title block template = controlled document? 7

[joebk]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but here goes anyway.

I work for a company that is ISO 9001:2000 certified so document control is a big deal. All of our standards/work instruction/etc are controlled according to our ISO system.

Our title block is not currently a controlled document. So our template/title block can be changed without revision. Of course the main template is on the network and is read-only so it cannot be changed easily but it can be modified after a new drawing is created.

I am not sure if it is worth it to control the format of the title block within our document control system or not. Does anyone have any experience with this?

Thanks in advance for your help!

JBK

 

[swertel]

It should have a "form" number or other identifying number to it and put under revision control. It's highly unlikely you will ever create many revisions to it, but you must track it none the less.

And don't forget about your continuation sheets - the ones with the title block less signature fields.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[ctopher]

I have always done it the same as swertel. QA has control of the form numbers and revs.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[MadMango]

The drawing template is a "form" that is completed with data (the drawing and tolerances). Forms should be controlled in the ISO QMS system if they directly affect quality. It shouldn't be too difficult to add a form number on the templates you use.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[fcsuper]

Another way of looking at this is that each drawing is created individually, verified individually and approved individually. It is possible to set up your system to not recognize the title block as a document. The save bet is to make it a form though. On advantage is that this will help prevent others from making their own title blocks or editing the common one.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

 

[joebk]

Sounds like our title block needs to be a controlled form!

I would have posted this as a separate question but I think in the context of the thread it makes more sense to ask it here.

Our QA department claims that if the title block is a controlled form, every time we make a revision to it (rarely) we have to update every drawing we have to reflect this.

To me this doesn't make sense but maybe I am wrong again. I especially have a problem with this if something in the title block changes that could impact design (revised ASME Y14.5 standard for instance). Do we have to go through all of our drawings and revise our designs because a change to the title block was forced? I contend that old drawings can retain the title blocks they were originally placed on.

So if the title block is a controlled form and a revision is made to the title block, do all drawings have to be updated to reflect this?

Thanks again for all of your help. It is appreciated!

 

[prohammy]

If you are ISO compliant then all documentation that can be changed as part of an improvement to a companies processes MUST be revision controlled.

A drawing title block/ProE format is no different. In general a title block contains information that a customer/dealer/end user will require (tolerences, business address, etc). If these change and it impacts on anyone outside the company and they decide to introduce the change, then revision control is the only way that the information can be safely transferred to the required end point.

(I know it seems a tad retentive when it comes to something as mundane as a title block, but with ISO its all for one and one for all)

Kevin

“Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule” Nietzsche

 

[ewh]

While I agree that the format should be treated as a form and updated accordingly, I have found it to be much more efficient and economical to only update the format on any drawings which are undergoing some other change. To update the entire drawing library due to a simple format change is taking it too far, IMO.

 

[swertel]

No, you don't have to update each drawing in your library whenever you revise the title block form.

On your ECO, you should have not only an effectivity field, but also a disposition field. The disposition is typically a choice of 3: use as is, rework, scrap.

Obviously, scrap doesn't apply so you can either check rework - which means you will change every single drawing to update the title block, or use as is - which means you don't have to change any existing title blocks in your library. So you check use as is and you're done.

But of course you inevitably WANT to update the title block. Since the ECO doesn't force you to do this, you can do it whenever you choose to, like ewh does, when the drawing is undergoing a revision for another change. You can do this per ASME standards. Check ASME Y14.100, if it's not that one, it will point you to the right spec, to look up drawing revisions and when you can to a total redraw of an existing drawing. Or, when revising the drawing for another change, just include the line "updated title block to current standards" as a line-item change in the ECO.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[fcsuper]

From my own experience, ISO does allow for case by case handling of documents if one's system it set up for it. In the case of forms filled out each time where the form itself is not the subject of approval each time it's used (such as ECO's, Purchase Request forms, Planned deviation forms, etc) , it is necessary under ISO to control it. However, in the case where the "format" is subject to approval each time it is used, there is no need to release it as it's own controlled document if the system recognizes and handles that scenario.

With that said, I will repeat that is my recommendation that it be a controlled document.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

 

[joebk]

Just had one heck of a conversation with our QA department. According to the completely insane ISO system they have defined, whenever a form is changed ANY and ALL documents that are on that form must also be updated.

