on 07-01-2015 11:43 AM
Hi,
Let's assume I have an inspection plan and want to assure that one operation is finished before the other becomes active. Is there a way to do this? If the answer is yes, how do I do that?
To talk about an example, please see the picture attached. In this case operation 0020 should not be active before operation 0010 is finished.
Hope someone can help!
Kind regards
Michael
You mean you want unless complete result recording is done for 1st operation in QA32, the 2nd operation should not be opened for entering results? Is that the requirement? Or it is at the time of inspection plan creation you are expecting?
Anand
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi,
Double click on the operation and see the "overlapping" section. You can define whether operations can be overlapped or not, or with timings / other conditions.
Thanks
Prem
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
I don't think you'll find that functionality works in inspection plans event though it is shown in the operation overview.
All our plans are set up with no overlapping yet I've never seen it affect inspection.
It might work in receipes or routings for 03 inspection lots, but I don't actually think results recording is affected. Only confirmation of the operation.
I think you might look at the following user exits to produce an error message and block entry to results recording:
QEEM0029 User-Exit for Characteristic Overview Subscreen
QEEM0030 User-Exit for Subscreen: Characteristic Single Screen
QM also allows a UD at the operation level. You could implement that.
QM-->Quality Inspection--->Results Recording-->Make Settings for Operation Completion
Once you implemented that you'd have to try to see if you can use one of the above mentioned user exits to check if the UD was done on the previous operation. If not, an error message and exit from results recording.
Craig
Hi Prem, hi Craig,
Thank you very much for your suggestions. Using the "overlapping", as you suggest Prem, would be to good to be true. But as Craig said, I am also not sure this will work judging by the documentation of this feature. Nevertheless I will give it a try.
However, your suggestion Craig, sounds very promising. On the other hand it involves programming which I am not too keen on, if there is another solution (read atm: overlapping works).
Will let you know about my progress.
Kind regards
Michael
User | Count |
---|---|
110 | |
12 | |
11 | |
6 | |
5 | |
4 | |
4 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.