🚀 go-pugleaf

Monika,

I would simply tag the hardware according to the inspection status, e.g. (in
process ) inspected and (final) inspected. If you see a benefit of going to a
finer detail, you could have a traveller sheet with the equipment, marking the
types of tests to be carried out, as a checklist, and marking off the tests and
inspections that have been carried out.

>From your message however I suspect that there is some other aspect that
bothers you, e.g. perhaps not enough tests or not critical enough tests are
carried out. That is covered in another chapter of the standard and there you
need to rely on your understanding of the specification given by the client,
governemnt regulations, as well as the requirements imposed internally, e.g.
matters of reliability, manufacturability, maintainability, etc.

monika.bryczkowska@plcen.mail.abb.com wrote:

> I am the Quality Manager of ABB Centrum Ltd. in Poland. Scope of my firm
> activity include: design engineering, supply, erection supervision,
> commissioning, after sales service of automation system for use in power
> generation industries.
> I  have  the  problem  with Inspection and test status. Our product include
> automation  systems used in power generation industry and it is not obvious
> how  to  establish  and  implement  the  inspection and test status. To the
> computer  system  we  can  not stick the status card. Naturally we test our
> products  in  many  ways  and we have a lot of measurements, but in fact, I
> feel,  this  is not enough. We maintain the products register which include
> all the goods we sold, but I think this is not a good solution.
> I count on your help and good advice.
>
> Monika Bryczkowska
> Quality Manager
> monika.bryczkowska@plcen.mail.abb.com



--
Eric Stern
Tel/Fax: (514) 483-6264
5386 West Broadway
Montreal, QC, Canada, H4V 2A4
eric@cam.org