Hi All,

I am looking for some input from members with experience in participating in or creating Engineering Technical/Peer Review processes that are willing to share their experience.

I am reviewing our current process as I believe that we could be getting more effective review from the investment in time and energy that we are putting into reviewing our work.

Current Process Steps:

Design Complete
Review Team Selected (4 Mandatory 2 x QA 2 x ENG, + Optional Functions)
Design Deliverable Material Distributed (5 Days Prior to Review)
Review Held (Initial Physical Review Meeting for On-Site, Teleconference Offsite, Follow up with Non-attendees via email)
Action Item closure
Review Closure

In particular, I am interested in how others conduct Technical/Peer Reviews as part of their Engineering Change management processes?

Key Questions:

Who are the mandatory/optional participants, are roles assigned?
Does line-management attend the reviews?
How do you run the review, physical meeting, teleconference, pass-around, desk review...etc.
How is the review material distributed, hard copy, email, sharepoint?
How do you handle approvals, action items, re-reviews, go-no-go?
Do you measure the effectiveness of your reviews and if so how?

Do you have a best-in-class system in place?

If so I would appreciate it if you could share with me some of your experiences in relation to conducting effective and timely reviews of engineering changes and projects.

(P.M. very welcome from those with expertise or process examples to share)

I will post a copy of the final process to all that contribute positively to it's creation.

Regards & Thanks;

Derek

Not sure why "2 QA" would necessarily be needed (unless yor QA wrap up a number of functions that I'm used to calling "Project Assurance" or "Systems / Software Assurance" - i.e. looking not simply at process, but bringing other technical / safety / etc. standards, to ensure overall risks are better managed)?

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET

The 2 QA engineers represent different functions:

One represents design - Focus on Product
One represents manufacturing - Focus on Process

Can you give us a bit more indication what you are designing/what line of engineering you're involved with? Is it product design (the kind of thing that someone can pick up and carry away), system design (what sort) or even whole industrial plant?

-------------------------
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

A summary of the type of reviews that I am addressing:

Industry Sector: Medical Device Manufacture

Product Type: Life Support

Key Review Areas:

Electronic Design
Mechanical Design,
Pneumatic Design,
Manufacturing Process
Review of Engineering Investigations/Research
NPI
Change Control Review

.

Thanks. I can see now why you are concerned. Unfortunately, I don't think I have anything to contribute in your field.

-------------------------
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

I'm seeing a move away from "QA Engineering" as it was towards overall "Compliance Engineering" - which your QA guys may cover?

I see the need for manufacturing QA / QC input, but with "design QA", need to be sure who is covering things like:
- compliance with requirements
- compliance with standards (internal, external, technical, non-technical)
- legal compliance
- product safety
- EMC (if applicable)
- functional safety (if applicable)

etc.

I suppose some of thee can be covered by "Engineer", but your processes and procedures should ideally spell these things out so you can check competence of staff to carry out the requisite elements of the review.

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET

I see the need for manufacturing QA / QC input, but with "design QA", need to be sure who is covering things like:

- compliance with requirements

- compliance with standards (internal, external, technical, non-technical)

- legal compliance

- product safety

- EMC (if applicable)

- functional safety (if applicable)




etc.



I suppose some of thee can be covered by "Engineer", but your processes and procedures should ideally spell these things out so you can check competence of staff to carry out the requisite elements of the review.

I came across the following standard recently. IEEE Std 1028-1997,IEEE Standard for Software Reviews,IEEE Computer Society Does anyone know if there is a similar standard dealing with non-software reviews? Best Regards; Derek