[Pansophy] Traveler revision

[John Fischer]

Valerie,
Sorry for the late reply. I was out Friday. I will support whatever the organization wants. I’m sure I don’t understand all that is required/desired from the Pansophy side. Guess it just depends on which side of the fence you are on.
JF

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Valerie Bookwalter<mailto:bookwalt at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 9:48 AM
To: John Fischer<mailto:fischer at jlab.org>
Cc: E. Anne McEwen<mailto:mcewen at jlab.org>; Tony Reilly<mailto:areilly at jlab.org>; pansophy<mailto:pansophy at jlab.org>
Subject: FW: [Pansophy] Traveler revision

John,

The purpose of splitting them is to minimize the length of time an inspection traveler is open and to make it so our inspection people are not responsible for moving your parts, ensuring they go to the appropriate WCA, having NCRs on travelers with their names on it, or closing the traveler. Not sure if you recall, but when an inspection traveler remains open for a period of time (because someone hasn’t moved a part or there is an issue or its on hold with a leak check or weld inspection), our people in the CMM are the first to be questioned. This also helps with all of our future reporting. Additionally Inventory is always being questioned about where parts are, especially near the end of a project. And NCRs are always questioned as well. These “cross work center” travelers make our job significantly more difficult. Our intent is not to create more work for the authors but to simplify the process as a whole. The writing of the traveler should be divided among work centers so all the writing does not fall to one. Additionally, templates can be created to simplify the writing of travelers such as INSP that always start the same way with just the addition of specific measurements to be made. The same could be true for LEAK checks. Ashley is already working towards creating generic CHEM travelers that simplifies her process of writing travelers by making use of the generic “COMP” acronym for travelers. That way a single DEGR traveler can cover multiple components. If any of these interest you, please let us know so that we may assist you.

Here are two examples. They can be very minimal.

P.S.
We had discussed with you this proposal of splitting travelers a long time ago. Maybe you recall Mike Dickey’s insistence of including WS2, WS3, … to the CMA nomenclature so that it would follow the Facility Map that so many Project Leaders use in their reporting.

Valerie
Pansophy Team


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20201109/eea0ecc6/attachment-0001.html>