Rules for Archiving Product Data?

old_woman Some time ago I started thinking about how long product data should be archived? I'm not finding clear answers. I've heard people say: "Store it forever". That's the easy way to 'solve' this issue. Other say: "Store it for (about) 20 years." This sounds more realistic. But then I wonder when to start counting. Is this after the data have been created? Or is this after the product has been released to the customer?

Someone else said: "Well, you should keep the product data as long as you have to service the customer's product." Good approach, but how long does the law require me to service a product?

Finally, I found there are differences between types of product data. Product data from medical machines is different from software code of a text editor, for instance. This made me wonder: Are there different archiving rules for different types of product data?

Is there anyone who can help me answer this question? The standards that I found (e.g. ISO 10303) are mostly about ways to store product data in such a way that you can read and edit it over time. Interesting, but not the answer to my question.

---

If You Read This and Like It, Tweet This to your Followers:
Rules for Archiving Product Data? http://twurl.nl/mjkwjx

Comments

  1. Hans (JLO)April 17, 2009 at 8:37 PM

    Samuel,

    You can find some useful information (in German) at the ProSTEP iViP Association website http://www.prostep.org/ (look for the VDA Recommendation 4958: Long term archiving (LTA) of digital product data which are not based on technical drawings)

    A citation:
    5.2 Aufbewahrungsfristen
    Bei der Aufbewahrungsdauer der Dokumente ist zu unterscheiden zwischen der Nutzungsdauer und der Archivierungsdauer dieser Dokumente im Archiv.
    Die Archivierungsdauer beginnt ab dem Meilenstein „End of Production“, welcher annähernd mit dem Zeitpunkt des letzten in Verkehr Bringens des Produktes gleichgesetzt werden kann. Archivierungsrelevante Produktdaten (einschließlich 3D-CAD- und PDM-Daten) sollten, unter Annahme eines 10 Jahre währenden Haftungsanspruchs und eines empfohlenen Sicherheitszeitraums von 2 Jahren, mindestens 12 Jahre ab dem Meilenstein „End of Production“ vorgehalten werden.
    Sind in anderen Zielmärkten längere Aufbewahrungsfristen notwendig, z. B. aufgrund längerer Haftungsansprüche, so sind diese genauso wie die zum jeweiligen Zeitpunkt aktuell geltenden gesetzlichen Anforderungen zu berücksichtigen.
    Dem jeweiligen Hersteller steht es frei, insbesondere die Dokumentation von Teilen mit erhöhter Bedeutung (z. B. sicherheitsrelevante, zertifizierungsrelevante, umweltrelevante Teile) länger zu archivieren.
    Nach Ablauf der Aufbewahrungsfristen dürfen Daten bzw. Dokumente gelöscht bzw. vernichtet werden. Dies gilt jedoch nicht für sachverhaltsrelevante Dokumente in einem laufenden oder drohenden Verfahren, wenn damit dem Prozessgegner die legitime Einsicht in diese Unterlagen unmöglich gemacht wird.

    Another "standard" mentioned on this website:
    Long Term Archiving and Retrieval of Product Data within the Aerospace Industry (LOTAR).
    In a white paper about LOTAR you can read:
    The duration of retention differs for the different types of documents. For CAD and PDM data there are differences for Design and Type Design Data. But it is expected to archive this data up to 99 years or furthermore on duration, belonging to the California product liability regulation.

    Regards,
    Hans

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownApril 17, 2009 at 8:40 PM

    Hey Hans, thanks for the info! This is the exact site I read this afternoon. The ISO standard I linked to is related to Step.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hans (JLO)April 17, 2009 at 9:08 PM

    Samuel,

    More German Law information (Compliance-Regeln für technische Dokumente) on:
    http://www.ecmguide.de/magazin/Compliance.asp?todo=de&theID=2128

    Regards,
    Hans

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMay 18, 2009 at 12:54 AM

    Optical data archiving www.phantomdatasystems.com

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment! Just log in using one of the formats and if you want me to get back to you. Otherwise comment anonymously.

Popular posts

Keep the Intranet Small

Image
This tweet by Jonathan Phillips ( @digitaljonathan ) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box. I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller? Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet  evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets. Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list: -            user requirements: users don't require large intranet -            search/navigation: searching and navigating a small intranet is easier than in a large intranet -            mobile: the content of the
Read more

Enterprise 2.0 Research

Image
There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study? Goals of the study To provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia; To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy; To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business; To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers; To analyse an
Read more

Innovation in Turbulent Times

Image
I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them. This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson." They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship. I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as
Read more