posted 30 March 2001 10:37 PM              

Does anyone have a suggested format for a seperate dimension record form that the dimensions would be documented on, rather that the print itself?

posted 31 March 2001 09:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael36:
My company uses the actual fabrication print to record actual measured results next to the nominal dimensions. Problems occur when, mid-job, changes to drawings (ECRs) arrive that do not impact the recorded dimensions. New, updated drawings replace those that have dimensions already recorded. When this happens, either the dimensions have to be transferred to the new prints or the old version of the print is left with the job "for dimensional recording only, not for fabrication." You can see, either way is not very nice, and can beg for trouble...... Thanks.

---

When you say fabrication print are you refering to the actual controlled print that the product was approved to, or are you refering to some type of secondary print generated to use specifically as a tool to record measurement results?

Do you store the completed fabrication print as evidence that the process was monitored?

How can you have an engineering change during a process run that would facilitate a new print to be generated?

I guess I am looking for some more information about your process. In my experience the original print that was used during process approval is a controlled document and must go through a formal change process. I guess the "normal" process I've seen is to have an inspection sheet that was derived from master print tolerances. Also, I have never heard of a major engineering change (one that requires a new print) not going through a formal approval process, escpecially during a production run.

I'd like to hear more about your process, I get the feeling I'm not getting an extensive enough picture to give an educated response.

Thanks,