ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION CONTROL HANDBOOK Configuration Management in Industry Third EditionFrank B. Watts EC3 Corp. download Engineering Documentation Control Handbook - 4th Edition. Print Book & E-Book. Price includes VAT/GST. DRM-free (EPub, PDF, Mobi). × DRM -. Product Documentation. Document Formats and Standards. Body of a Part Drawing. Body of the Assembly Drawing. Controlled Engineering Parts.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
Engineering Documentation Control Handbook: Configuration Management and Product Lifecycle Management [Frank B. Watts] on goudzwaard.info *FREE*. documentation and control pdf - read online now engineering documentation and control handbook to get on track right away and make the release of new. Get Free Read & Download Files Engineering Documentation Control Handbook PDF. ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION CONTROL HANDBOOK. Download.
The signature can then be lettered or scripted into the drawing title block. The same can be said for release, request, or change documents as well. Drawing Notes If notes are brief they are placed on the body of drawings such as deburr all edges.
They are usually given a separate part number and that number is referenced on the drawing body. Placement of reference documents on the assembly parts list is discussed in chapter 5. Body of the Assembly Drawing The face or body of an assembly drawing should contain: Prior to the general use of computers, the accepted practice was to place the parts list on the body of assembly drawings.
When the usage of computer became common, they brought a powerful capability to produce detached parts lists for materials ordering and control.
It was also too easy to leave them on the body of the drawing. The parts list should normally be on a separate detached list. With the advent of data processing the detached list can be obtained from your software system. If you have them on the body of the pictorial drawing, start a planned program to detach them.
As you grow, the parts list on the pictorial will be redundant to a parts list in a database. This redundancy requires wasted effort to input more than once and to reconcile list differences. It is not just confusing and wasteful; it is dangerous, as it allows possible diverging designs.
An exception to this rule might be for inseparable assemblies such as a weldment. In this case, it may be best to document all parts on a larger or multiple page drawing that shows their individual dimensions as well as the assembled dimensions. A reference letter should be used instead of part numbers for the pieces. Another exception might be wherein the company has one software system which feeds the parts list to the drawing as well as to other data processing systems.
In this case, the existence of one data entry is the desired result. Unless your systems are automatically connected, the conclusion should normally be to detach the parts list and not to develop a parts lists in CAD. A typical design pictorial drawing for the front-end loader is shown in Fig. This leaves numeric and alpha revisions for subsequent phases of release.
They were again revised to change the revision level to an alpha A when the team agreed that the item was ready for production. In start-up and smaller companies, the design assembly drawing is often used as the pictorial for the manufacturing assembly operator. With the advent of 3D CAD, this pictorial is three dimensional—a very powerful aid to production. The Manufacturing or Industrial Engineer will want the pictorial made to best suit the operator.
What one operator did earlier is now the job of two or half the job of one. Instead of preparing and changing these pictures to suit manufacturing, give manufacturing access to the CAD database to make production process pictorials as they require, without the ability to change the engineering database. This is usually required in companies that do not have an Industrial Engineer responsible for writing assembly processes—a much better tool for production than engineering pictorials.
This is discussed in detail later. The dash would be neither necessary nor desirable in actual application because key strokes do add up. The part number of both assembly pictorial and parts list documents is identical.
The revision level of both documents is maintained identically. Keep them that way to avoid confusion, even though all changes do not affect both documents. Some companies have chosen to make the two documents different item numbers and to cross reference by listing the pictorial number on the parts list.
Although less desirable, this is a workable scheme. It allows CM to only change the affected document, and to allow their revision levels to be different. This scheme favors the CM department, however, not the customers of the documentation.
This avoids requiring customers to look-up the correct rev. Start-up companies or companies changing their documentation system should seriously consider this issue. Established companies with a workable twonumber system should not change to a same-number system, unless they are changing their part-numbering system for some other reason. They have been entered because they are part of the design requirements for the product.
