Mick wrote:
I have to deal a lot with Change Configuration Management. I wonder how much of these decisions were made at the floor level for ease of manufacturing without following through the proper paperwork via management? Particularly if extra screws were easy to be ordered in. Sloppy process control?
Like you, Mick, I've had some experience in change and configuration management, and policy and process development from my time at Shell. From what I've seen in their documentation BMC and Leyland Australia had robust engineering design and change control processes, which is to be expected from a major vehicle manufacturing organisation. I have examples of Drawing Office Instructions that have been checked and authorised, which are then translated into engineering drawings that are checked and approved for issue to production. The BMC Standards publication is quite voluminous.
It's sometimes said that some of the inconsistencies we talk about on here can be explained by poor process controls (e.g. they grab whatever item is close by on the production line or use a screw if a bolt or pop-rivet is not readily to hand) but after talking to some of the people who built the cars and examining the factory documentation I don't think that happened much, if at all. Now, getting production change data to the publications people and having it included in publications in a timely manner is another matter.
