[Pansophy] FW: Improving our Lessons Learned evidence in future TPRRs

[Valerie Bookwalter]

FYI... Rich Poliack's request for NCR analysis from L2PRD for next project L2HE

From: E. Anne McEwen <mcewen at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 12:24 PM
To: Valerie Bookwalter <bookwalt at jlab.org>
Subject: FW: Improving our Lessons Learned evidence in future TPRRs



From: Daniel Gautier <gautier at jlab.org<mailto:gautier at jlab.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 9:56 AM
To: Katherine Wilson <kwilson at jlab.org<mailto:kwilson at jlab.org>>
Cc: Jacob Harris <jharris at jlab.org<mailto:jharris at jlab.org>>; E. Anne McEwen <mcewen at jlab.org<mailto:mcewen at jlab.org>>
Subject: Fw: Improving our Lessons Learned evidence in future TPRRs

Hi Katherine,

Rich Poliak appears to be initiating a request for both JLab and FNAL to provide data/information regarding NCR's from the LCLS-II project.  At the root of Rich's request is a desire to ensure that, like Lessons Learned, the NCR information is being mined for continual improvement as we transition into L2 HE.

The NCR information being sought is summarized below in Rich's "questions" 1 - 4.  What are your thoughts?  Do we participate as requested, or are there concerns about providing this information, or about its availability?

I'll put a short meeting on our calendars to discuss.

Regards,
Dan

________________________________
From: Poliak, Rich <rpoliak at slac.stanford.edu<mailto:rpoliak at slac.stanford.edu>>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 5:45 PM
To: James N Blowers <blowers at fnal.gov<mailto:blowers at fnal.gov>>; Daniel Gautier <gautier at jlab.org<mailto:gautier at jlab.org>>; Jacob Harris <jharris at jlab.org<mailto:jharris at jlab.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Improving our Lessons Learned evidence in future TPRRs

Guys,
Please read the thread below.

I'd like to get a quick discussion on utilizing NCR data as part of our lessons learned for the TPRR process.

My expectation here is that for each system/component we should look at the relevant NCRs and answer the following questions:
1 - Number and type of non-conformances
2 - How they were dispositioned, i.e. scrap, return to vendor, modify, use as is,....
3 - what corrective actions or mitigations were put in place
4 - what new corrective actions or mitigations should be put in place

My take is that this is fundamental to LLs, I understand we have many other LLs we can and should address as we have been but I want us to also be able to discuss the yields and defect rates and what we are doing about it with data and some level of analysis.

I can help facilitate the analysis and categorization but I don't really have enough of the data in a format that facilitates this kind of investigation.

Thoughts?

Rich Poliak
SLAC Quality & Work Planning and Control Manager
Contractor and Quality Assurance
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
2575 Sand Hill Road MS: 75
(O) 650 926 8541
(C) 707 287 1972

rpoliak at SLAC.Stanford.edu<mailto:rpoliak at SLAC.Stanford.edu>

From: Hays, Greg<mailto:haysgr at slac.stanford.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 8:33 PM
To: Poliak, Rich<mailto:rpoliak at slac.stanford.edu>
Cc: Fuerst, Joel D.<mailto:fuerst at slac.stanford.edu>; Fitzpatrick, Jarrod<mailto:jarrod at slac.stanford.edu>; Ross, Marc C.<mailto:mcrec at slac.stanford.edu>; Reyes, Susana<mailto:reyes at slac.stanford.edu>; Fouts, Ken<mailto:kfouts at slac.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Improving our Lessons Learned evidence in future TPRRs

Rich,

I think this would be a good idea.  I support this approach.

- Greg



On Jan 17, 2020, at 7:55 AM, Poliak, Rich <rpoliak at slac.stanford.edu<mailto:rpoliak at slac.stanford.edu>> wrote:

Joel, Jarrod, Marc,

I'm realizing that we should have been more specific in setting expectations for ensuring that we are effectively applying lessons learned for our upcoming procurements.
One of the most important sources of information should be a thorough analysis of the NCRs from LCLS-II. This is something that I have advocated previously, in fact I had dome some analysis previously to come to the conclusion we need to make improvements to our NCR process.

I propose that we set the expectation for upcoming reviews that a portion be a detailed discussion of all supplier related NCRs for a given system or component.
This discussion should include what we learned, what we changed as a result and what we left alone.
I'm less than comfortable with the lessons learned conversations in the past couple of reviews as they are coming of as anecdotal versus statistical.

I can assist with this analysis but will need this to be a collaborative effort with the SOTRs.
Let's discuss next week.

Comments?
Thanks,

Rich Poliak
SLAC Quality & Work Planning and Control Manager
Contractor and Quality Assurance
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
2575 Sand Hill Road MS: 75
(O) 650 926 8541
(C) 707 287 1972


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20200121/007410ea/attachment-0001.html>