[Pansophy] C75 Report

[Jacob Harris]

Hi Kurt,
This is a topic that should probably be discussed with Phil, as it relates to part number and traceability. Ideally, an NCR should be against an established part number so we can easily identify the physical part that needs to be tagged or segregated.

Interestingly, this topic just came up today in my QA coordination meeting with HE project folks. They looked at LCLS-2 NCR data and noticed we have inconsistent naming for parts, or no part listed.

I will set up a meeting with Inventory and Pansophy people to understand the technical issues and see if there is something we can do. Then I will get back to you and share what we come up with.

Thanks,
Jacob

From: Kurt Macha <macha at jlab.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:04 AM
To: pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>
Cc: Jacob Harris <jharris at jlab.org>
Subject: C75 Report

Pansophy team,

First I noticed not everyone is using the PartDescription field.  I entered several so I can easily look at the report to tell what type of part is outstanding.

In the report several PartDescriptions are not being displayed.  Can this be corrected?

Kurt




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20210303/5d63d775/attachment.html>