We have had the same issues but with ISO/QS9000 auditors.
As engineers it is natural for us to have the revsion left empty for a new drw. But in the general document management world they always talk about issues or editions and those will always start with 1 or A for the first issue. Then it becomes more natural even for us to accept the fact that a new drw is set to 1 or A.
It doesnt really matter if its numerical or alpha controlled. I've seen both 0, 1 A and a dashfor the first issue.
Personally I prefer numerical but we set the first issue to A because of corporate standard procedure. Edited by: ankarl
What we do is to release a drawing at REV A "engineering release". Once we have built the prototype and is going to be manufactured by production, then we would rev the drawing after all who needs to sign the drawing agrees to REV B "Production release" or what ever the next letter in the REV block might be after prototyping has be completed.
Thanks for all your advise!! We will probably start with Rev A. The only problem I have with 0 (Zero) is that it's always been sort of the golden rule to skip letters or numbers that look the same, i.e. I's and 1's or O's and 0's. Thanks again, Greg
Ido an "Initial Release for Prototype" drawing which is started atrevision XA. All through the prototyping phase revision control is achieved by rolling up to the next letter (XB, XC, etc.), whilefollowing the "letters" rule. This helps us keep our various vendors fabricating the proper revision.
When something is ready fo production, theoretically a "Baseline Review" will be held of all engineering documentation, after which the entire data package is "baselined" at revision "-". Being an R&D facility, most of what makes it to production is licensed to outside the company. This allows the producing company to start at revision "-" when they start production.
The "release for prototype only" phase of R&D allows more freedom to make changes quickly as the project evolves. After baseline review, the more strict production configuration managementtakes over.
As is often the case in smaller companies like mine, this practice is not univerally accepted by all the engineers here. But as we grow and move closer to being a production facility, as well as and R&D facility, acceptance is growing.
I haven't been able to reference any standard or organization for this practice, it just evolved over years due to mistakes, and lessons learned from our larger customers- perhaps this will change if we are required by ISO or another organization to follow strict rules.
<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />
My company is ISO 9002. You basically summed up our procedure with your own flavor. ISO lets you make your own rules and procedures, you just have to keep reviewing your procedures and make changes to improve them. If a change does negative affect the procedure then you change back or improve it. ISO just make the whole company work by the same rules. Product repeatability and tractability is greatly improved.
Most of our procedures happen as result of mistakes also, but you learn from them and move on.
Keep up with what you are doing, it sounds like you are on the right track.
The topic of terminology used for engineering change revision is an interesting one and we are aware that different companies and industries use either Revision, Version or Issue for their drawings, models and document. Its is also common that companies use either alpha or numeric characters for pre and post production.
I wanted to respond to your post to let you know that we are discussing this topic internally at CSI and hope to be able to get back to you with some positive feedback.