Cable Assembly Engineering Change Request Template

A cable assembly change request is easier to review when it shows the released configuration, the proposed difference and the exact material or order population that could be affected. A message saying “please use the longer cable next time” leaves too much unresolved: which length, which drawing, which order and what happens to work already started?

This editable engineering change request template provides those fields, a review register and a separate manual decision record. It includes a blank worksheet and a completed fictional example that deliberately remains pending. A filled request is a proposal for review, not permission to change production.

Download the change request and example

Download the engineering change request workbook. Use Blank request for a real proposal and Example to follow EX-ECR-43 from a proposed branch-length change through its unresolved review actions. Amber cells are editable. White columns check selected recording requirements.

The engineering changes guide explains how a change can affect previous sample conclusions and when additional evidence may be needed. This resource supplies a practical record for that discussion. The sample approval checklist remains the place to define the sample configuration and its approved application or production scope.

Identify the baseline and the candidate separately

Give the request a stable ID and its own revision. The request revision identifies the proposal being discussed; it is distinct from the assembly, drawing and BOM revisions. If the proposal changes during review, retain the earlier request and identify the new version so evidence cannot silently migrate between candidates.

Record the assembly number, current released revision, requester, request date, reason and reference package. Name the drawing, BOM and prior approval record rather than writing “latest files.” Describe the proposed revision as a candidate until the authorized decision actually releases it.

Include the requested effective order or lot and the exclusions. An intended future-order change does not by itself define what happens to finished stock, work in progress or delivered assemblies. Record the current manual decision in clear language while those questions remain open.

NASA's configuration-management guidance separates proposed changes, evaluation, incorporation of approved changes and verification of implementation. This template uses that broad distinction as context. It does not reproduce a NASA approval process or establish a certified management system.

Write one before-and-after statement per change

The change register provides six reserved rows. Use a short ID in its own column, such as CH01, and put the explanation in the neighboring fields. Include a document detail or item reference so another reader can locate the affected definition.

All dimensions and tolerances in this table are fictional teaching values. They are not recommended requirements or Zeakka manufacturing limits. An actual change needs the project's agreed datums, drawing and criteria.

Do not hide several unrelated changes inside “equivalent replacement.” If a proposal changes a wire, terminal and housing together, list the identified differences and their relationships. Record any intended unchanged features as a review premise, then verify them against the candidate documents. “Pinout intended unchanged” is more precise than assuming the revised build has already been verified.

Map orders, inventory, work in progress and documents

The affected-scope register has eight reserved rows. It separates the scope ID, order or lot reference, stage or location, quantity, current revision, proposed handling and responsible person with an evidence reference. The quantity column uses assemblies as units in the fictional example.

Use a number when the quantity is established, N/A for a document entry and Unknown when the population has not been resolved. Unknown is a question to investigate, not a zero. The workbook does not calculate a grand total because document entries, future orders and current material can represent different populations.

For physical material, make the population boundaries explicit. An open order balance may already include units in progress and finished units awaiting shipment. Listing that full balance and then adding both subpopulations would count the same assemblies twice. Identify disjoint stages or explain the overlap in a controlled attachment.

Keep documents in the register too. A revised drawing can require aligned BOM, label, inspection, test or packaging records. List only the records actually affected and preserve the released versions. If a document does not need revision, record the review conclusion and its basis instead of increasing revision letters merely to make them match.

Follow fictional request EX-ECR-43

EX-ECR-43 concerns EX-CA-43 revision A. A proposed enclosure route needs a longer J2 branch, from a fictional 180 ± 3 mm to 220 ± 3 mm using the same endpoints for measurement. Revision B remains a candidate. The request references released drawing and BOM revision A and prior sample record EX-APR-43 A.

The example has two change rows. CH01 records the dimensional proposal and the installation question. CH02 records the candidate drawing, BOM and label updates needed to keep the physical configuration and its identification aligned. No commercial connector substitutions are implied.

The current EX-PO-43 balance is divided into 50 units not started, 20 units in work in progress and 30 units in finished stock. Those are three separate portions of a 100-unit balance, not additional quantities on top of it. All remain under revision A in the example. The request contains no instruction to rework them.

A separate proposed EX-PO-44 contains 60 future units. It is the intended scope for candidate B after a later release. A document-package row lists the draft B files. A delivered-or-field population row remains Unknown, with action RV03 assigned to the buyer. This makes a scope gap visible rather than implying that no delivered units exist.

The current manual decision is Pending review. The approved scope is None. The future order is a proposal, not an effective release boundary. This completed example is a complete record of an unfinished decision.

Record sample re-review and the remaining work

The review register provides six reserved rows. For each action, identify the review or requirement, sample or document scope, owner, due date, status and evidence or next action. The example uses three actions:

• RV01: define and carry out the new sample and installation review for candidate B, with the customer engineer responsible for application criteria.
• RV02: review the build and test-document impact, including the dimensional method and the intended unchanged pinout.
• RV03: resolve the affected population, proposed quotation, timing and order changes.

The example does not prescribe a universal sample quantity or require every previous test to be repeated. Those decisions depend on the change, application and agreed requirements. Record the chosen scope and why it addresses the affected conclusions. If a check is considered unnecessary, keep the responsible reviewer's rationale with the decision.

A quality problem can be the reason for a change, but reporting the problem and approving the proposed response are separate records. Link an existing quality issue report where relevant. Do not treat a closed containment action as approval of a new configuration.

Keep the human decision explicit

The lower section records the decision and date, approver and role, approved scope, conditions and exclusions, evidence reference, effective order or lot, implementation owner and verification record. Complete those fields when the responsible authority decides; preserve previous request versions.

A limited decision should be equally specific. For example, authorization to make an evaluation sample does not release a production order. A production decision for one stated order does not automatically apply to all inventory. The record should preserve those boundaries in the authority's own approved wording.

Commercial follow-up also needs an owner. Identify whether quotation, delivery timing or order documents need confirmation, without assuming the technical review settles them. The workbook records the agreed references. It does not assign contractual liability or replace the parties' ordering arrangements.

After an authorized change is implemented, record which documents and material were updated and how the implementation was verified. That is a later event than requesting the change. Keep the actual effective order or lot reference with the implementation evidence so a future reorder can identify the correct configuration.

Understand the workbook checks

A used change or scope row needs all seven input fields and a unique ID within its reserved register. Review rows also check the listed status. Open and In progress display Review remains open. Completed with all fields present displays Completion recorded; a missing evidence field still displays Complete record.

These messages assess recording only. They do not validate dates, quantities, document contents, scope completeness or the quality of evidence. They do not detect a difference omitted from the request, verify that an approver has authority or authorize implementation. The manual decision does not change when a formula result changes.

IDs are compared by literal equality without wildcard matching, using Excel's case-insensitive comparison. Use one consistent ID convention. Keep unused rows completely blank. To extend a register, copy its formulas and expand the bounded duplicate-ID ranges together, then test a true duplicate and a missing field in the first added row.

Common questions

Does this file serve as an approved engineering change notice?

It records a request and the later manual decision if one is made. A completed workbook alone is not approval. Use the project's agreed release process and retain the authorized decision with its scope.

Can one request cover several orders?

Yes, when the affected orders and handling decisions are identified clearly. Separate requests or attachments may be more practical when the candidates, reviewers or effective boundaries differ.

Can old stock be used while a change is under review?

Record the actual authorized stock disposition. Do not infer permission or a blanket stop from the existence of this request. The example keeps identified revision A populations under their existing definition and leaves candidate B unreleased.

Send the proposal with its affected scope

Contact Zeakka with the current drawing and BOM, the proposed differences, affected order and stock references, and the decisions you need. For cable assembly sourcing, Zeakka can coordinate the selected factory's response, sample planning and quotation clarification. The customer records application approval and the agreed release scope.