shop Drawings that Integrate Information from a Database Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
J Inspection Software to Balloon Drawings and Create First Article Reports Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
S Supplier Quality with Prototyping Parts with no Part Number or Drawings ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
M Delta FAIs on essentially unchanged drawings AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
Z DPMO? Metrics for Engineering Drawings Six Sigma 1
J Thousands of Outdated Drawings/Prints - Help! Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
C Signing of Drawings and Technical Specification in Medical Device EU Medical Device Regulations 5
T Ballooning/Bubbling PDF drawings - My Dynamic Stamp AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 29
R In drawings, What is the K when is placed as temperature tolerance? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 11
D Redundant BOMs - Maintaining a Reference Only BOM on our Top Level Assembly Drawings Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 7
S Inspection to Non-Toleranced Drawings Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 10

Similar threads

Top Bottom