Our practice has been to keep the
drawings and Parts at the same revision level for custom made items.
In several cases we have found the need
to make changes to parts which have no effect on the drawing (i.e
adding a new AML or linking another related doc.) in order to do this
the part gets rev'd up and we are forced to include the drawing on
the ECR/ECN, to keep it's revision updated.
Another example might be where we have
a drawing of a part which has variants (color, size) if later on we
add a new variant to the drawing (drawing gets rev'd up) and the new
part starts off at Rev A which is now out of sync with it's
supporting drawing.
We have had many discussion in house on
this issue of keeping the parts and doc revisions the same, is it
really needed? And we are split on this topic.
What are other companies doing?
Is there a standard practice to which
industries follows?
Pro and Cons of each
One thought looking forward, if we were
to adopt a practice of not having BOM's on the drawings and having
the item numbers (balloon numbers) on the drawings reference the
sequence numbers in Innovator's BOM, this could reduce the
maintenance required for drawing updates. In this case the Parts in
Innovator would have different revisions then the supporting
documentation. Yet we also have a requirement to include the revision
of the part on some labels that are affixed to the products, of
course this would have to be the revision of the part and not the
supporting documentation. Now if this product is subbed out to third
party vendors, who would build according to the documentation, yet
told to mark the product a different revision would this cause
confusion?
I am sure there are others out there
who must be dealing with similar issues, and I am looking to hear
from you. What are you doing?
Thanks
Ron
Ron Dignard
Systems Integration Specialist
Allen Vanguard
ron.dignard@allenvanguard.com
Tel: 613-288-5583
www.allenvanguard.com
“Sustainable Capability Against Evolving Threats”