Control plan trigger not work as it is

add receipt data for your reference.thanks

Hi Susan,

Can you check whether all these receipts were booked in with part revision 2? Unfortunately, this is not visible on the receipt overview screen and could be the reason.

Regards,
Mike

Hi Mike

Thanks for your quick response. 

I attach the revision as below, all are the same revision. 

Thanks

Susan

...okay. Next questions. Is the control plan  connected to this supplier/sender ID and site or do you have also other control plans to this part? And can you check here in the tab “History” on which date the control plan was set to status “Active”? Was it set to "Inactive" in the meantime?

What irritates me the most is that no matter which trigger type you use, the first receipt of goods after the control plan is set active always creates an analysis. And here the receipts all start without an analysis. Or are there still previous receipts missing?

Regards,
Mike

Hi Mike

There is no any “Inactive” process and only one site and one supplier for this part and no more receipts missing.

Thanks

Susan

Thanks Susan. We will find the reason. 😉 Can you also check the entries here in the tab “Purchase Order Analysis”?

Hi Mike

Thanks for your time to check this. 

Below is the entire purchase order analysis. 

Thanks

Susan

Next check: The entries in this two sub tabs:

Supplier for purchase part 

Hi Susan, 

I think this may be a bug. Please report it so that it can be investigated.

Best Regards,

Peter

What irritates me. Inspection Management should generate inspection qty set 1 for every receipt where no analysis is created. The system does not seem to do that either. Also, an analysis was already confirmed on 4/10/2023 8:00. And I do not know the subfolder "IQC Inspection Rule" as a standard in IFS. Has a customisation been implemented there?

Hi Mike

Thanks for your reply. 

I think the inspection qty should follow the inspection code in control plan, which will specify per each “Data point” and “Test operation no” . 

Yes, the “IQC inspection rule” is customization by our developer. 

Do you think this issue is a bug as Peter mentioned? I think it should be.

Thanks

Susan