ISO9000 does not give that statement, neither does it imply that statement.
In essence, all ISO9000 does, is the verify that you do things a
particular
way, and will always do things that way, until you rewrite your way of
doing
those things!
If I said, I will put my drawings on blue paper with pink spots, it will
meet ISO9000 standards, as long as I continue to do that.
I think he is talking about ISO drawing standards, which is different
altogether.
I feel for both of you, myself having to do both jobs, lol
"Gerard Farrell" <gerard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:jrydnZLlNajvzJvanZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thanks for the replies. In the scenario below, depending on the scale of
> the change, we would either save the part as a new revision (ge;
100-01-B)
> or as a new part (eg; 100-02). Drawings that had used the rev 100-01-A
> part would remain unchanged and new projects could use either part as
> required as they would be uniquely identified.
>
> What I'm trying to get my engineer away from is calling a part
> "ProjectA-100-01-A" and then on the next project calling the same part
> "ProjectB-100-01-A" because I feel that this means we can't tell from
the
> part name whether the 2 are really identical. What I want him to do is
> simply call the part "100-01-A" and on the drawing refer to it as such.
> Identification of the project should be a separate unrelated entity on
the
> drawing template.
>
> He however insists that ISO9000 explicitly states the the name of the
part
> should contain the project reference. We're not actually ISO9000
> registered but do want and try to follow the guidelines where we can.
>
> Gerry
>
>
>
> "Steve Reinisch" <stever@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:6d93e$47064686$d1d94462$3075@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>I don't know what ISO 9000 says but here is my theory:
>>
>> We have a low volume product that sometimes uses parts that are the
same
>> as in another product but we refrain from re-using the same part number
>> across projects. The reasoning for this is what if the part has to be
>> revised at design or in the future, this now changes the part for all
>> jobs it was used in. There is a specification for defining when a part
>> gets a new number but I feel it is just to dangerous and prone to
errors,
>> ie: someone not realising where else the part is used and changing it.
So
>> we just do a save as and give the part a new number for the new job.
>>
>> For comman parts ie; nuts screws etc we have a system similer to the
>> previous poster.
>>
>> Again we produce low volumes so this makes sense for us it may not for
a
>> different situation.
>>
>> Steve R
>>
>>
>>
>> "Cliff" <Clhuprich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:14sag3h19jngv209l4sm2jdme1ltigvssr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:39:35 +0100, "Gerard Farrell"
>>> <gerard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I have a general question about devising a numbering system for CAD
>>>>drawings. My engineer insists that every project we work on must have
a
>>>>set
>>>>of unique drawing numbers, even if the drawing is one from a pool of
>>>>standard components. To me this seems counter-intuitive; if a drawing
is
>>>>of
>>>>a standard part (albeit one that we get manufactured) then it would
make
>>>>sense to me to leave the number unchanged. Otherwise we have 2
drawings
>>>>of
>>>>the same part that have different drawing numbers.
>>>>
>>>>Does ISO9000 state absolutely that drawing numbers must be unique, or
is
>>>>my
>>>>engineer over-interpreting things?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>Gerry
>>>
>>> If you had a standard bolt used many places on many projects
>>> would you get them from diferent suppliers & from different
>>> boxes?
>>> --
>>> Cliff
>>
>>
>
>
|
