Company changes policy on revisions - is this used by others?
Company changes policy on revisions - is this used by others?
(OP)
Keeping this simple, our old policy was to use numbered revisions (1,2,3,..) for pre released documents and change to A,B,C... for revisions that were production released.
New policy is to keep pre production the same but to have 2 different types of revisions for Production released documents. It would still follow the A,B,C for revisions that affect form, fit, or function but they now want to have alfa numeric revisions for drawing changes that don't affect form fit or function. As an example a drawing could be A, then B, then C, then C1,then C2, and then D.
Is this a common way of controling documents? It's created some heated debate and like peoples opinion.
New policy is to keep pre production the same but to have 2 different types of revisions for Production released documents. It would still follow the A,B,C for revisions that affect form, fit, or function but they now want to have alfa numeric revisions for drawing changes that don't affect form fit or function. As an example a drawing could be A, then B, then C, then C1,then C2, and then D.
Is this a common way of controling documents? It's created some heated debate and like peoples opinion.





RE: Company changes policy on revisions - is this used by others?
The problem arises when some tiny change that _you_ think doesn't affect form fit or function, actually does have an effect that you didn't foresee on someone else's applecart.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: Company changes policy on revisions - is this used by others?
RE: Company changes policy on revisions - is this used by others?
If there is any change that affects interchangeability (form, fit, function...) or that just needs to be traced for some other reason then it should be a new part number.
However, this is going by fairly strict adherence to the relevant ASME definitions of revision. Many places fudge it to some extent.
I've never seen what you propose (though we do use combo alphanumeric occasionally for prototypes of changes to released parts).
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Company changes policy on revisions - is this used by others?
Form, fit function would still get a new part number. What I see as an issue is once a drawing is production released most if not all revisions will be minor, relative to form, fit, function. So why do an Alfa Numeric revision in the middle of strictly Alfa revisions. I see this as getting confusing for all involved, and would rather just continue with the normal Alfa sequence. The problem I'm having is I see no code or ? that says this not possible. it's hard to argue against something if there is no docmentation that says its wrong.
RE: Company changes policy on revisions - is this used by others?
Peter Truitt
Minnesota
RE: Company changes policy on revisions - is this used by others?
There are relevant standards ET50, though they may be a bit brief in some respects. ASME Y14.100 addresses some especially in section 6 (6.6 &6.8 in particular regarding new PN's etc.). Y14.35 is specifically about revisions though not as detailed as one might like.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Company changes policy on revisions - is this used by others?
Worked ok until an engineer makes a 'none' change that does effect the physical part (oops).