cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Ensuring Test results are correct.

0 Kudos

Hi All ,

Please let me know your thoughts on following requirement.

During result recording if the result is blow expected value ( limit ) , the same test is to be repeated again 2 times to ensure that there is no human error.

I tried this with "Rejected after " control indicator. Is there any better way ?

Thanks a lot in Advance.

Manoj.

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

I thinks thats the best way you have selected.Making copy of same MIC and exectuting it "after Rejection'.

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Use the attribute field in the inspection result to mark the result as invalid. It will be ignored and a new result field will be made available. You can than record the second result. If it still fails, repeat.

You can do this as often as you want until you get a result you like. So you have to make sure this is covered by written business procedures and training of the personnel.

You might be able to I guess use a user exit to check to see if a total if 4 or more resutls have been recorded, (3 invalid) and block the saving of the inspection lot.

FF

krishnamurty_madduri
Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

Here, you want to ensure that the results recorded are correct. You can try this:

1. In the std. SAP, Results are recorded>evaluated>closed (status 5) whereupon, the system "locks" the char.

However, if you want to make a correction to it later on (before taking UD) you can still re-open (click on the lock so that, it

unlocks) the char and record newresults.

2. Suppose you want to keep both the readings in the system, record: Individual readings instead of Summarized readings

3. If you want to inspect the same char again and again.. and record results: the best option would be to use "Inspection Point"

concept. It is an excellent concept.

4. The concept you are using: "After Reject" can also be used. Simple and good enough.

Regards, KrishnaM