If the programmable electronic ignition was at this level, the program code part number of the latest software release would be shown as a referenced document. If the code were in the form of deliverable media—a CD for example—then the programmed CD part number would be called out in quantity one. Care must be taken when using this technique. This is necessary in order to develop proper product cost via the software system.
This is essential to the minimum control aspect of Engineering Documentation Control.
Unfortunately, many CAD systems do not allow security on the Revision Field, so you will have to achieve this control by policy and procedure. You will see this concept develop further in future chapters. Notice that the small tire changed in Week Most manufacturing systems have a similar effectivity planning capability.
In the front-end loader company, we program a report from our software system that looks like Fig 2. It will: Possibly have reference designators included in the body of the parts list if they can be obtained from a singular database. Have the same part number as the pictorial. Have the same revision level as the pictorial.
Show the release status. We talk more about this in the chapter on release. Units of Measure The parts list depicts the items Unit of Measure. Develop a standard on the allowable units. That is, will you allow use of inches, feet, spools, boxes of ten, ounces, pounds, pieces, etc. Someone ends up in the middle converting the unit used by design to the unit used for download. Some software systems allow for a difference and do the converting for you, but why limit the choices of software systems?
Why not standardize and get everyone on the same units? The CM function needs to address this issue. This is another way to bridge the gap between Design Engineering and the rest of the world. For the loader company, a screw, fuse, cassette tape, disk, etc. Some companies choose to use the suppliers catalog number and trust the supplier to maintain interchangeability. Using a supplier number, however, restricts downloading to that supplier. It is better to specify those characteristics that are important to you on your own document.
The envelope dimensions are shown. The body of the Source Control Drawing shows the supplier from whom downloading may download the item. How then does downloading know whom to download from? Regardless of what it is called, 2: The drawings need not be revised each time a supplier is added or deleted. Separate part numbers need not be assigned to each supplier. download in higher quantity and lower cost is achievable.
You might want to know why one should bother. Ask your downloading Manager what is preferred! Their reasoning is quite simple; they can negotiate a better price for the company when the supplier does not know who the competition is. Do not show suppliers names on the face of drawings nor use supplier catalog numbers.
Better downloading power and fewer drawing changes. An exception to this rule might be for a company that has made a conscious decision to adopt the one supplier policy, such as many Japanese companies do.
The important thing is that all three functions mentioned must agree to all adds and deletes from the list. I believe this is not a wise choice, since it will detract from their primary mission—fast and accurate Engineering Documentation Control. No matter who controls the list, an ECO is not required.
A short standard with a simple e-mail process with data entry controlled by QA is all that is required. Do not include distributors on the list. This is a form of insanity—much better to use the AML concept.
An example of a Source Control Drawing for our product nameplate is shown in Fig. These drawings are frequently tabulated. That is, a dash number part of the part number is assigned. In this case, two tabulations of the tire have been charted on the body of the drawing, denoting size variations of an otherwise identical tire. The question often arises, how many variables can be handled on one document?
The answer must be made in terms of the readability of the document. SAE 2. Lettering etched. Adhesive backing to withstand 12 lbs.
Test in 3 above to also apply after 5 year aging. Nameplate SIZE: Tabulations of similar items on one drawing should typically not exceed two variables. Easy readability on the part of the drawing customers is the key issue. Material to be ABS plastic. No rough edges 01 1. Tires SIZE: It is a lack of this document that often causes some people to want to control suppliers interchangeability by reviewing or approving all his design changes.
They are generally in a text format, but may have text, charts, graphs, envelope drawings, or combinations of these and other techniques. These take various forms and names. Whatever they are called, they are so important that they need to be a released document and under change control. This document must be agreed upon by the key company management. The key functions which must agree include; Marketing representing the customers , Design Engineering, and others as your President may designate.
This is a numeric revision level release that ensures that all subsequent changes can reach all the people who need to be aware. It should be the hymnal for all that work that would be done on this product. Every change to that document must be carefully distributed to all who are required to have the information. With special arms - 10 feet. Everyone should be in the same church, with the same hymnal, and on the right page even though everyone may not sing well enough to be in the choir!
