Drawing Revisions on ITP ?

[motomartin]

Guys,

What is the thinking on doing this ?
Currently we reference company standards and drawings but no revisions - although the ITP is revisioned as a standalone doc.

We manufacture remotely to 3rd parties and also use 3rd part inspectors.

My thinking is that we use the ITP as the common document to confirm that we are all working to the same document - including inspection.

At the moment we only have proof of receipt of the updated drg from the supplier - no proof that it has been sent to the shop floor and they are using it.
Catching a problem at the next inspection stage would be too late.

Is this good thinking or is there another way ?

 

[XL83NL]

My practice (and Ive seen major companies requiring this) is to refer to revision numbers per referenced document/standard/procedure, as it will reduce or cancel out any potential causes for confusion on details, which may at first glance be small, but turn out to be major issues later.
This will be especially important to client standards and 3rd party standards or procedures, like NDE, which may require client approval.
Not sure what your field of work is but ..
* There may be significant deviations in rev 1 to rev 2 of the RT standard for e.g. RT examination of piping butt welds.
* There may be relevant changes to acceptance criteria on weld defects.
* There may be HUGE differences in client standards outlining NDE details like RT per line class, etc.
* What if you're construction according the wrong revision?

This is my personal opinion. I like to have things black 'n white in advance, before getting into a he-said she-said discussion.
There might be instances where revision of edition callouts may be redundant however.