Question:
Dear friends,
I have a problem in sample management.The process is something like this.
Both the primary and pooled samples should be inspected in an inspection lot.The MIC's for primary shoud be defferent and for pooled samples should be different.But as per SAP if we create primay and pooled samples then only pooled samples should be inspected.Now if I want to inspect both primary as well as pooled samples with different characterstics how o go about it?.
can anybody help me please?
Guest
Answer:
Hi
Actually I too was looking for a similar thing. I do not have much experience in SM. I feel in standard SAP , to create pool sample, primary sample creation is must and if you wish to have different MICs linked to them, you can use different partial sample no( say 1 and 2) in the 2 MICs in the task list and create 2 sample drawing items with partial sample no 1 & 2 respectively. To one of the sample drg item, you can assign only primary sample to fulfil the need of inspecting primary sample and to the other item you can assign primary and pooled sample both. Since I have not imlemented SM so far and is doing R&D on it, there could be something wrong here and SM experts like QM_DUDE/ASK/CRAIG may correct or propose a proper solution .
_________________
Regards
tkd
Answer:
Hi tkd,
you are absolutely right.The problem with this process is that we end up having double the nos of primary samples which is not the case. Infact i tried the same what you said but that's wrong.
Anybody out there to guide onthis please?.
Thanks in advance
GUest
Answer:
Hi,
I think, working with two diff operations having the relevant MIC's and each of them referring to the correct "To partial sample no.", that in turn refers to different sample drawing items, is the only way to go.
The fact that for operation#2 you are inspecting a "pooled" sample, you must define which primary samples constitute this. I do not see what is the perceived problem, if you create primary samples for inspection for operation # 1 and additional primary samples for making a pooled sample for operation # 2. As long as you keep the sample quantities correct, the information will be correct. Further, to account correctly for the overall sample size, make sure your sampling procedure are accurate and you have marked the chars for destructive insp if need be.
Overall, I do not foresee any issue with the approach.
Let me know if this clarifies
Anand
Answer:
Hi
What Aanand says is perfectly OK and do not perceive any problem in it. Pooled sample are created from primary samples and though you land up with additional primary sample , it cannot be avoided probably because of technical reasons of computing sampling quantity and also because it maps the business process perfectly.
_________________
Regards
tkd
Answer:
Hi Anand/tkd,
thanks for your reply. But I have a problem in it. In our client place they take the samples from different containers say for ex 5 nos. They inspect the characterstic " Identification". Then they mix it and make 2 pooled samples.For these two samples they have different characterstics. Now if I have two sample drawing items i will end up with 10 primary samples which the client don't want and also it collides with the nos of labels.
Is there any other solution for this scenerio please?
Thanks in advance
Guest
Answer:
Pl clarify, whether "identification" is the only test in Op #1. If that is true, why can't you work with only one operation, that will have these 5 primary samples and 2 pooled ones.
I think evevnif you create pooled samples, you can still inspect the primary ones.
So for Char #1 inspect "identification" on primary samples, and Char # 2 onwards inspect the rest of it with the pooled samples.
I think this should work for you
Anand
Answer:
Yes Anand identification is the only insepcton being done on primary samples. Now if I include both the charactestics in one operation then during results recording we will have both the characterstics for primary physical sample. Now do you mean to say inspect the identification for primary sample and just leave the another characterstic and insepcti the second char for pooled sample.If this is the case dont you think it leads to inconsisency in valuation?
Thanks in advance
Guest
Answer:
Hi,
You are correct..I would defer from my own suggestion ! Unless you want to do that ugly way..Well, pl don't.
But coming back to two opn scenario..I think you have to work your out to 5 primary for opn 1 and 5 prim making 2 pooled for opn 2..
Also, does identification have to be a characteristics? Can you not tie this to some one who verifies identification, making the sample drawing confirmation and putting the right comments? Then we can work with on opn 2..OPn1 get in a sample drawing release...Did you look at this?
Anand
Answer:
Hi Anand,
problem with two operations is that we will have extra labels which makes the user confused and also the sample quantity which is deviating from actual quantity being used.
Can you please let me know feasible way of doing this?
Guest
Answer:
Hi,
My last option prescribes only one operation. the "identification" test is achieved by adding confimation to sample drawing and it si no longer operation # 1.
You will only have an operation for the true tests and then you will only have 5 primary and 2 pooled samples as needed.
Did you explore adding the sample drawing confirmation step instead of the first operation?
Anand
Answer:
Hi,
has anyone found a solution regarding this problem?
I would like know because i am facing the same problem.