К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 

Because line design, processes, and materials are interrelated, they must each

be shown to be proper or improper to isolate the problem and fix it. This

involves five steps:

First: Isolate line design by eliminating processes and materials.

Second: Isolate the part of the line that is contributing to the problem.

Third: Fix the problem.

Fourth: Research the processes and materials and ensure that they are still


Fifth: Make a trial run to ensure that all are compatible.

If necessary, iterate the process. When you are satisfied that the process is

correct, return to full production

58c (NO) Shop Orders were not correct or thorough.

Shop Orders were not correct or thorough when the end product produced

is not the product that was specified by the customer. (This statement is made

on the assumption that input materials, labor processes, and the like are proper

and correct.)


Create a Shop Order that contains all the information necessary to produce

the end product specified by the customer. If you do not have a Shop Order to

use, consider the following information as a start:

Product to be produced

Station producing the product or a portion of the product specification

reference for the product/portion

Process reference for the product/portion

Materials needed

Tools needed

Measurements required

Tolerances required/allowed

Time allowed

Test/performance requirements

Introduce the new Shop Order into the system and carefully monitor the

production of the first unit. If necessary, iterate the process. When you are

satisfied that the process is correct, return to full production.

Additional Resources:

Shop/work order software from AyaNova

Contact: Support@ayanova

58d (NO) The materials were not proper for the processes and the

product(s) and/or did not meet the requirements.

The materials were not proper for the product(s) when the product did not

meet the requirements. This begins a process of ‘‘back tracing’’ the materials

from the product to the source. The trail will, or should, lead from the product

to the Shop Order to the process to the subcontract or Purchase Order to the

original requirement or the derivative of that requirement.


The first step that must be accomplished is to determine what materials were

not proper. The next step is to determine why (in functional terms) they were

not proper. While this sounds simple and straightforward, it is not always that

way. The issue itself may well take analysis, not just observation. If this is the

case, conduct or have someone conduct the analysis. It is absolutely essential to

know what is not proper and why it is not proper. When you get to the why, it

is likely you will need evidence as to exactly why. Certainly when you get to the

next step, you will need this evidence.

After determining what and why, the next step is to go to the source that

created the problem. Did the department, vendor, or subcontractor that created

the errant element provide what was specified (either by the provider or by

you)? If it did, the problem is yours. If it did not, absolute evidence is required

to prove the point. If, at this point, there is disagreement regarding responsibility,

it will be necessary to make a decision. The decision is whether to shut

the process down until agreement can be achieved or to find alternative sources

to resolve the problem. The answer to this problem is usually one of time and

money. If the responsible party agrees to fix the problem quickly, then that is

the solution. If not, you will likely be better off finding another source and

letting the lawyers handle this one. It’s sort of like being rear-ended in your

car. You were absolutely in the right, but you still can’t drive your car until it’s


Back now to the other side of the problem. That is that the provider produced

exactly what was supposed to be produced and the problem is yours.

Once again, you have several options. First, you can change the specification in

the subcontract or the Work Order and have the job redone. Second, you can

find another source (if this is a purchased rather than a developed product),

buy that part, and continue. A quick note here—you will likely be responsible

for a thing called ‘‘liquidated damages’’ (see glossary) if you choose this route.

In other words, you ordered 5,000 widgets against your incorrect requirement

and caused a vendor to gear up for that production. You only bought one

hundred, so the vendor has a bunch of these things (or at least the cost) already

built. You are likely to be hit for the costs to make the vendor ‘‘whole’’ again.

Is there any wonder it is so necessary to make absolutely sure the requirements

are traceable and correct?


59a (NO) Each Unit1 Test does not correctly reflect the requirement.

Each unit test does not correctly reflect the requirement when each element

of the unit test is not directly traceable to each element of the unit requirement



Each testable unit should have its own requirement (Specification). This is

true whether the unit will be built internally or by subcontract. The subcontract

will contain procurement data in excess of the requirement (Specification) but

will otherwise be the same.

The requirement (Specification) should be the basis of a Test Plan for the

unit. The Unit Test Plan must define the:

Test performance figures, standards, etc., that the unit must meet

Conditions under which the test will be run

Support equipment

Test equipment

Conditions for acceptance of the test

Process for documenting and resolving test discrepancies

The details and step-by-step process of the test itself

Test Plans vary widely in their composition and content, but the definitions

above are consistent throughout all plans.

Additional Resources:

Hardware Plans Software Plans

MIL-STD-1519/1 ISO/IEC 12207

MIL-STD-2076 MIL-STD-498

MIL-T-18303B MIL-STD-2165

IEEE-STD 416 DI-ATTS-80002

MIL-STD-483 DOD-STD-2168













59b (NO) Each design element that applies to the routine/module/

subsystem does not have its own test case.

Each design element that applies to the routine/module/subsystem does not

have its own test case when there is no direct correlation between the requirement

and the elements tested in the unit, subsystem, or system test.