[Pansophy] SNS PPU inspection traveler breakdown structure
Gary Cheng
cheng at jlab.org
Thu Oct 15 09:53:17 EDT 2020
Hi Anne,
I will split the dimensions to be checked by CMM and S&A folks and add
them to the corresponding travelers. Same will be done to the REC travelers.
Thanks,
Gary
On 10/14/2020 6:07 PM, E. Anne McEwen wrote:
>
> Hi Gary
>
> The reason for my suggestion is that I understand Survey &
> Alignment are actually doing the dimensional inspection because the
> end cans are too big to fit on the CMM. So a thought was to have all
> the dimensional inspections together for the end cans
>
> I realize that normally Survey & Alignment are doing other types of
> measurements that definitely fit in the CAM traveler such as
> alignment checks etc.
>
> So if it preferred to put the End Can dimensional work into the CMA
> traveler I would be fine with this also – the main thing is for the
> data to be easy to find down the road
>
> Thanks Anne
>
> *From:*Gary Cheng <cheng at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 14, 2020 5:18 PM
> *To:* Valerie Bookwalter <bookwalt at jlab.org>; E. Anne McEwen
> <mcewen at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* Kurt Macha <macha at jlab.org>; Mark Wiseman <wiseman 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>; Katherine Wilson <kwilson at jlab.org>; Naeem Huque
> <huque at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Tony Reilly
> <areilly at jlab.org>; John Fischer <fischer at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Pansophy] SNS PPU inspection traveler breakdown structure
>
> 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)
>
> 1.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>
> <mailto: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> <mailto:mdickey at jlab.org>;
> 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
>
> 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/20201015/17780f05/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pansophy
mailing list