posted 07 August 2001 09:14 AM               

Yes, I believe that when you are using parts from one batch # to fill an order that specifies a different batch #, you break the tracability cycle, even if the part numbers are the same. If you trace your batch #'s to material certs and if you have a defective part from an order that calls out one batch # but filled with a different batch #, you cannot trace this back to the material used (and material cert) to manufacture the part.

Hope this helps...

Cheers!!!

posted 07 August 2001 09:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Mullins:
YES/NO
Please pick one, 'cause I don't have enough information to answer correctly.
When I teach staff quality auditing I use an icebreaker exercise which focuses on the human need to come to conclusions even when conclusive information has not been provided. Therefore I should stick to my guns - not enough information.

---

Hi David,

I would be really interested in your icebreaking exercise, if you would care to share it.

Thanks!!!

posted 08 August 2001 02:10 AM               

Do you currently record materials against batches through to final product (full traceability)? This is expensive, the customer had better be requesting and paying for this service. If you're providing this traceability for free the company is getting ripped off.

If this part was being bolted onto the a space shuttle, would each part have to be traceable to its material batch? Yes.

In your case, if all the batches of the same part have material certificates that all say they are within spec, what's the big deal?

How reliable at material test certificates anyway (not much from my experiences)?

Is each batch inspected for visible compliance to the correct ID CODE for the material? Did the guy marking it at the foundry mark it correctly? What about half lengths that may not be marked?

What happens to the different material batches through you processes before they get to the grinder? Any chance of mixing?

What does the customer stipulate?
What does the Work Order state?

If the part was being used in a garden shed does anyone care about the material?

Sorry, I've ranted again.

posted 08 August 2001 03:41 AM               

COMMUNICATIONS TEST
It does not take more than 15 seconds to read the following paragraph of 43 words. Read it carefully, you have one minute.

·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂ

The householder opened the door when he heard a knock. A man pushed his way in. He asked for money. The householder opened a cashbox, the contents were scooped out and the robber sped away. A policeman was notified by the householder.

·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂ

Please turn over this page and answer the questionnaire.

Assess the following statements
based on the paragraph contents (it's a table and doesn't come out well)

True False Information not given
1 A man knocked on the front door.
2 The man who knocked on the door pushed his way in.
3 The householder opened the door.
4 The man who knocked at the door demanded money.
5 The man who scooped up the contents of the cash box sped away.
6 The cash box contained money.
7 Did the houseowner open the cash box?
8 The robber was a man.
9 The householder notified police.
10 The police were phoned.
11 The man who pushed his way in did not ask for money.

ANSWERS:
1. ING
2. ING
3. T
4. ING
5. ING
6. ING
7. T
8. ING
9. T
10. ING
11. F

posted 08 August 2001 07:46 AM               

If you don't mind, I would like to incorporate this into my training.

Cheers!!

posted 10 August 2001 02:03 AM               

POLICY! We haven't been told what documented/legal/compulsory requirements actually exist.
All Russ said was:
"Our traceability is through part #, work order (batch), and material certs. What I am asking is...does doing this break the chain of traceability for that work order when a different work order of the same part is used to fulfill the needed parts? "

------------------

posted 10 August 2001 08:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dawn:
Would anyone care to do a benchmarking study with me on traceability?

---

Hi Dawn,

I'm interested - what do you have in mind?

Cheers!

posted 10 August 2001 08:29 AM               

Count me in!

posted 10 August 2001 11:48 AM               

is it over stated? maybe. Can you now create traceability to the batch actually used? Yes. Is it right? NO, is it catastrophic? probably not. can it be fixed? most likely.... Did ISO require it? no, you did.

Did i come off as touchy/pushy? sorry...didn't mean to......must be my fat arthritic fingers in all this humidity making me sound like i need to "whoa" back. I do tend to do short quick answers, not to be snappy, but because I only have a short time to read/respond.

oh, i think i see where the "whoa" came from now........you think i jumped the gun without the back upinfo, huh? Well...I took him at his word. "We use batch # For traceability" (or something similar to that wording...)....so if thats what they use, then it is violated.....is it the best thing to use? all the time? who knows!!!!! ......but if they say batch # and don't keep it, then its a nonconformance, whether its Good practice or not.

posted 10 August 2001 02:37 PM               

Don't sell yourself short, you come across as a goddess!