Traceability - Reducing final inspections on separate lots

[Dawn]

We have many suppliers so product is constantly going out the door and back again in split order amounts. Can anyone give me some suggestions on how we can reduce the final inspections on these separate lots? To maintain our traceability, we put a different job number on orders when we have a lot change, a tool change, and when the supplier sends some parts; shuts down his process a day or two and then starts it back up again - this determines a new lot number. Some of our parts are being finaled up to 45 times in one month and we have only shipped 3 orders. We cannot lose the traceability and we cannot discontinue checking the parts. I would appreciate ANY comments on this. Thanks ahead, Dawn

 

[Jim Biz]

Dawn - from the way I'm reading this you are "progressively" changing lot numbers for the same product lots?? Creating the need for multiple inspection verification records?

Why call an "in-process lot inspection" a "final"?

 

[Dawn]

I'm not sure what you're asking me and I probably wasn't very clear on this, but what I'm looking for is when these job numbers change and reach final inspection; we do a separate final on every separate job number. Are you bringing up the subject of in-process inspection rather than final for these job numbers?

 

[barb butrym]

Sounds to me like you have batch and lots #s, somewhere they are bulk processed ...then split by order? keep track of the batch...qualify it....then only inspect what has happenned after the split on the new lot #...traceback to thebatch for info on anything processed before the split. for instance...... Strips of epoxy preform material is fabricated in bulk and batched by date of fab......when the order comes in, it is given a job # then the sheets are cut (perforated) to size. When the batch is fab'd, it is qualified as good stuff. when it is cut, it is measured only ,then packaged and shipped

works for anything that gets staged and split.....and for stuff going out for subcontract processing. Just make sure you include possible damage that can occur to what has already been completed by handling etc.

[This message has been edited by barb butrym (edited 09 June 2000).]