Changing Design Authority

[swertel]

I have a unique situation that I'm having trouble balancing between proper revision control and configuration management. But, it is more of a drafting standard question so I'm posting here rather than the CM forum.

We developed a product using our part numbers. Now, the customer wants us to use their part numbers and CAGE code. But, here's the kicker, we still maintain ownership of the tech data package and are still the design authority.

How do we release a brand new drawing, under a new number and CAGE code, but still link it back to us (and our CAGE code) as the design authority and not lose the history of the changes that occurred to the drawings throughout development? In other words, link the new customer drawing to our now obsolete drawing in addition to defining design authority?

Typically, a change in design authority is registered during a revision of the print. But that only works for revising the print and the same part/drawing number. The original design authority CAGE code remains in the title block and the revision history states the new design authority. This problem is reversed. I don't know the proper way to handle it in terms of drafting standards or configuration management.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[PeterStock]

My suggestion would be to make the new drawings on you customers format with their part numbers. I would included a block on the drawing stating that the drawing was prepared by your company and that you retain design authority (I would suggest placing this directly above your customers title block). I would inclued your part number and revision in this block. On your drawing I would do a revision stating that further design changes will be maintained on customer drawing no. xxxxxx.

This is if you are not planing on using the product for other customers. If so, you may want to state in your block that the drawing is similar to your part XXXXXX REV X.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net

 

[swertel]

Peter, that was the direction I was heading. Thanks. Nice to know my thinking isn't too far out there.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[ctopher]

Scott,
What does the contract indicate? If they own the drawing, use their CAGE code and P/N.
If you own them use your CAGE code & P/N with reference to theirs.

Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[swertel]

That's the problem, Chris.

The contract says they get to apply their part number, therefore their CAGE Code, and that implies that they are the design authority. Which to a small degree they are. But, we still maintain ownership of the tech data package and the customer only has limited use rights to the data, even though it is their part number and CAGE.

So it's their drawing, but our data and our control, but we inevitably won't be the design authority after a certain period of time or milestone (I don't know those details). The last part of the problem, as stated above, is how do show the original design authority under the new drawing number? Once we put the data on the customer drawing, it will be the initial release of that drawing and imply original design authority was the customer, not us.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[looslib]

Use Peter's method. A note on the drawing saying designed by Your Company for Their Company.
Is your company going to be selling this design to others?
Is your company going to sell this product?


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[KENAT]

Depending on how the contract is worded...

Have a 'Source Control Drawing' created by the customer - or at least create one using their number, format etc.

Then have yourself listed as the approved source of supply with your part number listed.

I've seen some formats that actually allowed for 'contractors PN' in addition to the Customer PN, back in UK MOD work if I recall correctly.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[swertel]

About time you joined this conversation, Kenat.

We're still pouring over the details of the contract and Statement of Work. Up to this point, a Source Control drawing seems to be the best option but we need feedback from the customer if that fulfills the intent of the contract. A Source Control would be the optimal solution, but we have reason to believe the customer wants to see more detail than what is required on a Source Control drawing. Yes, I know we can always add more detail than what is required, but the level of detail requested is like redrawing our drawing on their format.

The more I get involved with the program, the more I realize that the planning did not anticipate this direction and the customer was not clear on what they actually wanted. They may have been clear, but it was not clearly expressed to us.

Thanks everyone for their feedback and ideas. Until we get a few more clarifications from the customer and legal, I need to have as many doors open as possible for ways through this mess.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[dgallup]

In the automotive industry the customer would just insert your drawing inside their drawing format & title block. It keeps things nice & clean but does make for a lot of oversize drawings.

 

[looslib]

Used to put lots of GM D-size drawings into TRW E-size drawings when I worked on air bags.
Ford drawings would have a TRW titleblock in the bottom right and a Ford titleblock in the bottom left.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[swertel]

That is an interesting idea. I don't think I have ever seen that, either in practice or referenced in a standard. Sounds like it implies dual ownership of the drawing with dual design authorities. An interesting concept, but I wonder if that would be acceptable in A&D.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro