[Pansophy] SNS PPU inspection traveler breakdown structure
Gary Cheng
cheng at jlab.org
Wed Oct 14 17:18:18 EDT 2020
Hi Valerie & Anne,
I decide to comply with the new policy and have split my SEC traveler
into 3 according to what Valerie suggested. Now there is
SNSPPU-CWI-SENC, SNSPPU-INSP-SENC and SNSPPU-CMA-SENC-INSP for
inspection of PPU SEC. Pansophy team doesn't need to write the CWI-SENC
traveler. There will be 3 such inspection travelers for the REC as well.
I noticed that "Anne’s group with outreach to Survey & Alignment group".
Normally, it is the CMA group who coordinates with S&A to conduct
dimensional measurements that CMM/SRF QC cannot do. Should we maintain
this tradition? After all, CMM/SRF QC is short of hands and data
acquired by S&A are usually useful information for CMA.
If you wish, I can split the dimensions for S&A from those that CMM/SRF
QC can measure then feed them into the SNSPPU-INSP-SENC and
SNSPPU-CMA-SENC-INSP, respectively. That way, CMM measures what CMM can
and CMA will work with S&A to get other dimensions taken. It means more
work for me, but I think this approach will help to keep the convention.
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/20201014/af7f1515/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pansophy
mailing list