RE: [PipingDesign] ISO 9001

From: <Ed>
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 15:04:00 EST

In our Design Build Shop's ISO Quality Procedure Manual(Overseen and maintained by a Quality Control Manager):

1.) Every Departments actual(emphasis on actual) Process Procedures are written down.

2.) All procedures are followed by the book. (We believe we are doing the right thing
anytime and everytime, why?..............because it is written down in our Procedure Manual).

3.) Internal Audits of the different stages of a Project is done, e.g. Bidding, Engineering Design, Fabrication, Installation and Job Completion & Closure.
From these audits or in the life of a Project, Corrective Action Request (CAR) are issued.
CARs are issued either for non-conformance or for procedural improvement.

4.) Continuous data tracking of pertinent procedural measurable are undertaken by each Department
with continuous procedure improvement as a goal, e.g. Engineering Drawing Revisions, Shop-Jobsite accidents/safety, Project Client Evaluation, Customer Complaints, etc.

5.) CARs are received and sorted by Quality Control Manager and presented to Quality Control Committee. Resolution of the CAR maybe the same or different than recommended resolution.

6.) A Team or Company Champion is assigned to implement the solution/resolution as directed(including the directing of the Quality Control Manager to revise and update the Iso Quality Procedure Manual; only QCM's are allowed to change the QPM).

7.) The Quality Control Manager maintains and updates a Car Log indicating determined root cause and appropriate corrective actions taken.

These are a few of the many things why I believe ISO works.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve McKenzie [mailto:Mechproj@xtra.co.nz] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:11 AM
To: PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [PipingDesign] ISO 9001

Since we are trying to be controversial, I will disagree with Geoff and say the various signatories should all have their own function although the details of the function vary from project to project. Five signatures is the most I normally see:

Drawn by:
Checked by:
Designed by:
Design approved by:
Project approved by:

oh, and I suppose "Client approved by": theres the six, ignoring "traced by" which is long gone. Sorry Geoff, I get the gong.

As I see it:

With design draftsmen "drawn by" and "designed by" are sometimes rolled into one, as are checked by and design approved by. The functions are fairly self evident; drawing is setting it on paper, and making it fit. Design is sizing, selecting, proportioning, placing and proving that it will work (i.e. finding no reason why it wont work). The draftsman works to the designers instructions. The checker verifies that the instructions have been complied with in an efficient and realistic manner. The design approver checks that the designer has done his sums right, that reference information (e.g. standards) are compatible, the input data has been sourced correctly, that the design has been requested and stands an acceptable chance of working as intended. He should also check interdisciplinary compatibility, although sometimes the project approver does this (mainly on smaller projects).
The project approver will ensure that all technical, quality and commercial conditions and requests have been satisfied and the drawing and associated documents are fit for issue to the user. In some cases a third party may be included in the loop. This is the (external) "client approved" by box. An example is when a HAZOP has been instigated by the client, and the client wishes to ensure that the outcomes are reflected in the design. Another example is when a client has requested a plant extension and an operability review is considered necessary.

In the real world there is normally an informal overlap between functions. For example the project approver may check a few dimensions just to satisfy himself. He may ask the design approver where the flow rates came from. Occasionally a draftsman may ask what the project order number is. However the individual functions do not overlap. In a well designed system, the further up the tree, the less input is required on an individual drawing. The signatures per day should be higher for the design approver than for the checker or else there is a structural problem. The design approver should finish his task quicker than a checker, for example.

This method of "accounting" has a downside, in that some engineers(designers) provide their draftsmen with substandard information. The draftsman spends excessive time per drawing trying to figure out what the enginer wants. The engineer looks cool because he charges so little time to each drawing. Any design manager worth his salt should pick this up through reviewing the sum of engineer plus draftsman time. It surprises me how often it slips through, though.

I agree with Geoff in principle that the drawing input may possibly be less than the checker input in some instances. However the checker input should not really be less than it was in the past depending on the information support system.
For a reliable design effort all five or six signatory functions are required although the titles of the signatories may vary (e.g. replace drawn by with designed+drawn by). This is most often indicated by repeat signatures.

In closing, I would like to presume that any software used in computerised design systems is either ISO accredited or has its decision making outputs checked by independent means. Is this so?

If so why does Windows still requiring the Start button to be pressed before shutting down (I assume a few of you use Windows)? Has anybody told Microsoft? If they have, what has happened the the client satisfaction feedback loop?

With all due respect to Ralph, I believe he would have come up with a top-notch QA system even if ISO had never been invented. He claims ISO is tops. I claim Ralph is tops and ISO is not required for him to construct an effective error control (QA) system.

My evidence?

"Christopher says determination and I agree. But on reflection, it must also be driven with passion." (Ralphs words)

I could find no mention of "passion" in ISO. However passion (or enthusiasm) is what I reckon makes things work.

Cheers

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Stone DD&D Australia [mailto:blenrayaust@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:03 PM
To: paul bowers
Subject: [PipingDesign] ISO 9001 QA

Dont you just love drawings with six signatures on them. You can guess most people would sign them oiff believing the previous or following signaturies have the time or will to do their job and actually look and try and find some
mistakes. Most times the last four just sign off a hundred drawings whilst making a phone call, shouting at their secretary, answering an email and spilling their coffee.

The most important team member is the checker. If the checker has been cut out
of the loop what hope is there. Perhaps that's what happened to the Roman Empire? When I was an engineering manager I used to budget for the estimator to
take 80% of ther what the drafting time was. Now drafting is meant tobe quicker
due to CAD the checker's time should be 150% of the drafting time.

First thing I check when I audit a job is the checker's file. If it aint covered in red, green, blue and yellow, out comes the defects notice book.



Design Detail and Development (a division of Blenray Pty Ltd) We specialise in pipe network and waterhammer analysis, pipe stress analysis, the design of buried pipelines and thermoplastic pipe systems.

Overseas tel 61 2 8850 2313 fax 61 2 8850 2313 Mail Address PO Box 1351 Castle Hill NSW 1765 Australia



Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Discussion List sponsor: Texas Flange - a good source for information on industrial flanges, all they ask is for referrals for designs they help with.
877-610-8924.
www.texasflange.com



Discussion List sponsor: The fluid flow calculations website - www.LMNOeng.com - LMNO Engineering,
Research, and Software, Ltd.

unsubscribe: PipingDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Discussion List sponsor: Texas Flange - a good source for information on industrial flanges, all they ask is for referrals for designs they help with.
877-610-8924.
www.texasflange.com



Discussion List sponsor: The fluid flow calculations website - www.LMNOeng.com - LMNO Engineering,
Research, and Software, Ltd.

unsubscribe: PipingDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Received on Mon Jan 20 15:04:00 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 09 2010 - 00:20:40 EST