Plant notes
What the rooms actually argued about.
These are accounts from studies we have finished. They name a line of work, a constraint, and at least one thing the client would do differently. They are not a score.
The folio showed the night shift still writing 'solder splash' after the day shift had folded that fault into 'bridge'. I wanted those two codes kept apart, and the first draft had joined them. The revision took four extra days. I was impatient about the days. The separated codes were what the night lead needed in the handover.
Our noisiest film supplier looked careful. The quiet one looked worse. The comparison showed why: we wrote down curl, and their certificate did not. I had hoped for a name to take to purchasing. What I got was a difference in counting. It was the right difference. It was not the culprit I had rehearsed.
I asked Malee for one number I could put in front of my director. She would not collapse the month. She marked the week the die was changed and left the other weeks as they were. That was more useful than the number. The briefing still ran long because my director arrived late and wanted the number anyway. The hour was not kept. The die week was.
The inspectors argued with a Friday column until Arthit asked who had written it. That person was on leave. We stopped and took the column up the following Tuesday. I wish we had checked the roster before we booked the room. The Tuesday conversation was the one that changed the crimp check. The Friday booking was the part I would plan differently.
Eleven hundred rows that stayed in Lat Krabang
The board plant would not let the inspection books leave the building. Arthit spent two evenings in the quality room photographing about eleven hundred rows under a low lamp. The quality manager sat with him for the first hour so the column headings were named once, in the plant's words.
Friday pencil washed out in a handful of frames. Those rows went into the folio as unread. A day-shift engineer offered to fill them from memory. Niran declined. At the briefing the unread band was the first thing the night lead pointed at. She remembered a flux lot, not a solder-iron setting. The plant checked that lot the next morning. The folio did not claim the flux was the cause. It claimed the book had a gap, and the person who wrote the gap had a sentence the photographs had lost.
Siriporn later asked for the two solder codes to be split. That revision is the one she mentions when she talks about the study. The flux sentence is the one the night lead mentions. Both are in the same folio.
Twelve rolls, or four, on the Bang Phli dock
The film supplier's certificate for the quarter listed twelve rolls rejected. The plant's incoming book listed four. Purchasing had already drafted a letter. Kamol asked for the review before the letter went out.
Lot by lot, the extra eight rolls were holds for curl. The plant had used them after a forming trial, or had sent them back without calling them rejects in the book. The certificate had one word for all twelve. The book had a hold tag, a trial note, or nothing. The comparison sheet did not scold the supplier and did not scold the dock. It showed that 'reject' was doing two jobs.
Kamol was annoyed. He had wanted a culprit and a percentage. The sheet gave him a glossary. Purchasing rewrote the letter as a question about curl tags. The supplier's next certificate split curl from reject. That was the change on the dock. It was smaller than the letter he had rehearsed, and he says so.
If your books have a similar snag — a code the shifts do not share, a certificate that counts a different event — write with that snag named.