Configuration hygiene: In drawing management, is it important to establish a documented procedure and use systematic, consistent file naming so teams can find and identify the correct artifacts quickly and unambiguously?

Introduction / Context:
Technical organizations juggle thousands of drawings, models, and documents. Without procedures and consistent naming, people waste time hunting files, risk using wrong revisions, and suffer integration errors. This question checks understanding of basic information governance for drawings and related files.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Teams include design, manufacturing, quality, and suppliers.
• Files move through states (WIP, In Review, Released).
• Systems may include PLM/EDM with metadata and workflows.

Concept / Approach:
Procedures define who can create, change, approve, and release drawings; naming conventions encode identifiers (part number, revision, type) that complement metadata. Together they reduce ambiguity, enable automation (BOM roll-ups, MRP links), and support audits. Search tooling helps, but predictable names and processes remain essential to prevent mis-picks and ensure correct downstream use.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Metrics like search time, wrong-file incidents, and rework typically improve following standardization; audits become faster and cleaner.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Value exists beyond regulated spaces and multi-designer teams; search alone cannot encode intent or prevent misuse without conventions.

Common Pitfalls:
Inconsistent abbreviations; embedding revision in filename while PLM manages it; uncontrolled local copies.

Final Answer:
Correct