Inspection Processing Queue-Time

system · April 10, 2008, 11:57pm

Ari,

Either should work (Charlies idea re FA processing or my indirect labor entry notion).

Sorry for the rant. I'm a manufacturing guy who just happens to know a thing or two about computers.

I just lose it when computers are used as an excuse for not managing a process (or not having a process at all).

"Sneaker-net", eyeballs and the grey matter between our ears is the best application ever written.

Hope it helps.

Rob

Ari <ari@...> wrote:
Rob -

Valid points, all. Were you eavesdropping on the conversation I had
with the QC Manager? I basically told him the same thing: The system
is built to facilitate the flow of parts thru the process, not to
have them sit and wait. The existing data show evidence of parts not
moving - who cares why, just go fix it. It's not a "technology"
problem, it's a "process" problem.

He SHOULD have asked for an alert for any 1st article pieces sitting
in queue for more than an hour!

But he did indeed ask for some way to have the operators enter data
into Vantage when the drop the parts off. I was thinking of having
them enter something in the FA processing data, as Charlie suggested,
but the indirect-labor idea is a good one that I'll look into, just
to provide an answer to the QC guy (and avoid any finger-pointing at
ME! :) )

Thanks.
--Ari

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...>
wrote:

>
> I don't get it. If actual 1st article inspection is occurring up to

12 days after the 1st pc inspection qty has been produced - why
bother inspecting at all?

>
> The whole point of 1st article is to check quality BEFORE the

entire (or much of) the lot is processed (perhaps out of spec) at the
OP.

>
> I smell finger pointing. Either the shop supervision has to held

accountable to enforce the work rule of taking 1st article pc's
promptly to inspection (& putting a limit on how much continued OP
production can occur before the inspection results are in) - OR the
QC department is snowing you (and things ARE pending inspection far
too long).

>
> Probably a little of both. You need to communicate all the way down

to the operators & inspectors that the problem is unacceptable and
that both groups are jointly responsible and must work together
immediately to end the nonsense.

>
> If you really need a systemic tool to monitor this, try having your

operators do in in/out indirect labor report when they drop the
pieces off. (More non-value-added work!)

>
> That labor record could then be your start time to determine how

long things really sit in the inspection queue (via a custom report,
dashboard or tracker).

>
> In the end though, measuring it to determine where the problem lies

won't preclude the need for shoes on the floor and
management/training by walking around. You will still need to do that
anyway.

>
> Just do it now.
>
> Usually problems like this go away if people even just think you

are paying attention.

>
> Reports read in an office don't do make people think that.
>
> Seeing you on the floor (asking questions, nosing around) will.
>
> Rob Brown

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · April 10, 2008, 1:17pm

We have a report for our QC department that lists the First
Article "Queue" date/time, the "Action" date/time, and compares those
values to determine "Days in Inspection."

Often, the "Queue" date/time is nowhere near the "Action" date/time
(I've seen a difference of 12 days), and the QC manager insists that
parts don't sit in his inventory waiting for that long. If I'm not
mistaken, the "Queue" date/time is entered automatically when the non-
conformance is entered in the related operation. For any number of
reasons, the operator doesn't necessarly bring the first-piece to
inspection right away, leading to the difference in dates.

The QC manager is asking for an easy way to have the operator enter
his "drop-off time" of the parts into Inspection's inventory so that we
can report on that date, instead. Does anyone have a solution for this?

Thanks in advance!
--Ari

system · April 10, 2008, 1:45pm

If I remember correctly, a FA transaction to the inspection queue does
not happen until the Setup is started for that operation. That should be
the queue date/time stamp. You could probably double check that against
the labor transaction to see if they both have the same time (Setup
Start date/time vs. Inspection Queue date/time).

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ari
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:17 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Inspection Processing Queue-Time

We have a report for our QC department that lists the First
Article "Queue" date/time, the "Action" date/time, and compares those
values to determine "Days in Inspection."

Often, the "Queue" date/time is nowhere near the "Action" date/time
(I've seen a difference of 12 days), and the QC manager insists that
parts don't sit in his inventory waiting for that long. If I'm not
mistaken, the "Queue" date/time is entered automatically when the non-
conformance is entered in the related operation. For any number of
reasons, the operator doesn't necessarly bring the first-piece to
inspection right away, leading to the difference in dates.

The QC manager is asking for an easy way to have the operator enter
his "drop-off time" of the parts into Inspection's inventory so that we
can report on that date, instead. Does anyone have a solution for this?

