×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Change Authorization Documents

Change Authorization Documents

Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
Our current practice is to have the Drafter/Designer electronically add ALL signatures and dates (even for a new release) after the ECO is approved. There is nothing stopping them from making last minute edits (intentional or not). Then they create a PDF and publish the drawing.

My strong opinion is that an ECO only "Authorizes" the change to be made. The drawing still needs to be signed and dated, proving that someone verified that the approved changes where implemented correctly.

Can someone show me an ASME/ISO/AS Standard which states that if a drawing change is documented and approved on a "Change Authorization Document" (ECO, ECN, DCR, Etc.), than the drawing(s) does not have to be signed (physically or electronically)?

Thanks so much

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
Thanks for the response Ken, but I'm looking for something a lot more specific. I've found nothing in any of the ASME Y14 Series, DRM, Etc. to support the idea that a Drawing does not need to be signed if it is being approved on an ECO.

RE: Change Authorization Documents

Companies do what they want. And get the results they get. Last place I worked, they had the drafters print a copy of the drawing, which everyone signs. After that they ask for a PDF for Doc control, which may or may not match -at all- the paper that was signed. I think they were running 10% of released docs had incorporation errors. The best part was no one checked the CAD (that was controlled with a PDM system,) so it was even more likely that the CAD didn't match the signed drawing or released PDF.

It worked because they ran their shop off of unrelated shop process drawings which weren't approved by engineering, so it didn't matter what the drawings were like. Some drawings had parts called out that weren't in their ERP system, parts in their ERP that weren't on the drawings, et al. When required, the shop people would do their best but were not given the engineering drawings.

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
Dave,
Even though companies may do things differently, doesn't make it right. The reason we have National (and International) Standards, is to establish a baseline, defining a proven process by which everyone should comply to. The more we get off track, the harder it is to return.

Even when I see posts where people are saying things like, "we can't release drawings at REV - because our PDM/PLM/MRP/ERP doesn't recognize a "dash". Also, we can't skip I,O,Q,Etc. for the same reason." it infuriates me. It's obvious to me that they changed there process to match the software. Software should be built to support (at the least) Common Industry Practices.

We have to stand for something, or we'll fall for anything!

The ASME Y14 Series has been my bible, and I tend to be quite a bible beater. LOL

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

CAD Man sadly I've seen different definitiaons of ECR V ECN V ECO ... and what they explicitly cover.

I agree with your assessment that the typical 'ECO' is detailing what the change is & getting approval for the change etc. - it's not explicitly approving the drawing.

Places I've worked that took this seriously still only had one signature/initials go on the actual revised drawing though - the drawing checker. Idea being the drawing checker was 'checking' the changes were incorporated properly.

Don't see this kind of thing details in Y14.35 or Y14.100 though.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Change Authorization Documents

You sound like you're way too high strung on how to do things.

Which industry practices should software serve? All of them? Some of them? What about when some conflict with others?

ASME is meaningless in some circles. In your world and in my world, it means a lot. More in yours than mine, I'd say. Regardless, neither your world nor my world /is the universe/. It's kind like religions (especially relevant to you, a self-professed bible beater) and who can eat ham. Luckily (imo) I subscribe to rules that don't forbid the eating of those delicious mud-loving critters. I don't care if someone else's book forbids it. More power to 'em; just doesn't apply to me.

ASME doesn't try to tell you how to connect the dots in many cases, either, when it comes to document control. Not every /business/ /should/ conform to such heavy-handed practices.

If your company hasn't instituted their own controls to ensure conformance to effective practices that eliminate unacceptable risk (if there /is/ any unacceptable risk right now) then what makes you think they'd just flip over a new leaf because it was written in someone else's (your) "bible"?

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
JNieman,
You actually got me pegged pretty well. I humbly admit to being a high strung perfectionist. sad
And you are also correct that I shouldn't have to fix a problem that may not exist. Everyone else IS perfectly happy and we have never been sited on an audit, but we also have no record of having been audited for Configuration Control.

As far as I know, the only nationally recognized Drawing Standard is ASME Y14.100. All our drawing state "INTERPRET DRAWING IAW ASME Y14.100".

So the answer I am looking for is probably buried in ISO-9001 or AS-9100.

Regarding software, yes... All of them! It should be flexible enough to simply automate whatever process you used before.

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

CAD_Man,

Are you trying to comply with a standard, or are you trying to solve a problem?

Let's ignore standards, and look for problems you may need solved.

Your Engineering Change Requests (ECRs) allow people to request changes to documentation, either to fix spelling errors, or to fix problems with the hardware. This makes a to-do list of stuff engineering needs to review. It is the start of an orderly document change process.

Separate Engineering Change Orders (ECOs) allow you to assemble a drawing update task out of several ECRs. The ECO can be a straight work order, excluding all sorts of editorial content that was in the ECR. Your finalized documents ought to be stored read-only somehow (PDM?). They are authorized for release when there is an active ECO.

When you update the document, you should be checking it before you release it to production. What are you concerned about? Is it essential that the instructions on the ECO be followed to the letter? Presumably, the CAD monkey is an idiot, and the person who wrote the ECO is an engineer. Is it essential that CAD monkey solve the problem described in the ECR, somehow? They will be held responsible, of course.

The problem with a CAD administrator typing your initials into the CAD file is that you may not have authorized this. Does your PDM have a workflow that allows the people involved to check and approve the release, leaving an electronics trail. Do you want a physical or digital signature applied somewhere? Do you have a means to do this?

  1. We have a process called design checking.
  2. I used to live next door to Elvis.
Both the above statements are true. Are you really doing design checking?

--
JHG

RE: Change Authorization Documents

Sounds to me that you have a Configuration Management issue, not a drafting standards issue.
There is an Engineering Configuration Management forum on eng-tips that this would be a great question for.

I will point your to ISO 10007, EIA-649, and GEIA-HB-649 as a starting point.
My real recommendation, though, is that you take a training class in CMII from the Institute of Configuration Management (www.icmhq.com). NOTE: I am a CMII-P certified practitioner from ICM, so I'm a bit biased. But I do practice what I preach which is why I recommend it. Feel free to use me as a referral if you sign up or ask other questions on the CM forum.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
drawoh,

Our ECO process is:
  1. Our Highly Talented Aerospace Designers (or as you put them "CAD monkey's") are assigned an ECR, which they use to create an ECO in our ERP System (Oracle) and makes changes to Models and Drawings in our PDM System (SolidWorks PDM Pro).
  2. A PDF is made of the drawing, and given to the Engineer to review (no checker).
  3. When Engineer agrees that the changes are correct, he approves the ECO which sends it for parallel approval to all other functions.
  4. Once all approvals are received, the designer is notified. The Designer then adds approval Name/Date in the Revision Block (Adds for all function in title block on new releases).
  5. Designer then puts new PDF (with approvals) in a network folder which only designers have access to (this is where MFG gets them).
Yes... we do list several drawing changes on one ECO which I believe is already in violation of ASME Y14.35.

Yes... our PDM system CAN have a workflow that allows the people involved to check and approve the release, leaving an electronic trail. This would create a digital signature in PDM and on the drawing (Title/Rev Block). The CAD files would be read/only during the approval process, and approvers would have to enter their network password (which they have SOLE CONTROL of).

But we don't actually do this because the ENGINEERs claim that it's rhetorical. The culture here is that if you have approved an ECO, you have simultaneously approved the changes made to every drawing called out on the ECO.

I've always been told that an engineering drawing is a contract. But our "contracts" (drawings) are NEVER signed. So this is like signing a paper that says you approve of changes made to 10 other contracts. Then somebody types your name on those contracts.

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
swertel,

Thank you. I agree that it is related to a Configuration Management issue. But everything I research on CM always relates to software development. I have not found anything that defines or demonstrates CM as it relates to Engineering Drawings.

I will have to look up the Engineering Configuration Management forum and possibly even repost this question there.

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

Quote (CAD_Man)


...

But we don't actually do this because the ENGINEERs claim that it's rhetorical. The culture here is that if you have approved an ECO, you have simultaneously approved the changes made to every drawing called out on the ECO.

What the heck does "rhetorical" mean?

By "CAD monkeys" I mean CAD operators who have minimal skill and authority. The engineers may or may not have access to the CAD model. They examine the ECR, and PDFs of the drawings. They mark up the PDFs and they write the ECOs. The CAD monkeys receive the ECOs and they do what the heck they are told. It sounds like your engineers are very confident about this.

I am not familiar with ASME Y14.35. I don't see why an ECO cannot do multiple drawings and even multiple ECRs. You have the data trail. I have also seen places that do not use ECOs. The ECR does everything. This process is not as flexible, but it is simpler. Remember the KISS rule.

--
JHG

RE: Change Authorization Documents

CAD Man - ASME Y14.35M-1997 section 5.3 appears to allow multiple changes if I understand what you mean correctly.

Quote (Section 6.1.5)

APPROVED Column. Authorized signature(s), name, or approval indicator, as required, shall be entered to indicate approval of the changes(s) made to the drawing.

