I am struggling with setting up a 2 level (Major/minor) revision system in EPDM. I would appreciate some feedback on the proposal bellow.
We have narrowed our options to the following:
Option 1 - Major/minor revisions are tracked in meta data.
Minor revisions for: correcting drawing typos, and part changes that maintain interchangeability.
- i.e if a revised part can be intermingled in production inventory with previous iterations of that part without any negative effect then minor revision is appropriate.
Major revisions for: changes that render the parts non interchangeable.
Revision Scheme: Major- A, B,C,D Minor : 01, 02, 03, 04
Major and minor revisions will only show in meta Data and will not be included in part number.
Note: For both options both drawings and models will have the same PN and revision.
Option 2 - Major revisions change the PN, only minor revision are tracked in Meta data.
Minor revisions: same as in option 1 and tracked on data card.
Major revisions: Changes that render the parts non interchangeable will trigger a PN change.
The part number will be a change to a dash number (very last character in PN). e.g 300-12345A
300-12345B OR a complete change to a PN.
For option #2, Only minor revisions will be tracked in Meta data.
Questions to group:
- Are there any users out there who can report a successful workflow for tracking two types of revisions.
- Which of the above two systems is preferred?