E
Re: "Shop Floor" Drawings vs. Design Drawings - First Article and In-Process Inspecti
I think my post has been mis-taken. To be a bit clearer than mud. I'm commenting upon on engineering drawings and engineering being 'released' from design offices to the shopfloor (though not completely but sharing more (not less) so products and services benefit).
And, I was making statements from an assumption of issuing only LDDs. Your point that another type of drawing could be at the toolroom/ modelling shop makes sense. The inspectors, I'm assuming, want a full drawing (like they've always used) and to know why the dimension is incorrect when they measure. The answer they normally get is to ignore it and the suggested corrective action to supply them an edited drawing. I thanked a number of good points - and before - replying to the OP. Then I set out other points to consider.
Good (informative) drawings (not to mention engg changes/revs) aren't always issued (e.g. to work). This can lead to a major task for someone outside the design office sourcing a better drawing. Especially if it has been CADified, databased, password protected, stored on a satellite server, cannot be printed etc. Speaking hypothetically: what happens when a piece of information is missing from a working drawing? I use an Assumption: that there is an information restricted (engineering) system in place. Can I reasonably predict/hypothesize behaviour will be something like this (with variation and other elements): the issue will be highlighted, a make-do with the working drawing will take place, the issue will begin to be considered more trouble than it's worth, the discrepancy will be ignored, it will be seen as irrelevant, if challenged on criticality then the response will be something like 'it's ok, no problem, 'they' know about it and this is an edited drawing'?
best
I think my post has been mis-taken. To be a bit clearer than mud. I'm commenting upon on engineering drawings and engineering being 'released' from design offices to the shopfloor (though not completely but sharing more (not less) so products and services benefit).
And, I was making statements from an assumption of issuing only LDDs. Your point that another type of drawing could be at the toolroom/ modelling shop makes sense. The inspectors, I'm assuming, want a full drawing (like they've always used) and to know why the dimension is incorrect when they measure. The answer they normally get is to ignore it and the suggested corrective action to supply them an edited drawing. I thanked a number of good points - and before - replying to the OP. Then I set out other points to consider.
Good (informative) drawings (not to mention engg changes/revs) aren't always issued (e.g. to work). This can lead to a major task for someone outside the design office sourcing a better drawing. Especially if it has been CADified, databased, password protected, stored on a satellite server, cannot be printed etc. Speaking hypothetically: what happens when a piece of information is missing from a working drawing? I use an Assumption: that there is an information restricted (engineering) system in place. Can I reasonably predict/hypothesize behaviour will be something like this (with variation and other elements): the issue will be highlighted, a make-do with the working drawing will take place, the issue will begin to be considered more trouble than it's worth, the discrepancy will be ignored, it will be seen as irrelevant, if challenged on criticality then the response will be something like 'it's ok, no problem, 'they' know about it and this is an edited drawing'?
best