Implies to me that the drawing should have some visible indication of approval beyond reference to the ECO but I suspect "or approval indicator" could be interpreted as mention of the ECO.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
KENAT,
You're close. An "Approval Indicator" is something like a Quality Stamp, which is issued to and under full control of that person, but could also be the approvers initials, as long as your system can prove that person was the one who put them there. A good PDM System can support this.

If a designer is putting an peoples names and dates on a drawing, there is no proof that nothing was changed.

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

Another "approval indicator" is "see electronic record."

I'll share an anecdote. We do our very best to follow the rule that after a document has been approved in the data management system, NO ONE, not even Document Control, should modify the pdf file. (Yes, we still consider the PDF file the master.) This is not always possible with the nature of some requirements. This bit us in the behind during a recent internal audit where the implied release date on the face of the document didn't match the release date in the PDM system. Of course it doesn't, we never know how long it'll take for the list of approvers to review and sign off on the revision, therefore we usually type in the date as the day we started the routing workflow. That little inconsistency was considered a finding and now we either have to A) modify a released document to update the date or B) somehow clarify that the date on the face of the document is not the release date, but is closely related.

Why is this relevant to this thread. Because even before this audit finding I've been looking for a way to meet all the ASME and other requirements, not to mention convenience of being able to see approvers names on the document, without having to modify a document after release. It appears Chris is having the same problem.

@drawoh, I think "rhetorical" should instead say "redundant."

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

RE: Change Authorization Documents

The ideal is for the PDM system to stamp the PDF at time of user retrieval with the relevant information, including the date it was retrieved. CAD guy checks in PDF, which is locked, then reviewer review the in-PDM version and approve it. When last approval happens PDM software marks drawing record released.

Best way to foul it up - have someone print a copy and hand that around for signatures and then have drafter go back and generate a new version of the drawing but now with the release date. There is a 100% chance that someone will publish a blatantly wrong drawing that won't be caught until a supplier gets a copy and makes a call or an audit occurs. Then everyone gets a lecture on how important it is to never make a mistake rather than removing this obvious source of error that is carried over from ink on linen days.

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
@swertel,
Not sure what PDM system you're using, but we use SolidWorks PDM Pro, which can add names and dates to the drawing in real time during approval without any users having write access to the files.
This is done by the PDM System driving Custom File Property values which are linked to text on the drawing.

I have the process down cold, and would be happy to write an article on the process, but have never done anything like that before, and wouldn't know where to start.

What I'm struggling with, is that our drawings are NEVER signed or filled out by the person(s) approving them. They feel that approving the ECO, is the same as approving the drawing(s). So after the ECO is released, the drafter adds the names and dates, and creates a new PDF.

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

I have two answers to that specific issue.

1) The Drawing the ECO are two separate documents, therefore each requires their own sign off. Period.
2) We route the change order and the drawing with the same workflow, so when an reviewer approves his task in the workflow, both documents are approved simultaneously. One cannot live without the other.

#2 only exists because we create both documents at the same time and route them within the same workflow. The approvers are supposed to be reviewing both the ECO and the drawing during their step in the workflow. If, at any time, the documents aren't created or routed at the same time, then we would require two approval cycles.

Because our CAD data does not live within our PDM system, we don't have any linking of properties. Therefore, after the routing is complete the draftsman must manually enter the names and dates on the drawing, create a new PDF, and save that PDF in the "vault" as well as perform other file management tasks. At any time during the file maintenance (final release tasks AFTER the document has been approved and therefore technically released), too many hands touch the documents and we run the risk of inadvertent modification. Regrettably, this is the best process we have with the tools available to us. I am constantly looking at ways to improve the process or the tools in order to eliminate this potential source of error. It is very bad Configuration Management practice to allow this to happen. You may find the justification you need within the CM specs I listed above. Otherwise, see if you can get some CMII training; feel free to use me as a referral.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

RE: Change Authorization Documents

Companies should follow standard. If the document is approved by the ECN, then those are the changes made. If additional changes are made, they need to be amended on the ECN for tracking/history.
Unfortunately, I see too common people making changes whenever they like because they do not understand the concept of revision control, or configuration management. I rarely see two companies management document control the same.
This is not taught in school, so people make up new ways at the companies they start at.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks '16
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

RE: Change Authorization Documents

swertel,

I figure that with 3D parametric CAD, PDM is necessary because of all the linked files. If the CAD models are not under control, you do not know if they have been modified or not. Since they affect the drawing files and your PDFs, you have no way to contain document updates to within the instructions of the ECO. This is aside from the fact that PDM allows you to work on local hard drives and remotely on laptops.

You want the 3D CAD in PDM.

