Page MenuHomeAleph Objects Inc

Including workmanship standard on all of our drawings
Closed, InvalidPublic

Description

Several of our suppliers have commented that they would like more call outs for aesthetics on our actual drawings, such as including facing information on all of our older drawings as well.

They also requested call outs for flatness and including some targets.
As well as a better way to highlight some of the more crucial critical dimensions.

Event Timeline

oliver created this task.Apr 18 2019, 12:53 PM
oliver triaged this task as High priority.
oliver created this object with edit policy "AO (Project)".
AOJAS added a comment.EditedApr 18 2019, 1:49 PM

Surface Condition Callouts, ABCD:
My explanation to Epocs Mfg Inc today regarding the surface condition workmanship standards explained that in general, a back facing area is a C face, a downward surface facing(non visible) or interior facing(non visible) surface is a D face, front and top facing areas are A face, and side facing areas are B. On drawings we submit to them, we need to make sure we utilize all of these in this manner so that our workmanship document supports our specification sheets.

Specification clarification:
Epocs did ask specifically that we provide a datum point for flatness and have "target" locations that indicate how we test. An example of how that might phrased with the bed mount plate is "Each corner is pressed flat and the opposing parallel edge is checked with "X.XX" pin gage), the unit is then flipped over and the process is repeated". We would indicate an example of the target area pressed upon(roughly around the masked area of the bed leveling post).

In addition to this, if we have an expectation of how flat the Mini Bottom Plate shelves should be, and how parallel they ought to be from corner to corner, as well as relative to each-other, we should clarify that on the drawing, because it gives them a target to aim for. I'm fairly confident they can make this part, but they would like to have a more detailed explanation of the importance of this feature backed by specifications. As they look at the drawings, they will likely be in touch with R&D to bring up any additional points requiring clarification(TBD: Establish communication between Epocs and R&D)

Hang points:
Epocs has asked that we indicate hang points on all parts that have ABCD faces. Ideally they will hang from a D side, but if that is not possible, then a carefully considered hole on a C face will suffice. If the area around that C face hole needs to appear a certain way, we would ask on the specification sheet that they double check the powder coat coverage around the hole post-powder coat, because they can do minor corrections post powder coating.

AOJAS added a comment.EditedApr 18 2019, 2:14 PM

Just as a side note, I know that in terms of prioritization, revamping every part's specification sheet in this manner isn't going to be possible to do all at once due to labor resource constraints. That being said, I would suggest that we focus these specification callouts and clarifications on parts that have consistently been a source of AO production bottlenecks across multiple suppliers. This more limited list of parts would include the bed mount plates(Taz/Mini), Mini bottom plate, electronics case(Mini), and electronics chassis/cover(Taz). This would help resolve the most serious production issues that suppliers have communicated to us.

AOJAS added a subscriber: jperry.Jun 4 2019, 12:04 PM

@AOJAS How much notice do you need for a full set of redgum sheet metal? I am going to try to get the meeting set up for review and definition of faces and will time it around that delivery.

AOJAS added a comment.Jun 6 2019, 8:48 AM

Notice to accumulate a full set of parts in QC? I don't usually let those parts accumulate, so to get a full set together for a review we'd need to pull them temporarily from backstock, or grab a completed alpha/beta build.

kent closed this task as Invalid.Aug 16 2019, 1:06 PM

This is a request for a change to the prints for parts, not a change to the workmanship standard.

BTW indicating the A,B,C,D faces on the prints (as we currently do) without providing our supplier with the workmanship standard (as we currently don't) is just going to cause more confusion and is counterproductive.

@kent The workmanship standard document has been provided to our suppliers.

kent added a comment.Aug 16 2019, 1:33 PM

Yes, to some of them but not at the time of the RFQ or at the time of the PO when it counts.

Not only that but the ABCD faces on the prints contradict the ABCD faces as specified in the workmanship standard, which is even more confusing and counterproductive.

These are solvable problems, but my point is we put the cart before the horse here.

@kent Fair enough, this ticket was only up because I believe it was PMM who requested that we put our specific workmanship standards on the designs.

kent added a comment.Aug 16 2019, 1:40 PM

That's fine, but those ticket should go on the board for the product whose source contains the drawings for the parts, not on the Workmanship standard board. Unless the request/suggestion is to change the workmanship standard.

kent removed a subscriber: jperry.Aug 16 2019, 1:41 PM