Question:
Hello,
The business scenario is as follows (working with 4.6C):
Several material use the same MIC, but limits are different (e.g. diameter where material A is bigger than material B).
QM results should be transferred to batch. If I link class char. and MIC, I cannot use material dependent specs in the inspection plan --> huge amount of plans.
There are also need for two limits, the tighter are for internal use; i.e. in results recording evaluation is carried against them, and then the not-so-tight limits which should be shown in CoA.
Inspection by configuration is not option either is that sales and/or QA do the limits by creating batch search strategies.
If I put the limits (which I want to be shown in the CoA) in the class characteristic, those limits overrules the ones I've set in MIC.
Help is highly appreciated....
Pia
Answer:
Hi,
the transfer of the inspection result to the batch classification should not be a problem.
As far as I understood your question is, that your are dealing with internal and external specifications and the correct data should be printed on the CoA.
For sure you know that on the CoA the tolerances will be printed with the appropiate text element. This should be the start of your process.
The valuation process itself should not be modified. So keep on going with the valuation using the tolerances as defined by SAP standard. We make use in our system of the 1st upper/lower limit for internal specs. During result recording a user exit compares the result with the values maintained there and pop's a message in case of violation. By the way: We make use of the 2nd limit for the determination limit (also required on some CoA).
In the CoA process we defined our own text elements so that the user can decide whether to print the tolerance, the internal specs or the determination limit.
I don't see the point why the usage of dependent characteristic specifications is not working for you.
The problem you described with the limits in the batch classification may be caused by the definition of the text elements used by the CoA print report/SAPscript definition. You may need your own coding there. Then it will work.
Best regards
QM-Dude
Answer:
Hello QM-Dude,
Data transfer from MIC to batch is not a problem.
So you don't use spec limits of the MIC at all. You use 1st limit for RR evaluation and the 2nd limits for CoA? And no limits in the class characteristic at all?
I was thinking using the 1st limit and 2nd limit but couldn't find a way to make the evaluation automatic similar to when you give the specs in the standard fields.
Can you please tell me the correct user exit.
What comes to the mat. dependent specs in the inspection plan. When class char. and MIC are linked the MIC becomes type reference chracteristic and then giving limits in the inspection plan is not possible. At least not in version 4.6C.
Pia
Answer:
Hi,
we are using the standard tolerance limits = spec limits for the valuation as defined by SAP. We additionally make use of the 1st and 2nd upper/lower limit to A) have internal specs and B) determination limits.
Maybe I was not precise enough. All limits can be used to be printed on the CoA triggered by the text element assignment in the certificate profile.
What user exit do you mean: The one we trigger the pop-up when internal specs are violated?
I just started to setup an example in my 4.6B system. You created a MIC and then a material specification? The batch class characteristic has been defined with limits as well. OK, they will alway override any other limits when you print them on the COA as class characteristic and the limits are accordingly. Here you need a different text element if the specification determination provided by standard is not working/sufficient. Why do you need limits in the class characteristic? Do you maintain them at material level?
What happens when you work with material specifications. Unlock the MIC and maintain material specific limits. Make use of a proper text element to get the correct limits printed on the CoA.
Maybe I missed something, but hopefully we are approaching your issue.
Regards
QM-Dude
Answer:
Hello again,
OK, Let's put this one more time: we will use only task lists (inspection plans) and class characteristics (class 023), not material specifications.
I'm not that familiar with certificate form. I've done only once before and didn't have to change anything but the usual such as header... Have to check more about the text element thing (= where to get tolerances).
Secondly, yep - I mean the user exit which activates pop-up.
Thirdly, the limits in class characteristic was just one option for the CoA limits (since I didn't figure out the limits in the MIC) but as U say they will overtake the limits given in MIC.
Last but not least: if U cut the reference between class char. and MIC in the inspection plan in order to give dependent specs, don't U loose the possibility to transfer results from insp.lot to batches?
Regards,
Pia
Answer:
Hi,
make use of the following userexits for checking entered results vs. specs/limits or as you like what should be used for a cross-check.
QEEM0011 - User exit: add. functions before valuating insp. characs
Include: ZXQEEU09
QEEM0015 - User exit: add. functions after entering individual results
Include: ZXQEEU11
Yeah, you should get familiar with the control possibilities of text elements in CoA process. There is so much you can do to control the appearance of data printed.
I am using non-referenced MIC's to transfer results to batch classification. No problems here in 4.6B.
Regards
QM-Dude
Answer:
Hi,
Thanks a lot . Have to check the certificate form a lot more...
Pia
Answer:
Hi Pia,
I've had this situation before. The way we handled it was to set up our classes with the actual internal manufacturing spec. The one you want the test results valuated by. These merge in with the inspection plans. (In 4.6c you no longer have to use the material spec, can change in config).
The material specs used in COA's are maintained in batch search strategy records. Can set up as many tables as you want but you probably need at least two, a customer/material condition table and a material condition table. Create a new "specifications origin" for COA profiles that pull the specs from these condition tables. The nice thing is they serve a dual purpose and can be used in cases where customers have a spec the is tighter or wider then your standard spec.
Craig
Answer:
Hi Craig,
Nice to hear from you... I was thinking a bit same solution at first. I know U can set no spec. needed in IMG in 4.6C. Unfortunately, a batch search strategy is not an option and the reason is not technical if U know what I mean everything within QM... :-p
Pia