So consider this; we have a template (ISO form) for our work instructions that is filled out as required. Our work instructions number in the thousands at this point. If the work instruction template/form is EVER updated every single work instruction must also be updated. Even work instruction for components we no longer manufacture. So they copy and paste thousands of Word documents back and forth, print out reams of paper copies (we are not yet paperless to my dismay), fill out distribution forms, and file them all.

They have done this just because of misspellings (multiple times I might add)!

So I asked them if they revised all of our old completed ECO/ECR/ECN documents every time these forms are revised. At that point the QA machine ground to a halt. GRRRR.

To me this is busy work just for the sake of busy work (money down the toilet). I totally agree that the template/form should be updated as revisions are made to a document but this is nuts. No wonder the QA folks complain about not having enough time to check parts.

Here ends the off topic rant.

So I give up. There is no freakin way I am going to revise a couple thousand drawings (including old hand drawings, and legacy CAD drawings) because we want to update the title block. We will change it and leave it out of the ISO monster they have created and hope that in the future someone with reason sees the light. This is a shame because I think the title block should be controlled via ISO but the system as is is SNAFU.

Thank you all for your help!

 

[ctopher]

Seems like the last company I worked at. I happy not to do that anymore!

Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[ewh]

Think of the OT!

 

[swertel]

OT! I'm salaried exempt. I rather rewrite the ISO SOP to allow for as needed change.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[ewh]

Sorry about that. I held out for salaried non-exempt myself, thus my line of thinking! Even so, I wouldn't look forward to all that busy work either. Stick to your plan of action until a few heads clear up about what they are asking for. Who is responsible for writing the change orders? That's a bit of work on it's own. Even a blanket order would have to list all documents affected.

 

[fcsuper]

JoeBK,

I would venture to guess that the Quality Dept you refer to is not aware of how ISO works. There is no reason to go back and update already released documents since those where released by what was then the standard. It is actually bad practice to change forms wholesale since the new changes may not be compatitable with the document as it was original released. It sounds like someone just wants to be tiny without regard to what is best for the business. I can't imagine the procedure actually says to do this either.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

 

[joebk]

I must admit I am not an ISO expert. I seem to be doing a lot of QA bashing lately, so all of you QA folks out there please forgive me.

To be honest I would be surprised if there was a hard and fast procedure, this is unfortunately typical. The QA folks tell me it is "to confusing to the people on the floor" to have a form revision and a revision on the document itself. Even when these fields are labeled "form revision" and "drawing revision" and the form revision label and text is significantly smaller. Gah! I am foaming at the mouth!

The kicker here is that we are referencing the latest ASME Y14.5 standard in the proposed title block. In the previous title block the last revision of the ASME standard is referenced. Hell, Some of the older hand drawings are straight from Germany and use the ISO standard. So if we change the title block on all drawings, in some cases we might be changing the design intent. But they do not agree with this either!

Ok, seriously, I think I am having a stroke at this point.

So I think your advice to let the situation settle so that cooler heads (and maybe some reason) prevail is my best bet. I am far to worked up about it at this point to do anything but get myself in deep you-know-what (wouldn't be the first time).

I think my best bet is to work on the economics of the situation, if this goes higher up I am going to sell the bean counters so I need the dollars and cents (not sense thank you very much).

Thanks to all for your help. Who knows what will happen with this mess.

"They can conquer who believe they can" - Virgil

 

[PSE]

joebk,

According to what you indicate, your ISO documentation states that if a form changes, all documents using that form require updating. Quite a bit of work. Your loophole is that it is unlikely that the ISO document controlling forms probably does not indicate the time frame by which updating all the documents must be completed. As such, you can determine the prioritization of implementing those updates (as compared to getting actual value work done).

From my point of view, I would let the format changes sit off to the side as long as there is value work to be done. "Perhaps" the format updates could be fit in during a lull period.

Regards,

 

[ajack1]

Unless I am missing something why not just rewrite your ISO manual?

Pretty much all it does is ensure you follow the procedures laid out in the manual, amendments are perfectly acceptable.

 

[PeterStock]

If the format contains information that affect a part (i.e. default tolerances) and this information changes in the format, those documents that use the format are altered in substance when the format is changed. That would mean that they need to be revised if the format is automaticaly changed. What I would suggest is that the format be renamed with each revision and only update the format in drawings as they are revised.

Peter Stockhausen
Pollak Switching Products