This is the beginning of an ever-evolving product structure. The top-level assembly number with a one-item structure— the product spec. The CM requirements are incumbent upon the manufacturer. In the make-to-order company it is critical for Customer, Marketing, Design Engineering, and Manufacturing, to agree on the product parameters before a customer commitment is made.
Anything less than review and commitment from these functions risks late delivery to the customer, delivering something different than the customer expected, or in some cases not being able to deliver what the customer ordered at all.
One company was plagued with late deliveries of a make-to-order customized product.
Investigation showed that Sales was frequently accepting orders for feature and option combinations that had not been piloted not built or tested. The time to do the piloting was not considered in the Sales Order. In some cases, they found that they had to go back to the customer and explain that the combination of features requested was not a workable combination. The result was more realistic delivery commitment dates.
The ideal situation is to have a unique part number tab assigned to each sold combination. A later discussion of modular BOM will show how this was achieved. In the make-to-order company the manufacturer is responsible for assuring CM requirements. It is very important to reach an agreement on the parameters before committing delivery. Again, they constitute the most important design document. Sales, manufacturing, and the Design Engineering functions must agree on the customer requirements. The company order entry process must allow for a technically competent person to watch for such nuances and to add them to the customer print.
This also eliminates any probable error in conversion from one to the other and back again. If a supplier has several customers who may assign identical part numbers, analysis of those occurrences as well as the pros and cons of assigning our own number is necessary. On some occasions, however, the Design Engineer feels compelled to enter this arena.
For the FEL, the Design Engineer might feel that the printed circuit board cleaning method is critical to the product performance. A cleaning spec would be written. They are design documents and will be so treated in subsequent processes. It is better to specify the criteria to be met, and leave the manufacturing in control of the part or assembly process.
Use multiples of 8. Whenever possible, avoid using larger sizes. Paper stock is standard in these sizes. Those who are in a paperless environment do not need to worry about this issue. Most companies are not paperless; however, they are merely trying to create less paper.
This may discourage one form of industrial theft; however, do not rely on this note as a sole solution. Limit access to critical documents. Document Groups Divide all your company technical documents into categories: Support documents—Support or maintain the product. Manufacturing documents 2: An example grouping by no means complete is shown in Fig.
An example for this would be Quality Assurance documentation or Sales documents. It is desirable to make this simple distinction in order to determine the treatment of each group in further processes. Each document control function will control the masters for their group after release. Keep the responsibility for control with the organization that authored the document. Designate one of the control functions as the CM function.
This would, in most operations, be the design document control function. They will also be changed only by the change process and rules. To assure minimum control in all of the CM processes.
In fact, they may not be controlled directly by the design document release or change process. These documents should be maintained by the function responsible for creating them. They are released as a result of a product design release and changed as a result of a product design change or process change. The control systems managed by the functions responsible for them may be similar to design document control, but will probably be less stringent.
In the case of FDA regulated companies, the control of manufacturing process documents must be equally stringent as the design document control, but need not be controlled by the same function. Making manufacturing or support documents part of the design document process is likely to cause a distraction from, and a delay to the design document processing. Of course, the support and manufacturing documents must change as a result of many design changes.
This will be controlled by the overall CM process at the appropriate point. This is an easy rule to violate in a small company because the same person is often designated to care for design, support, and manufacturing documents. That person, however, can treat each type separately in preparation for the eventual split of responsibilities that should occur with growth. The support, quality, or manufacturing documents, if affected, must be updated as part of the change implementation.
The second step would be that the CM process developed must ensure that these documents are completed before closing the change. Each document control function can develop their document control practices within the overall CM requirements. Minimum control of all documents needs to be tied together into an overall CM system. The CM function will write the standards, and design the overall CM processes.
They will assure that the support documents and manufacturing documents are minimally controlled in the overall processes. To assure minimum control in all the CM processes. Indeed they can, because they most often are.
