Question
Definition of FFF changes
About Form-Fit-Function changes leading to new numbers instead of a new revision.
What kind of changes does your company see as FFF changes?
I have had many discussions with ERP guys about this.
Some are extreme rigid: any Form, Fit or Function change should result in a new number.
In our company this would relate to about 90% of the changes being FFF changes. Which again would be a downstream nightmare.
What about these changes:material change
could result in improved functionality (better strength)rounds added to remove sharp edges
Form changedchamfers added to better aid assembly
Form changedholes added to be able to screw on new functionality
Form changed, Functionality addedmaterial has been removed to make the part cheaper
Form changedmaterial has been removed to make way for additional functionality
Form changed, Functionality addedribs added to strengthen the part
Form changed, Functionality improvedreleased revision has a fault.
Form and/or Function must be changed old revision must be replaced or reworked.
But should all these FFF changes result in a new number instead of a new revision?
One of the topics in these discusions was always about interchangeabilty.
If the revision is interchangeable then a new rev is allowed.
But what does that exactly mean?
Should the new revision be interchangeable:upwards and downwards
new rev can replace the old rev and old rev can replace the new rev.only downwards
new rev can replace old rev, but old rev cannot replace new rev
Another discusion topic was about traceabilty.
Revisions are much harder to trace downstream than new numbers.
So if you want traceability you must change through a new number.
The magic word here is effectivity.
With effectivity (date/lot/series) you add another dimension to your revisions.
This helps greatly in managing bom's and revisions.
No longer you need to revise all the way up the tree. Just specify the effectivy of the tree you want to browse through.
But how many companies are "effectively" using effectivity today?
Kind regards,
Olaf Corten
Olaf Corten | CAD/PLM Manager
Besi Netherlands B.V. | Ratio 6| 6921RW Duiven| The Netherlands
T: +31 26 3196215 | M: +31 644548554
- | www.besi.com
Confidentiality Notice:
This Email, and any attachments, may contain internal or confidential information and is intended solely for the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately.
What kind of changes does your company see as FFF changes?
I have had many discussions with ERP guys about this.
Some are extreme rigid: any Form, Fit or Function change should result in a new number.
In our company this would relate to about 90% of the changes being FFF changes. Which again would be a downstream nightmare.
What about these changes:material change
could result in improved functionality (better strength)rounds added to remove sharp edges
Form changedchamfers added to better aid assembly
Form changedholes added to be able to screw on new functionality
Form changed, Functionality addedmaterial has been removed to make the part cheaper
Form changedmaterial has been removed to make way for additional functionality
Form changed, Functionality addedribs added to strengthen the part
Form changed, Functionality improvedreleased revision has a fault.
Form and/or Function must be changed old revision must be replaced or reworked.
But should all these FFF changes result in a new number instead of a new revision?
One of the topics in these discusions was always about interchangeabilty.
If the revision is interchangeable then a new rev is allowed.
But what does that exactly mean?
Should the new revision be interchangeable:upwards and downwards
new rev can replace the old rev and old rev can replace the new rev.only downwards
new rev can replace old rev, but old rev cannot replace new rev
Another discusion topic was about traceabilty.
Revisions are much harder to trace downstream than new numbers.
So if you want traceability you must change through a new number.
The magic word here is effectivity.
With effectivity (date/lot/series) you add another dimension to your revisions.
This helps greatly in managing bom's and revisions.
No longer you need to revise all the way up the tree. Just specify the effectivy of the tree you want to browse through.
But how many companies are "effectively" using effectivity today?
Kind regards,
Olaf Corten
Olaf Corten | CAD/PLM Manager
Besi Netherlands B.V. | Ratio 6| 6921RW Duiven| The Netherlands
T: +31 26 3196215 | M: +31 644548554
- | www.besi.com
Confidentiality Notice:
This Email, and any attachments, may contain internal or confidential information and is intended solely for the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately.