Supplying inspection reports for product coming from stock

[Gvaladez]

Hello Everyone,

I am curious how others handle supplying Inspection reports, specifically when the order is fulfilled from stock reserves.
When required by PO we send out an inspection report with the max and min of measurements recorded from our sample. The form states the required info per AS9102 (part number, name, revision ETC), this includes a PO number. The PO number is my issue, as when completing the inspection report for the original contract the PO number references that contract, as it should. However, sometimes on following orders we have remaining parts in stock from the original order, seeing as though those parts were accepted on the original sampling plan, we do not reinspect. so no need to change the form, other than the PO number listed no longer references the current contract.

I have not had anyone complain about this but it seems like it could cause confusion. Our certificate of conformance states which reports apply to the particular parts and our production routing can be traced to show this.

Does anyone have a better solution?

Thanks

 

[Michael_M]

Can you reference the FAI Report Number (item 4) on your CofC documents. Unless your customer is specifically asking for a new FAIR for each PO shipped, AS9102 allows for previous FAIR's unless a few conditions are met. This has worked for me in the past.

 

[Gvaladez]

I can and do. I do not have this issue with the FAI report as, unless making a change per AS9102, the supplied report would make sense.
Rather my issue is with Inspection reports for each individual serial numbers or a sample inspection report, which is comparable to Form 3.

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

We are a high mix job shop, and the inspectors (and the operators) conduct inspections, however, none of them even know what 'AS9102' is. I will balloon the print and transfer over their values into an AS form as required. We make overage on every run, and as such we have a lot of finished parts in inventory. A simple job tag with the lot number on it is stored with the parts, and we match up "our" template from that lot number. I will generally add the new PO number to that template when shipping. On more popular parts I will store the documentation right in the box with the parts. Sending AS forms in past instances has created issues similar to what you are referencing, but using our template has never given me an issue.

 

[Gvaladez]

We are a high mix job shop, and the inspectors (and the operators) conduct inspections, however, none of them even know what 'AS9102' is. I will balloon the print and transfer over their values into an AS form as required. We make overage on every run, and as such we have a lot of finished parts in inventory. A simple job tag with the lot number on it is stored with the parts, and we match up "our" template from that lot number. I will generally add the new PO number to that template when shipping. On more popular parts I will store the documentation right in the box with the parts. Sending AS forms in past instances has created issues similar to what you are referencing, but using our template has never given me an issue.

Do you have a report identifier similar to field 4 of an AS9102 on that inspection report? If so does this change or remain the same when you change the PO to ship from stock parts?

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

Here is an example. The Job number is system generated and ties the lot to this inspection form. I will leave the original PO on the form, and add the new PO number at the time the parts are shipped from stock.

 

[Kronos147]

We are a high mix job shop, and the inspectors (and the operators) conduct inspections, however, none of them even know what 'AS9102' is. I will balloon the print and transfer over their values into an AS form as required. We make overage on every run, and as such we have a lot of finished parts in inventory. A simple job tag with the lot number on it is stored with the parts, and we match up "our" template from that lot number.

FWIW, our shop started using the cloud solution 1factory a few years ago.

In 1factory we create a plan by imports a drawing, ballooning the drawing, and configuring each balloon. Each balloon can be configured to be part of multiple inspection, like 1st piece, in process, and final. Operators/Machinist start an in process inspection in 1factory, referencing the work order number and adding a plan (based on the part number). Once the inspection is created, it can be sorted on their operation (we have it as OP 1, OP 2, etc..., matched to our work orders). This displays only the dimensions that need to be checked at the machine.

1factory has a nice feature that allows for "manufacturing dimensions" to be added to a plan. Perhaps we have a final required for an OD to be 1". Maybe we turn the OD to 1.1 during Op 1, so we add that to the plan as a manufacturing dim.

Finally, 1factory also creates AS9102's reports from a final inspection.

We also have a customer that wants their AS9102 FAIRs uploaded to Net Inspect. 1factory allows us to export a FAIR into a spreadsheet that can be imported to Net Inspect.

1factory is a good solution and good company, IMHO.

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

FWIW, our shop started using the cloud solution 1factory a few years ago.

In 1factory we create a plan by imports a drawing, ballooning the drawing, and configuring each balloon. Each balloon can be configured to be part of multiple inspection, like 1st piece, in process, and final. Operators/Machinist start an in process inspection in 1factory, referencing the work order number and adding a plan (based on the part number). Once the inspection is created, it can be sorted on their operation (we have it as OP 1, OP 2, etc..., matched to our work orders). This displays only the dimensions that need to be checked at the machine.

1factory has a nice feature that allows for "manufacturing dimensions" to be added to a plan. Perhaps we have a final required for an OD to be 1". Maybe we turn the OD to 1.1 during Op 1, so we add that to the plan as a manufacturing dim.

Finally, 1factory also creates AS9102's reports from a final inspection.

We also have a customer that wants their AS9102 FAIRs uploaded to Net Inspect. 1factory allows us to export a FAIR into a spreadsheet that can be imported to Net Inspect.

1factory is a good solution and good company, IMHO.

That sounds like a good solution also. These templates were in use long before I got here, so building them for new products was already second nature. We are a fairly small operation (5 operators), and do mostly swiss screw machine work (parts complete off machine). We really only do about twenty AS9102 inspections per year, so right now we are able to keep up without issues.

 

[Gvaladez]

Thanks for the insights. I was mainly just trying to prevent confusion without seeming like I am taking shortcuts by reusing old inspection data. Even though the reused reports do represent the product being shipped from stock.