Does this mean that this condition is most desirable? Read the following exchange of e-mails and decide for yourself: Thanks for the knowledge you shared with all at the Doc Control course. I began applying what I learned as soon as I returned to work.
The timing was perfect in that we are reorganizing the quality system here. I am leading several teams in this effort and, as a result, I have an opportunity to impact how our processes will be restructured. One of my functional responsibilities is to manage the Document Control Unit.
Many managers feel that DCU should control just about every document produced on the site. What are good selling points to raise to get them to download-in to the fact that DCU need only control design documents and ISO procedures site procedures, level 1, 2, and 3, docs. The remaining documents generated are primarily Manufacturing and Support. Am I on the right track? Your thoughts? Thanks in advance. Let me try. That is why one of those functions typically engineering document control should be designated a CM function.
The CM function would tie together the various document control functions by writing standards and auditing same to assure that each is minimally controlled. As an operation grows, however, my premise is that the responsibilities should be split and eventually spun off to the organization that should be the owners of the documents. I believe this because the engineer who is good at design is generally not good at manufacturing processing or technical writing and vice versa.
The other critical point is that the tendency to bundle up all the affected documents during the change process is uncontrollable when the same function is responsible for their creation or control.
The bundled change is the slowest change. Thanks for asking, hope this helps. This is a subject that can have, and has, many volumes written about it. The subject includes product liability implications, engineering systems, software systems, etc.
The goal here will be to cover only the basic data management necessities for CM. CM must be the keeper of the design document masters after the appropriate point of release. The master may take the form of the original hand-drafted hard copy.
CM can thus control the revision level as it is released or changed. In the same sense that CM managed the print room, they must manage all design document masters regardless of the form.
The master in any form must be secured to CM. CM must be the only group who can assign revision letters or numbers. Can a note, stamp, or some other code be used instead of the revision level? Yes, but why add another factor to confuse the issue?
Its format might be any or a combination of several of those mentioned earlier. In one small CAD- based medical device company, the Engineering Services Manager took backup disks to her home almost daily. Hard-copy masters must be capable of at least two generations of reproduction. Golden Rule: If the CM function does not have rev control, the company does not have change control. Trying to cover all the known numbering schemes would take a book by itself.
A company with a fast growing future and, hopefully, the wisdom to see what is best for the future. As this is done, variations that might be more applicable for another kind of company or industry will be discussed.
Product Numbers and Model Number If you are a component manufacturer, or a make-to-print manufacturer, you may not have a number like this to worry about.
Most other manufacturers do. The nameplate should, of course, prominently display the product number. In the case of the front-end loader, we used FEL The important point to be conveyed to the company and to the CM people is that this number is not precise with regard to features and options, nor can it usually be changed to indicate when certain changes have been made.
It is, therefore, useless to CM. Part Number Cycle Sometimes, product numbers are used by sales without a precise part number. If a customer orders an FEL, just which options does he expect to get? By using a part number at the top level, the company can make sure that what the customer wants is what the customer gets. The diagram in Fig. If this part number cycle is broken at any point, the likelihood of error occurring is substantial.
If the Product number or catalog number is precise and unique, it should not be necessary for Engineering to assign a part number. The catalog 3: The other place where this chain is sometimes broken is upon making a functional noninterchangeable change.
A few companies even change the part number of the end product. After all, the product is also functionally not interchangeable. Interchangeability rules and issues will be discussed later, but in the meantime consider the effect of changing the end-item part number. It breaks the chain every time a functionally noninterchangeable change is made. This creates havoc with each noninterchangeable change. We need to know if the change is present or not, but changing of the part number of end items drives the Master Scheduler into orbit.
He or she just got done negotiating run quantities and rates between Sales, Materials, and Manufacturing, based on end-item part numbers. Does Master Scheduling now have to go back and reschedule the old and new part numbers based on the probable effectivity of the change, then reschedule it again because the effectivity plan changes? Customers will also notice the part number changing and question our design stability.
When possible, these changes should be transparent to the customer. Will reapproval by UL be required? This alone should rule out end-item number rolling.
This is why many companies do not change the end-item part number. For most companies, it is best not to break the part number chain. Do not break the part number chain. We want zero unhappy customers and zero product return or replacements. Breaking the part number chain increases the risk of sending the customer something different than was expected.
Version Numbers Most product manufacturing companies should have a method of identifying the noninterchangeable change content in each product. This is what the loader company chose to do. The software folks block off changes with the Release number. This is an economical approach with software because of the extensive testing that is required for each change. Be cautious before using the batching technique with hardware changes, however. The most economical point of incorporation effectivity of a hardware change seldom matches the next or the prior hardware change.
Methods of tracking changes to the end-item nameplate data will be discussed in detail later. What is the approximate content with regard to interchangeable changes? Precisely how can it be known that a unit is under warranty? If not, hope you do not end up in court with a liability issue. Again, this subject will be explored later in more detail. Serial Numbers A serial number SN is a number assigned to each individual product in order to distinguish that product from all others.
They are usually assigned in sequence per product or product family. Manufacturing normally assigns the serial numbers to each product. As companies grow, they may decide to build products in the same family in more than one plant. At this point, the blocks of serials used by each plant must be controlled in order to avoid duplication.
CM must assure 3: Serial numbers are typically assigned by Production Control at some point near the end of the production line.
The shipment date of each serial number must be captured by manufacturing for warranty purposes. Manufacturing must also track noninterchangeable changes to the serial number s they actually affect actual effectivity or to date, mod, etc. If you serialize, make sure you know the date shipped for each serial and the actual effectivity by serial number s for noninterchangeable changes. This is the essence of CM traceability Status Accounting requirements as well as a warranty control requirement.
There are several trade-offs that CM and manufacturing need to consider and agree upon with regard to when the serial number is assigned, and how changes will be tracked. All the factors discussed earlier need to be considered, as well as other factors, such as correlating test data to an individual unit.
Analysis of the best point in the manufacturing process to assign serial numbers may lead to: Use of a Manufacturing Control Number with later assignment of the serial number. This method is used with or without a mod or version number.
Make-to-order environments typically trace changes to the order. Thus, a noninterchangeable change affects all of an order, and all higher order numbers. Part Number These are the numbers we associate with parts, assemblies, and generally the product, in order to precisely identify them. No matter how good you are at anticipating the number of digits you will set aside for a given characteristic, at some point it just will not be enough. How do we avoid reinventing the wheel?
There are basically three methods for doing this. download a software system. There are packaged systems in the market that have served some companies well.
Naming convention. Make sure that the descriptions and name on the drawings are done with considerable discipline.
Your software system probably has the ability to do key word search. Devise your own class code in your database. Allows the Design Engineer to avoid reinventing the wheel. That is, to use an already designed item. Similarly, it allows the company to standardize.
In other words, it facilitates one to sort through similar items and to designate only certain ones to use in future designs. Other items would probably be phased out of existing designs and made obsolete for new design. This is very helpful to manufacturing when a critical part shortage arises. Allows the industrial or manufacturing engineer to produce similar items in manufacturing cells. It can also, for example, help in the machine loading of molding machines.
A good place for a young company to start is to write and follow a standard for noun names and descriptions Naming Convention. Standardizing terminology makes sense anyway. This standard should describe the nomenclature method and give sample document descriptions.
A Component Engineer is probably the ideal person to do this for larger operations. Preferred and Alternate Some companies struggle with their parts lists in the software system to try to inject preferred and alternate part numbers into their BOM. Put the preferred item in the parts list and thus into the BOM—the item which is best for the company as a whole. Do not put alternate s in the BOM. You normally want the best for your product as a normal condition.
When alternates are necessary, there may be several lesser choices. Engineering intervention is normally advisable in these situations anyway.
