I thought I'd finally found the missing correction time in our bracket history, then the fabricator said dressing meant cleaning up incoming pieces on his sheet and straightening a released assembly on the estimator's. Same word, quite different afternoon.
Our FR5 proposal has one allowance called dressing. Before I put money against it, can we split the incoming preparation from the released check and any correction, and find out which parts actually need each job?
The fabricator removes incoming edge burrs before fit-up; the estimator meant correction after the released dimensional check. Neither was trying to count both, which is how we lost one job entirely.
Then keep two lines, with the decision that sends a part to each; not every incoming piece or released bracket will necessarily need the same treatment.
Does the current evidence identify those pieces individually? If one batch total covers both activities, splitting the label will not tell you how much of either was done.
Batch totals only, Thomas. The fabricator can explain his normal method but cannot give me a reliable split of that old total. I don't want to divide it in half just to fill the two boxes.
I have seen a remembered busy shift become the standard allowance, so I would use his explanation to plan the observations rather than turn it into times for the old batch.
Also distinguish waiting from the work itself. Or rather, record both; the waiting still affects the route even if it does not belong in hands-on correction time.
It is the same fabrication technician. Our proposed staffing has him feeding another station too. That's now an open issue beside the two work lines, not hidden inside one guessed allowance.
For the dimensional comparison, keep incoming fit-up, fixture contacts and the released measurement method with the identified assemblies. Otherwise a different starting condition may be mistaken for an effect of the proposed fixture.
Will the technician and inspector both help define the sample route, Clara? They may disagree about where preparation ends and a rejected component needs a separate decision.
Both are involved. The inspector has already asked us not to describe every incoming defect as something the technician can simply dress away. We need the acceptance and rejection decisions written down too.
Understanding the present work first, Anil. The proposed fixture changes the locating scheme, so it will need its own comparison afterwards. Thanks for making me say that plainly; the estimate was skipping straight to the second decision.
That is a useful scope. Keep the existing fixture revision and sample-selection method in the result, so the later comparison does not inherit another unexplained average.
The current-route study has started with individually identified assemblies and separate entries for preparation, released check, correction and final check. No result yet. The FR5 buying decision is still open.