'Certs Required' note on drawings

[KimBellingrath]

I'm getting requests to add a note to various drawings stating that certs (sometimes both material and process verification) be supplied along with parts. I am accustomed to putting this requirement on the P.O. but never on the drawing. The thing that I am concerned about is that the next problem will be a request to specify lot size or individual part certs and that will lead to serialization notes and before I'm finished I'll be writing an entire spec as a drawing note. Many of these drawings would have to be extensively redrawn to fit all of this 'dialogue'. This brings me to what I would like to see as a solution: a 'Required Certs' spec which could be referenced by a short note on the drawings, like:

3. "CERTS REQUIRED PER SPEC#####.1.2, LOT SIZE PER 3.4"

Does this seem like a viable solution?

 

[KENAT]

Agree with ewh. The drawing gives requirements.

Detailing how to verify that those requirements have been met shouldn't generally go on the drawing.

Except as sometimes partly implied by GDT etc you don't detail how the part is to be dimensionally measured and how the results are to be recorded on the drawing. Why do it for material properties/process?

 

[ctopher]

ewh,
As usual ... I agree.

Chris
SolidWorks 06 5.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-27-06)

 

[McLeod]

John,

IMO, ewh and KENAT are right. A cert is not a design specification or a process, it's just one possible method to verify them. If a vendor did not have an established quality system, we might choose instead to sample and test every lot.

In my experience, certs end up on drawings when someone in the organization (often in R&D) does not trust the Quality Assurance and/or Purchasing groups to do their jobs adequately, and tries to force the issue through a document over which they have more direct control than an inspection procedure or purchase order. This is a misuse of the engineering drawing.

 

[MadMango]

One company I worked for had a separate area of notes (usually upper LH corner of drawings) called Quality Requirements, and listed COC and other items there that did not belong in General Notes. Not sure if it was right or wrong, but all vendors and internal inspectors knew to pay special attention to those notes.

[green]"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."[/green]

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

 

[fcsuper]

I agree with the majority that these kind of requirements do not belong on a drawing. The drawing's purpose is to full describe the part, not detail the procedures for ordering, receiving and using the part.

My company started making Purchasing Spec's which tells the Purchasing Dept what to except from the vendor. We also have QC documents that the vendor is often responsible to fill out. These are separate documents that are linked through our PLM in one fashion or another.



Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA

http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php