--
JHG

RE: Change Authorization Documents

KENAT,

There is up to a point. A long time ago when I administered a UNIX CAD network, I wrote a set of document management scripts. I had check-in, check-out, I implemented change requests, I locked down finalized files, and I logged everything. The files were mostly AutoCAD, PCAD and PordWerfect, and there was no file linking.

Any document management system for 3D parametric CAD like SolidWorks, must be intelligent enough to follow file links, and to recognize any features in a file that are driven by the contents of another file. File ABC.sldasm cannot be locked down until all its sub-assemblies and parts are locked down. If you do small assemblies, your document management person may be able to do this manually. Right now, I have an assembly with 3172 parts attached to it. I would not want to manage this manually.

--
JHG

RE: Change Authorization Documents

We have bigger files that get managed semi manually - basically once ECO is approved files get moved to a write protected area on our network. Our CAD has a reasonable file management utility that makes this just about workable but is still fairly labor intensive.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
@swertel,

You would be a lifesaver if you could PROVE that the Drawing and ECO are two separate documents requiring their own sign off?

This is what I am trying to prove. I've searched ASME, SAE, ISO, Etc.

The fact that you are a CMII-P certified practitioner, and have the same opinion as I do, gives me hope that there is something out there to fill this gap.

Without a standard to point to it is just another opinion, or "Best Practice" at best.

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

Even if you point to some standard that someone wrote, somewhere, you'll have a heck of a time getting someone to care about it if the company doesn't profess or require adherence to said standard.

The mere existence of rules does not necessitate conformance.

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
@JNieman,

At our company:
We state on our drawings that we are compliant to ASME Y14.100.
We state as a company that we are compliant to ISO 9001 an SAE-AS9100.

My JOB is to ensure that our Change Control process is in compliance with all those standards.

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

I understand, but the ideas are important to address before you are faced with the resistance, if you choose to implement changes or new rules.

Conforming to ISO 9001 is... well... cake. It's pretty broad and nonrestrictive, leaving companies to formulate their own solutions as they see fit.
AS9100, depending on your particular scope, can be relatively painless though there are still generic requirements. Some may be worse than others - my experience is only in the areas we include in our scope.


But if you're going to start pulling "shall statements" from ISO 10007, EIA-649, and GEIA-HB-649, I just think you should know whether or not ISO9001, AS9100, or ASME Y14.100 actually point to them at all. If they do not, you might be met with a lot of resistance to the idea of conforming to their rules. Unless they fix a glaring gap or lack of fulfillment of ISO9001, AS9100, or ASME Y14.100 requirements.

If you see some of the content of ISO 10007, EIA-649, or GEIA-HB-649 being beneficial to your department or company, you might have to actually go upstream a bit to get it adopted before going downstream to lord it over your peers.

RE: Change Authorization Documents

The company I worked the longest with assumed the change documents were the controlling documents and did not require a full suite of signatures on the incorporation. This for the obvious reason that the changes are part of the documentation and would be sent along with the base document to suppliers. They did have an intense check group that worked to insure the changes were incorporated as best as possible to the released changes. This for foreign and domestic military projects.

It is reasonable to proceed on that basis - one should not be able to retroactively tell a vendor that the drawing incorporation invalidates the changes they were previously sent. Errors in incorporation were dealt with by an immediate creation and release of a new change.

The problem is as always - one needs to have some document that condenses the exact change so that those working with complex documents don't need to spend a significant time to find the applicable changes that would be required if only fully incorporated drawing were released. That change document should also explain -why- the change is being made to ensure everyone can see that the change meets the goal. Because there are two documents, there is a chance they will not be identical.

This means that the best scheme is that the change and the incorporation are done and signed off simultaneously which eliminates as much risk as it is possible to eliminate. The signers of the change affirm they understand why the change is made, the particulars of the change, and that the drawing reflects their understanding of the effect the change should have on the drawing.

Unfortunately a system like that is unstable, because people are lazy and will tend not do all the work.

RE: Change Authorization Documents

Chris (@CAD_MAN),

Do your drawings have their own document (ID) number?
Do your ECOs have their own document (ID) number?

I'm going to go on a limb and say you probably do identify each of these documents with their own unique ID numbers. It's probably a non-significant sequential number other than a possible prefix to identify one of them as "ECO." Therefore, they are their own independant documents and therefore do require their own approval. How they each get approved within your workflow for streamlined efficiency is another matter.

The only proof I can provide via industry standards is to look at the actual change process. The ECO is the order for a change. Before a change takes place, in our conversation a drawing is revised, the change must first be approved. That means that the ECO goes through the entire approval cycle 1st, then the change is implemented (the drawing is actually revised). Once a document is changed, it needs to be reviewed and approved. This is the verification step in the change process.

These are fundamental steps in any change process. Implementation of these steps varies with every organization. But, with each step, there needs to be a set of approvals to know that the change is ready for the next step.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
Scott (@swertel),

Yes, Drawings and ECO's have separate unique ID's. For example, Drawing Number 256-928734 will state "RLSD IAW ECO OPB-1615" in the Revision Block.

In our process (see attached) we make changes to the drawing based on the approved ECR. The Engineer will review the Drawings prior to submitting the ECO for further approval. Once the ECO is released, the drafter adds the names/dates to the Drawings.

Thoughts?

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

Your change process is exactly like ours. At one point in history (when drawings were still done by hand), the ECO would be created and routed before any drawing changes were made. As technology progressed, and as we kept having to revise the ECO because Drafting would find unexpected interferences after the change, requiring additional changes, the ECO became less of an "order" and more of a "record" documenting the WAS/IS or FROM/TO of the change. In order to capture all the changes and avoid multiple re-routes through the approval cycle, the ECO and Drawing get routed at the same time. Therefore, when the reviewers are approving the change, they are actually approving BOTH the ECO and the Drawing. Essentially one electronic signature approves two documents.

While the flow seems very efficient on paper, as any LEAN practitioner would attest, it is actually really bad. We're moving away from it.

I've attached the full CMII Closed-Loop Change Process diagram as well as the simplified rendition that shows the flow-via-forms. Each form is independently reviewed and approved before the next step in the process can be started. When looking at the full closed-loop process, notice that the documents don't actually get modified until the last step, in the upper right corner of the diagram -- the "document upgrade" is the change with the "user validation" as the sign-off steps.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

RE: Change Authorization Documents

CAD_Man,

Again here, I am not looking at compliance. I am trying to see what you are accomplishing.

Is your ECR generated exclusively by the engineer? What if a saleperson or somebody on your production line has a problem? How do they report it?

What does the ECR contain? If it were my system, the ECR would be required to describe the problem. It would be permissible to suggest a solution. In your system, it appears the ECR provides a detailed instruction on how the drawing is to be changed. The drawings appear to be approved for release from the ECR.

What does the ECO accomplish, that filling in the revision block would not? I would not care about your ECO. I would want your drawing to be correct.

In the handy, dandy Drawoh system, ECR entry would be accessible to everyone, engineers, production, sales, management, and even the cleaning staff.

  1. The originator fills in the ECR, describing the problem, and how serious it is. There would be a section on the ECR where they could suggest a solution
  2. Engineering reviews the ECR. They decide whether or not to fix problem and how to fix the problem. There would be a paper trail of markups, sketches and meeting minutes.
  3. If the ECR is rejected, it is archived. The cleaning lady's ass is covered.
  4. When the change is worked out, drawings must be released for correction. This can be done from the ECR. We can have a separate ECO system for this. The ECO would list the document changes. It would not list the reasons for the change.
  5. The drawings are released from the PDM vault to be changed.
  6. The drafter changes the drawings as per the ECO.
  7. The drawings are checked in and then reviewed for compliance to the ECO.
  8. The drawings are finalized then issued.
  9. With the issue of the updated drawings, the ECO is closed and archived.
  10. When the original problem is solved, the ECR is closed and archived.
The ECR is a problem reporting system. The open ECRs are a To-Do list of problems to be solved (or ignored). In many cases, ECRs are sufficient to release drawings and track revisions. This is a KISS option. An ECO system allows you to mix and match ECRs, and conveniently build work orders. If there are IP or legal issues with the information on the ECR, this can be kept off the ECO.

Managing PDFs and leaving 3D CAD files uncontrolled, is incomprehensible to me.

--
JHG

RE: Change Authorization Documents

(OP)
Scott (@swertel),

If I wanted to PM you (or any other participant) to create a more direct dialog, how could that be done? I don't see an option for that on this forum, without requesting their email, which then goes public.sad

I appreciate everything you provided and will look into taking a CM training class. For now I have ordered the book suggested by @cowski (Engineering Documentation Control Handbook).

I really was hoping to find a "Smoking gun" as to WHY the drawing and ECO have to be signed separately if not attached on an electronic workflow.

The closest I have is the fact that ASME Y14.100 states that the drawings need to be signed, and there is no standard stating that approval of an ECO listing that drawing counts as approval of the changes made to the drawing.

Thanks again

Chris Wilson
Engineering Services Manager

Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified Enterprise PDM Administrator

RE: Change Authorization Documents

If you do end up taking the training, please use me as a reference.

If you want to get in touch with me, you should be able to find my contact info on my website, linked in my signature.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources