Renumbering Inspection Report Numbers, do you do this?
Close
Login to Your Account
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default Renumbering Inspection Report Numbers, do you do this?

    Example: 100 parts for delivery, 105 parts made (5 as extras). All are engraved with IDs + a sequence number

    During inspection parts 7, 23, and 65 FAIL. Parts 101, 102, and 103 are selected, engraving buffed out, then re-engraved as 7, 23, and 65, with the Inspection Report rows for those parts updated with the measurements from 101, 102, and 103.

    I've been told we do this because the Customer wants a contiguous string of sequence numbers with no gaps.

    How common is this?

    Not so much a complaint as a "sonar ping" on prevalence.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1006
    Likes (Received)
    1492

    Default

    I guess whatever the customer wants.
    However, I think on your in-house paperwork you should leave the original number.
    ie: 6,101,8... etc
    The reason being , if something is wrong with 7 you don’t want to be checking 6 and 8 for similar problems.

    You should be checking 100 and 102.

  3. Likes ttrager liked this post
  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    9,704
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    8026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ttrager View Post
    ...
    I've been told we do this because the Customer wants a contiguous string of sequence numbers with no gaps.
    OUCH....assume this customer not big auto.
    I think this a terrible idea but the customer is always right.
    So more like a serial number for shipped and I hope some way to track that back to actual run and your internal SPC.
    Do not make parts that do not pass and this not a problem.
    If parts scarp on a sub op how do you handle the part count or serial number tracking? Is it parts only on final that get numbered?
    If so is final inspection the last op and one just skips the bad? How to link to the actual run data?
    Bob

  5. Likes ttrager liked this post
  6. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    5,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5214
    Likes (Received)
    2063

    Default

    I don't know how common it is, but I really don't like pre-engraving the extras then removing their marks and re-engraving. Several reasons, but main one is that it looks like what it is: a deliberate attempt to renumber an individually tracked and controlled part. Could bring a lot of very hot questions a couple of years down the road, and entirely unnecessarily.

    I'd recommend leaving the extras entirely unmarked until and if needed. I'd also recommend a process that immediately destroys (not just drop in a wastebin) the failed parts, because the last thing you need is a pair of parts with the same number floating around.

  7. Likes Paolo_MD, jaguar36, ttrager liked this post
  8. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Missoula Mt
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    45
    Likes (Received)
    455

    Default

    I think it lead to a mess, in your report 7, 23, 64 failed but you shipped 7 23 and 64... are these the old bad ones or the new renumbered ones?? Or maybe 64 is a bad one you shipped by mistake and you junked the good 64...Phil

  9. Likes ttrager liked this post
  10. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Damascus, MD
    Posts
    1,609
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4849
    Likes (Received)
    908

    Default

    If the parts delivered to the customers have to be engraved with consecutive numbers, I strongly suggest having two completely different numbering systems: one for production (it could be a sticker, written with a sharpie, or engraved, whatever works), and one for the customer, engraved just before it leaves the doors of your shop. Of course, you need to keep a spreadsheet/database to track what production ID corresponds to what customer ID.
    Given that engraving the customer ID is done after inspection, you can keep them in the same order with the order of production.

    Example:
    Production:
    ABC001 (good) -> 001
    ABC002 (good) -> 002
    ABC003 (bad)
    ABC004 (good) -> 003

    Paolo

  11. Likes ttrager, Eric M liked this post
  12. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    132
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    51

    Default

    +1 on using Production ID, then assigning SN. Treat SN's as holy, never to be changed, then you get no duplicates or tracking problems.

  13. Likes ttrager liked this post
  14. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Iowa
    Posts
    3,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    88
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    I echo sentiments of the others- your internal SPC is basically holy, and the identity of every part produced, wether fail or pass, needs to be indelible, and for at least a half-dozen reasons.

    I would consider having two markings... perhaps the first is the PIC (Production Identity Code (which follows it from start to finish of process) and then the QCSN (Quality Assurance SERIAL number) Which is applied immediately upon passing all QA tests.

    If it were me, I'd make the PIC an encrypted alphanumeric, somehow etch it, or possibly make it in a bar or QR code if your shop process has capability to do so...

    And for the QCSN, make sure that number, when assigned, identifies the PIC, so it can be correlated to all date codes, batches, processes, and finally, the test documents supporting that component's successful passage.

    That way, a failed component is never awarded a QCSN, never goes out the door, but your Quality Control's defect history remains rock-solid and investigateable for every future need.

    The integrity of production history necessitates having all learned lessons retained, as the failures of our past came to us as costly tuition that should NOT be squandered.

  15. Likes ttrager liked this post
  16. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    I would like to thank each and every one of you for your considered advice, no matter the subject isn't overly technical.

    Didn't think about using a separate internal control number on the parts. I'll think that through even though that means two separate engraving cycles. Sometimes the precise syntax is identified by the Customer.

    I don't like how I'm doing this at the moment, it gives me the hives: Having to buff off the ID from the Spare to be used to replace a delivery part, engrave with the delivery part's ID, then update the Inspection Report line for the delivery part with the Spare's measurements. I get away with that at the moment because our quality rate is high, with few fails, in addition to our job batches being relatively low. Still, that's a messy process IMO, too much re-handling, multiple spots a mistake can happen.

    I'm going to think this through some more considering what each of you have said in this thread.

    Thanks much for your time, and I hope you are all well in this weird times we find ourselves in with business closures and what have you.

  17. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Phil,

    What is happening is the original 7, 23, 64, have been physically replaced with spare parts. The spare parts have been renumbered as 7, 23, and 64 and the inspection measurements for the spares are used to update the entries for 7, 23, 64.

    I don't like this. Lots of opportunity for a mistake, and basically data collection to facilitate future evaluations / metrics is disabled IMO.

  18. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Missoula Mt
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    45
    Likes (Received)
    455

    Default

    If you are going to do this why not number 7,23,64 as 7r 23r and 64r?...Phil

  19. Likes Eric M liked this post
  20. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    I'll think about that. Currently, I have an "intelligent" spreadsheet setup to auto-number rows and ID inspection point columns based on just entereing number of Parts and number of Inspection Points.

    I'll think about how I want to adjust the method.

    Thanks.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •