Part Mis-Identified Corrective Action

S/B:The -14 spacer received is actually a -13 spacer and should be identified as a -13.
IS:Item 1 - Part Number: 17P2A3041-14
Is: Production has received from stock one 17P2A3041-14 spacer that is mis identified.
Reference 17P2A3041 drawing zones 41-44 and zone 12.

IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION: Purged all B/N -13 and -14 from stock to verify configuration. Parts in stock found to have wrong ID marked on the part.
ROOT CAUSE: Both Dash numbers were brought from the Machine Shop to the ID area to be identified without parts being temporarily individually wrapped.
ROOT CAUSE CORRECTIVE ACTION: All parts going to the Id area will be individually wrapped and identified.


There has to be a better corrective action than this.

We seem to keep getting rejections from our customer for ID being wrong

Re: Part Misidentified Corrective Action

There's not a lot of detail about the processes involved in your post. Without knowing more details, all I can do is make blind guesses. Can you give more details of the processes?

A few questions that come to mind based on what you've already posted: Is there a reason the parts must be individually wrapped? Can't all of the same dash number be placed in a container that is identified with the dash number? Can the parts be ID marked at the time they're machined instead of going to another process later?

Re: Part Misidentified Corrective Action

Eloy Gomez said:

ROOT CAUSE: Both Dash numbers were brought from the Machine Shop to the ID area to be identified without parts being temporarily individually wrapped.

Click to expand...

It appears to me that if you eliminate the movement of material from the machine shop to the ID area (i.e. ID the material in the machine shop / or at the machining station), this would help eliminate (or minimize) the mistaken ID issues. Possibly bag, or bin, the material at the machine and include a copy of the shop order/router for parts ID.

I agree with having the machine shop pack as produced in conjunction with using a point-of-use (POU) label maker for either each container/quantity or a small code for each part. These can be dynamically linked to a PLC and scanner so that a Master part with bar-code could be scanned as verification when run/new box / PN starts then individual part or container labels are printed when the desired container quantity is reached.

The process based on the investigation is that these small parts were machined a -13 and a -14 both are opposites - one dash number gets machined and then the other dash number. The parts are not tagged one set is placed with the planning and then the other set after is machined. At the end of the machine process these are taken to the part identification area by this time the parts are mixed with the engineering planning and the ID operator just id's the parts as noted on the planning operation. We believe the machinist just place one set with a planning and then the other set with the second planning never verifying if the parts were with the right planning.

We like the bag and tag or container idea. If we are not going to ID each unit then we should at least ID the container. Thanks for the help.

Sounds like the root cause you identified may not be the real ROOT cause. Your last post seems like a real good start on the next "WHY" level. As others have noted, we don't have all the information so it's just speculation on our part, but it seems you could continue the root cause analysis a little further.