Oct 11 2019
Sep 27 2019
Aug 16 2019
One example is the workmanship specifies .125 depth scratches in sheetmetal under the power coat to be acceptable in some cases, whereas the print has a 63 microinch RMS surface finish requirement. One of those is more stringent than the other and it's not clear which one the supplier should follow.
That's fine, but those ticket should go on the board for the product whose source contains the drawings for the parts, not on the Workmanship standard board. Unless the request/suggestion is to change the workmanship standard.
@kent Fair enough, this ticket was only up because I believe it was PMM who requested that we put our specific workmanship standards on the designs.
Yes, to some of them but not at the time of the RFQ or at the time of the PO when it counts.
It may be worthwhile to consider having workmanship standards for external and internal processes separate. Also I am a little bit confused about the wording of this ticket, @kent do you have a example scenario where this may occur?
@kent The workmanship standard document has been provided to our suppliers.
Nice work on working with ultimachine to have them rev their design to allow access to the contrast adjustment knob, @oliver.
Tickets tagged with "Workmanship Standard" are for identifying issues with and making suggestions to improve the workmanship standard. For alerting production of potential quality issues, I recommend another communication platform.
Tickets tagged with "workmanship standard" are meant for identifying issues or making suggestions to improve the workmanship standard.
This is a request for a change to the prints for parts, not a change to the workmanship standard.
Tickets with the "Workmanship Standard" tag are meant for reporting issues or making suggestions to the workmanship standard, not for keeping track of fallout or posting NCMRs. We already have other systems for doing that.
This isn't a workmanship standard issue. In this case, the supplier just didn't do what the drawing called for.
Jul 25 2019
I was asked to clarify if what was shown in the last part falls under notes 3&4 of the drawing, regarding edge breaks. No, these lines are not edge breaks. Edge breaks are only de-burring touch-ups along the sharp corners of a part where two surfaces meet.
Jul 22 2019
Using this picture has a reference for the issue of vertical notches on the edges of the Z Upper Plates, the Workmanship document says we have the option of rejecting units with a scratch under the powder coat in excess of 2mm in length and in excess of .5mm deep if it is visible from normal viewing angles. The depth is more of an issue than the length, since a long scratch without much depth is barely visible(these are called phantom scratches in the workmanship document). This criteria can be applied to the issues shown in the picture(a top viewing angle is required to actually say which of these could be rejected, this picture is only intended to provide a general example of the issue).
PO# 30497, Precision Metal Mfg.
Did on a 50% inspection on the most recent shipment. It looks like they are primarily having a machining process problem. The fallout rate was about 4% for gouges/large pits in the metal. Some units required minor touchups with the Birchwood Casey Gloss Black pen for small lines of exposed metal on the edges. Training on how to do these touchups to be arranged @david.hall
Jul 18 2019
We will need to have the Ohai's updated to instruct affected stations/assemblies to include the cleaning/wiping instructions
Sounds good, this is merged into master.
Until we can get a workmanship standard with more clarity to vendor, I think we can implement a process to wipe down each rod as it comes out of the box to be installed/used just like we used to do.
I think the wipe down should occur prior to finals, at the point they are taken out of the box, because as soon as the bearings start moving on the rods, those bearings become contaminated. I'm less concerned about the light dust that is in the building than what already on the rods when they are received.
I talked with @robert and asked him to include any time he cleans the rods to include it on their defect tracking sheet so I can get a better idea of how often this is really mattering in calibration. My worry to is that dust is going to be building up on these parts while they are sitting on our shelf out in production besides just coming from the supplier.
@AOJAS can you review the updates in the above commit and let me know if that adequately addresses this issue?
Except for the darkest accumulations seen in these pictures, the dust isn't readily visible for the most part. Wiping down all sides twice has the effect of lightening ring patterns, cleaning some of the darker spots, as well as giving the rod a brighter general appearance.
Where can I find images of these to add to the workmanship standard?
Jul 16 2019
I would advise having production personnel who put smooth rods on assemblies/sub assemblies do a quick wipe down with the blue shop paper towels until we can get the problem is resolved on the supplier's end. A number of people have told me they think that it may be contributing to binding, as a pretty significant amount of dust comes off the smooth rods when they are wiped down. Fine dark brown/black dust is primarily how I would describe what I see on the paper towels after wiping down smooth rods.
Jul 3 2019
I believe that we have 144 done currently and we are using James for other work today. I will have him pick up on the last 3 boxes on Monday, then close the ticket.
@david.hall can you confirm with James that these chassis reworks are done and if so, close this ticket?