A standard may be required to indicate which engineering function can make this decision, whether or not a deviation is required, etc. The pros and cons of each are shown in Fig. Companies with more simplistic products take longer to breakdown than those with more complex products.
Notice that this recommended part number has the document number built in. The document number should always be incorporated in the part number. Avoids making and maintaining a cross-reference list. Avoids doing repeated cross-referencing—for all people—for all time to come, both ways. Some software systems have a limit on the digits allowed for a part number.
Cross references are generally suspect and should be avoided. Some things tend to be forever. Cross references will be used by all the people involved every time they have one bit of information, and need the other. They also waste a little bit of time every time a person has to make a crossreference—forever. They also introduce another possibility for error. It is used to delineate similar items on the same document.
It saves documenting time during product development. If you remember, both the front-end loader tires are documented on one tabulated drawing.
Similarly, we can tabulate assemblies and end products. This is also the portion of the part number that we will change on noninterchangeable changes. This will save making a new document each time we need to change part numbers. Always tabulate the part number. If you have an existing system that does not include this feature, add it as soon as it is practical to do so.
Saves some labor to prepare documents and to revise them. Allows change of the tab upon noninterchangeable change and, thus, is friendly to those many people who memorize part numbers. It need not, and probably should not be used in your part number.
Why do an extra keystroke with every data entry of the part number? Figure 3. A part number without a tab is like a ship without a rudder. This will not be done in this book for reasons that will be apparent later. These four processes must cover any product from inception to obsolescence—birth to death. The processes overlap almost totally. If, for example, we try to create all the documentation for a product before proceeding, then the need to release long lead items in lead time creates a quandary.
Shall we hold up the project until all the items are documented before releasing the long lead items? Shall we wait for their assemblies to be released? It is much better to design the processes to encourage an item-by-item release in lead time to produce, since that is the way they are needed and used. That concept of interchangeability has come to be expected in all manufacturing.
Items that are replaceable service items and the end product are expected to interchange, or reasonable notice be given. Many companies have CM standards and practices that date back to the early years of their conception. Industry standardization of certain CM practices began with the government during the space program in the late s.
In the late s, the Department of Defense DOD recognized that each agency and branch was developing its own set of standards. By the s, they had begun to adopt some industry practices.
The result is an IRS like, bureaucratic maze of forms and regulations. It is time for the commercial CM world to stand up and be counted. This book will answer the challenge and keep it simple—that is the goal! The terminology varies depending upon the company. There may be several documentation control functions in the company or division—engineering, manufacturing, service, etc.
One of these functions should be designated as the CM function—it will control the total processes by which all do business. The CM title is preferred when the responsibilities are generally as outlined in this book. If the results are very good, do not change the reporting relationship.
It can and does work well or poorly in any organization. Most companies have the function answer to Engineering. If engineering has the function and the described symptoms exist, reorganization may or may not solve the problems. Easily read eBooks on smart phones, computers, or any eBook readers, including Kindle. When you read an eBook on VitalSource Bookshelf, enjoy such features as: Access online or offline, on mobile or desktop devices Bookmarks, highlights and notes sync across all your devices Smart study tools such as note sharing and subscription, review mode, and Microsoft OneNote integration Search and navigate content across your entire Bookshelf library Interactive notebook and read-aloud functionality Look up additional information online by highlighting a word or phrase.
Institutional Subscription. Free Shipping Free global shipping No minimum order. Solid, pragmatic ideas for real product and process cost reduction. According to one reviewer: This may be good for quickly learning, but it will only take the reader so far. Watts imparts the same information, but invites the reader to think and to consider strengths and weaknesses of processes and procedures. The copious examples, illustrations and breadth of topics covered make this book "the" reference on EDC and CM.
English Copyright: Powered by. You are connected as. Connect with: Use your name: Thank you for posting a review! We value your input. Share your review so everyone else can enjoy it too. Your review was sent successfully and is now waiting for our team to publish it.