[Pansophy] SNS PPU inspection traveler breakdown structure
Gary Cheng
cheng at jlab.org
Tue Oct 13 15:51:58 EDT 2020
Valerie,
Splitting a traveler into pieces adds work load to SOTRs, pansophy team
and inspectors. Per my discussion with another SOTR, the word traveler
by its name means that this type of document will travel through work
centers. Without breaking a traveler down, it still serves the purpose
to track parts, work done and when things happen. I am not necessarily
an ISO expert, but please educate me why an integrated traveler makes us
violating ISO? And those vendors who claim to be ISO complaint will have
to break down their fabrication travelers?
As to who should close the traveler and ensure all data is entered
appropriately , isn't it the SOTR or SME taking that responsibility? Do
we really want CMA, SRF QC folks, S&A group, CWI or instrumentation
group to close inspection travelers after their part of inspection is
done? If answers are yes's, why do we want SOTRs to write inspection
travelers then? Who suppose to judge if the inspections are done per the
travelers' requirement and what data is appropriate and complete?
I appreciate your proposal to reduce the number of travelers that I have
to write. I don't know why WELD/CWI inspection is singled out? And,
letting pansophy team to write WELD/CWI inspection traveler may not be
appropriate since the SOTRs/SMEs know the welding requirements better.
Thanks,
Gary
On 10/13/2020 12:15 PM, Valerie Bookwalter wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> Creating just one traveler for each part is not advisable. It does not
> comply with current Traveler work center breakdowns which support our
> Reporting system. It also does not support our attempt to be more ISO
> compliant in being able to track parts, work done and timelines. It
> causes confusion as to which work center or person is responsible for
> closing a traveler and ensuring all data is entered appropriately. It
> also helps maintains NCR continuity to part, problem and location.
>
> We would appreciate if you could help us maintain this quality system.
>
> We propose the following:
>
> Pansophy Team will Create Travelers:
>
> 1.SNSPPU-INV-SENC: Inventory Traveler (Phil’s group with upload of
> shipping documentation)
>
> 2.SNSPPU-CWI-SENC: CWI (Jenord’Ss traveler)
>
> Travelers you would need to write:
>
> 3.SNSPPU-INSP-SENC: Visual and Dimensional Inspection Traveler (Anne’s
> group with outreach to Survey & Alignment group) SNSPPU-INSP-SENC
>
> 4.SNSPPU-CMA-SENC-INSP: All other work which is done in the Cryomodule
> Assembly Area (Fischer’s group and groups he coordinates with)
>
> i.The only change would be if Larry King wants a separate traveler for
> his team’s electrical checks, but we do not require this.
>
> This would result in you writing 2 travelers (INSP and CMA) for each
> of the SENC and RENC. I hope you will find this acceptable and if you
> need help, please ask.
>
> Valerie Bookwalter
>
> Pansophy Team
>
> *From:*Pansophy <pansophy-bounces at jlab.org> *On Behalf Of *Gary Cheng
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 13, 2020 8:55 AM
> *To:* Mike Dickey <mdickey at jlab.org>; Katherine Wilson
> <kwilson at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* Kurt Macha <macha at jlab.org>; Mark Wiseman <wiseman at jlab.org>; E.
> Anne McEwen <mcewen at jlab.org>; John Fischer <fischer at jlab.org>; Larry
> King <king at jlab.org>; Matt Marchlik <marchlik at jlab.org>; Peter Owen
> <powen at jlab.org>; pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Pansophy] SNS PPU inspection traveler breakdown structure
>
> Mike,
>
> Yes. Unless I am forced to write 6 travelers per end can or a total of
> 12 travelers for the SEC and REC. I don't see much technical merit in
> writing 12 travelers for a set of end cans.
>
> Gary
>
> On 10/13/2020 8:19 AM, Mike Dickey wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> Are you planning to write just 1 INSP traveler for the SEC and 1
> for the REC?
>
> Mike Dickey
>
> SRF Inventory Technician
>
> Jefferson Lab
> 12000 Jefferson Ave
> Newport News, VA 23606
> (757) 269-7755
>
> *From:*Pansophy <pansophy-bounces at jlab.org>
> <mailto:pansophy-bounces at jlab.org>*On Behalf Of *Gary Cheng
> *Sent:* Monday, October 12, 2020 4:50 PM
> *To:* Katherine Wilson <kwilson at jlab.org>
> <mailto:kwilson at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>
> <mailto:edaly at jlab.org>; Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>
> <mailto:huque at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* Kurt Macha <macha at jlab.org> <mailto:macha at jlab.org>; Mark
> Wiseman <wiseman at jlab.org> <mailto:wiseman at jlab.org>; E. Anne
> McEwen <mcewen at jlab.org> <mailto:mcewen at jlab.org>; John Fischer
> <fischer at jlab.org> <mailto:fischer at jlab.org>; Larry King
> <king at jlab.org> <mailto:king at jlab.org>; Matt Marchlik
> <marchlik at jlab.org> <mailto:marchlik at jlab.org>; Peter Owen
> <powen at jlab.org> <mailto:powen at jlab.org>; pansophy
> <pansophy at jlab.org> <mailto:pansophy at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Pansophy] SNS PPU inspection traveler breakdown
> structure
>
> I think I am fine with making one traveler for SEC and one for the
> REC.
> Gary
>
> On 10/12/2020 4:11 PM, Katherine Wilson wrote:
>
> That sounds reasonable to me. Just FYI, I have put the weld
> documents into the weld spec on my parts, and then uploaded
> all of them into the INV traveler, but use your judgment -
> probably you have more documents.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Gary Cheng <cheng at jlab.org> <mailto:cheng at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 12, 2020 3:58 PM
> *To:* Katherine Wilson <kwilson at jlab.org>
> <mailto:kwilson at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>
> <mailto:edaly at jlab.org>; Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>
> <mailto:huque at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* Matt Marchlik <marchlik at jlab.org>
> <mailto:marchlik at jlab.org>; Peter Owen <powen at jlab.org>
> <mailto:powen at jlab.org>; Mark Wiseman <wiseman at jlab.org>
> <mailto:wiseman at jlab.org>; pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>
> <mailto:pansophy at jlab.org>; Kurt Macha <macha at jlab.org>
> <mailto:macha at jlab.org>; John Fischer <fischer at jlab.org>
> <mailto:fischer at jlab.org>; E. Anne McEwen <mcewen at jlab.org>
> <mailto:mcewen at jlab.org>; Larry King <king at jlab.org>
> <mailto:king at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* Re: SNS PPU inspection traveler breakdown structure
>
> Thanks Katherine.
>
> Using SEC as an example, I would need to write the following
> travelers:
> 1. Visual inspection traveler --- for SRF QC group, i.e.
> Anne's group
> 2. Dimensional inspection traveler --- for Survey & Alignment
> group, end cans won't fit into our CMM machine
> 3. Weld inspection traveler --- for CWI
> 4. Instrumentation electrical checkout --- For Larry King's group
> 5. Vendor docs check --- for SOTR, CWI and leak check specialist
> 6. Pressure test and leak check --- For CMA
>
> That's a lot to write for just the SEC. Then for the REC, I
> would need to write another 6 travelers...I don't think that's
> really what we want. But if PPU management prefers to have
> such a breakdown structure, I will write 12 travelers for the
> SEC and REC...someone please let me know.
>
> Gary
>
> On 10/12/2020 3:47 PM, Katherine Wilson wrote:
>
> The idea is to break the travelers down by workstation, so
> one person is responsible for the part as long as it is
> being inspected under that traveler.
>
> We are trying to minimize travelers that stay open for
> months while working through the inspection process, and
> also reduce misplaced or damaged parts as they are passed
> from one workstation to another, so please let that be
> your guide as you decide how to separate the travelers.
>
> I think you will just have to use some judgment about what
> seems like a sensible way to separate travelers. Maybe
> Anne has further suggestions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Katherine
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Gary Cheng <cheng at jlab.org> <mailto:cheng at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 12, 2020 3:32 PM
> *To:* Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org> <mailto:edaly at jlab.org>;
> Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org> <mailto:huque at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* Katherine Wilson <kwilson at jlab.org>
> <mailto:kwilson at jlab.org>; Matt Marchlik
> <marchlik at jlab.org> <mailto:marchlik at jlab.org>; Peter Owen
> <powen at jlab.org> <mailto:powen at jlab.org>; Mark Wiseman
> <wiseman at jlab.org> <mailto:wiseman at jlab.org>; pansophy
> <pansophy at jlab.org> <mailto:pansophy at jlab.org>; Kurt Macha
> <macha at jlab.org> <mailto:macha at jlab.org>; John Fischer
> <fischer at jlab.org> <mailto:fischer at jlab.org>; Larry King
> <king at jlab.org> <mailto:king at jlab.org>; srfinv at jlab.org
> <mailto:srfinv at jlab.org><srfinv at jlab.org>
> <mailto:srfinv at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* Re: SNS PPU inspection traveler breakdown
> structure
>
> Any advice?
>
> On 10/9/2020 11:59 AM, Gary Cheng wrote:
>
> Ed & Naeem,
>
> It's unclear to me if there is a consensus on how many
> breakdown travelers that PPU project wants to have for
> a certain assembly to be inspected. I hope that you
> can clarify what you want all SOTRs to prepare.
>
> The usual receiving inspection steps that I can think
> of are:
> shipping crate condition check --- this would be in INV
> vendor documents check --- docs upload to INV. SOTR as
> well as SMEs need to check them for completeness and
> correctness
> visual inspection --- SRF QC or CMA
> dimensional inspection --- may be done by SRF QC folks
> or Survey & Alignment folks
> instrumentation electrical check out --- Larry's group
> fit-up test --- mostly done CMA
> weld inspection --- by weld examiner or CWI
> cold shock --- CMA
> pressure test --- CMA
> leak check --- CMA
> repackage
>
> Please advise. I am about to convert Ed's SNS end can
> travelers to the new format and need to know how many
> travelers that I need to write for Supply & Return End
> Cans.
>
> Thanks,
> Gary
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20201013/92820c42/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pansophy
mailing list