Since it’s written that way in the drawings, modifying the calculation sheet accordingly – is that considered cheating?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by Gusixicun on 2019-1-23 at 16:47. As the title suggests, I encountered a rather tricky problem at work. To help everyone make a judgment, let’s first explain the general situation. A product has three design stages: preliminary design, technical design, and construction design. (Please don’t focus on the specific names; I’m just using them to make things clearer. I won’t write them down exactly as they are, but I’ll try to be objective so as not to cause any confusion regarding the facts.) ) In terms of progress, things are not progressing evenly; for the same product, some components have already reached the stage of construction design, while others are still in the technical design phase. It should be clear that a product has only one design input document, but it can exist in different version states. Well, here’s the question: suppose there are two components, A and B. Component B is already in the construction phase, while component A is still in the technical design stage; therefore, the design documents for A will inevitably be outdated. So the question is, when reviewing Design Document A, can Design Document B be used as a basis for reviewing the delayed contents? Specifically, it means reviewing calculation sheet A to see if the parameters from design drawings B can be used My personal opinion is that the calculation sheet for A should be reviewed based on A’s corresponding design input documents. Although B and A have the same design input documents, they are in different versions, and they should not be used interchangeably. Please avoid topics such as project management and work coordination; focus solely on the design aspect in the discussion.
When reviewing Design Document A, for the delayed contents, Design Document B cannot be used as a basis for review
Of course, just what has been described above doesn’t qualify as hooliganism. “Where does the standard state that this usage is not allowed? ” That single sentence really choked me up~ :)
When standards do not explicitly specify how something \"should\" or \"is advisable\" to be done, it is recommended that technicians rely on their experience, use existing data as a reference, and base their actions on qualified finished products. When the standard does not specify it, no one should give arbitrary orders.
If A and B are exactly the same, I think it’s possible to do this. A slight difference means that the B design documents cannot be used as a basis for review.
Such problems are likely not isolated cases. When reviewing drawings, it should be done from a review perspective, in accordance with the input conditions; causality should not be reversed. There is likely a lot of \"reverse engineering\" going on these days – using existing equipment to create construction drawings and then design plans. Even in such cases, if there is no design input, there is an issue with the design process. One only needs to examine their own design management procedures to see this; I’m sure no organization would include in its procedural documents that construction drawings can serve as design input conditions
If A and B are not the same, they cannot be used interchangeably
The calculation sheet should be consistent with the drawings and used in conjunction with them