Thanks in advance!
--Ari

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · April 10, 2008, 2:03pm

That makes sense and I'll check, Charlie, but that still doesn't solve
my problem. The QC manager wants to know how much time elapses between
when the parts *physically arrive* in the Inspection department and
when the inspector takes action on the parts. Using the queue time
doesn't give that information - it would show how much time elapses
between the start of setup and the time the part is done with
inspection.

--Ari

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Smith" <CSmith@...> wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly, a FA transaction to the inspection queue does
> not happen until the Setup is started for that operation. That should
be
> the queue date/time stamp. You could probably double check that
against
> the labor transaction to see if they both have the same time (Setup
> Start date/time vs. Inspection Queue date/time).

system · April 10, 2008, 2:16pm

Correct and for that you will have to customize the FA inspection record
to add a date/time field to the inspection. At that point you can
assign the inspector and enter the date/time it was received (or default
to the current date/time using the customization).

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ari
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:03 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Inspection Processing Queue-Time

That makes sense and I'll check, Charlie, but that still doesn't solve
my problem. The QC manager wants to know how much time elapses between
when the parts *physically arrive* in the Inspection department and
when the inspector takes action on the parts. Using the queue time
doesn't give that information - it would show how much time elapses
between the start of setup and the time the part is done with
inspection.

--Ari

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Charlie Smith" <CSmith@...> wrote:

>
> If I remember correctly, a FA transaction to the inspection queue does
> not happen until the Setup is started for that operation. That should

be

> the queue date/time stamp. You could probably double check that

against

> the labor transaction to see if they both have the same time (Setup
> Start date/time vs. Inspection Queue date/time).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · April 10, 2008, 2:24pm

I don't get it. If actual 1st article inspection is occurring up to 12 days after the 1st pc inspection qty has been produced - why bother inspecting at all?

The whole point of 1st article is to check quality BEFORE the entire (or much of) the lot is processed (perhaps out of spec) at the OP.

I smell finger pointing. Either the shop supervision has to held accountable to enforce the work rule of taking 1st article pc's promptly to inspection (& putting a limit on how much continued OP production can occur before the inspection results are in) - OR the QC department is snowing you (and things ARE pending inspection far too long).

Probably a little of both. You need to communicate all the way down to the operators & inspectors that the problem is unacceptable and that both groups are jointly responsible and must work together immediately to end the nonsense.

If you really need a systemic tool to monitor this, try having your operators do in in/out indirect labor report when they drop the pieces off. (More non-value-added work!)

That labor record could then be your start time to determine how long things really sit in the inspection queue (via a custom report, dashboard or tracker).

In the end though, measuring it to determine where the problem lies won't preclude the need for shoes on the floor and management/training by walking around. You will still need to do that anyway.

Just do it now.

Usually problems like this go away if people even just think you are paying attention.

Reports read in an office don't do make people think that.

Seeing you on the floor (asking questions, nosing around) will.

Rob Brown

Ari <ari@...> wrote: We have a report for our QC department that lists the First
Article "Queue" date/time, the "Action" date/time, and compares those
values to determine "Days in Inspection."

Often, the "Queue" date/time is nowhere near the "Action" date/time
(I've seen a difference of 12 days), and the QC manager insists that
parts don't sit in his inventory waiting for that long. If I'm not
mistaken, the "Queue" date/time is entered automatically when the non-
conformance is entered in the related operation. For any number of
reasons, the operator doesn't necessarly bring the first-piece to
inspection right away, leading to the difference in dates.

The QC manager is asking for an easy way to have the operator enter
his "drop-off time" of the parts into Inspection's inventory so that we
can report on that date, instead. Does anyone have a solution for this?

Thanks in advance!
--Ari

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

system · April 10, 2008, 2:47pm

Rob -

Valid points, all. Were you eavesdropping on the conversation I had
with the QC Manager? I basically told him the same thing: The system
is built to facilitate the flow of parts thru the process, not to
have them sit and wait. The existing data show evidence of parts not
moving - who cares why, just go fix it. It's not a "technology"
problem, it's a "process" problem.

He SHOULD have asked for an alert for any 1st article pieces sitting
in queue for more than an hour!

But he did indeed ask for some way to have the operators enter data
into Vantage when the drop the parts off. I was thinking of having
them enter something in the FA processing data, as Charlie suggested,
but the indirect-labor idea is a good one that I'll look into, just
to provide an answer to the QC guy (and avoid any finger-pointing at
ME! :) )

Thanks.
--Ari

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertb_versa@...>
wrote: