Describing Data Collection Functions

So far, you've learned that the worker can record data when assembling a component. Let us now dive a little deeper and explain why the worker should do this. The following image shows a genealogy record for a manufactured product, for example, a bike:

In our example Bike Manufacturing company, we manage the bike as a lot-size one material, so that the SFC number the system creates during order release corresponds to a uniquely identifiable item, for example, one bike with the serial number, 4711.

The manufacturing process consists of two steps: In the first step, the worker assembles semi-finished components, for example, wheels, using different raw materials, such as tires and rims. In the second step, the worker uses the semi-finished components (wheels) and other raw materials (frames and light sets) to assemble the finished product. For traceability reasons, you need to know which components were used at which manufacturing step to assemble the finished product. This process is called discrete component traceability, and you can collect all information required for this process in SAP Digital Manufacturing. How does this work?

The process starts at the raw material level. When warehouse personnel receive the components from the suppliers and create inventory in SAP Digital Manufacturing (either directly or indirectly via integration with SAP S/4HANA), they record information provided by the suppliers, such as vendor, vendor lot, vendor serial number, manufacturing date, and so on. In the next step, the system collects, for each manufactured SFC (for example, for the semi-finished or finished product), which component was assembled at which operation, and offers the possibility to collect additional data, such as inventory ID, serial number, assembly-related information, and so on, for each component. After the worker records this information in the POD, the system adds it to the as-built record of the SFC. If you require further information, such as process- or quality-related information, you can additionally record assembly process data for the SFC to enable full traceability.

Collecting genealogy data provides visibility and traceability of the components, for example, in the case of product claims. A typical business use-case follows the top-down approach from product to components: If a customer files a complaint for a purchased product, such as a defect, the as-built record of the unit is available to the Quality Department and helps to quickly analyze the issue by providing information about the manufacturing process and the assembled components. Assuming the root-cause of the product defect is a defective purchased component, you can identify and involve the responsible supplier into the process.

After identifying a defective component, the Quality Department can trigger a follow-up process using the bottom-up strategy. They can track the path from the defective component to all finished products where this component was used. Assuming that some finished products are still in the warehouse, the Quality Department prevents them from being shipped to customers before the defect is fixed via rework. In the worst case scenario, the respective finished goods have already been shipped to customers. In this case, the Quality Department proactively informs the respective customers about the defect. The latter can then initiate containment measures to prevent further issues.

The following figure shows how you can use assembly process data to document your manufacturing process and to perform in-process quality inspection:

The bike manufacturing process consists of several manufacturing operations that your workers perform. In our example, they first undertake the assembly operation, followed by a quality inspection. If the quality inspection is passed, they package the bike into a transport box.

Your Master Data Specialist can attach one or more data collection groups to each manufacturing operation. For example, during assembly, the worker documents assembly parameters for wheel and fork assembly, respectively. Each data collection group contains one or more parameters. For example, the torque and the screwdriver used when attaching the wheels to the frame (for example, wheel assembly parameters), and the fork pressure (for example, fork assembly parameters). During the quality inspection, the SAP Digital Manufacturing system displays an inspection checklist for the worker to record various inspection parameters. In our example, the worker records numerical results (for example, front and rear tire pressure), binary values (for example, whether the lights a working or not), or coded values (for example, no scratches, superficial scratches, deep scratches, and so on).

What is the difference between the parameters a worker records in the assembly and quality inspection operations, respectively? During assembly, the worker simply records the as-is data to document the details of the manufacturing process. For example, they note that they used a screwdriver with the ID, 57745, and the maximum torque applied when they tightened the wheel's screws to the frame was 15 Nm. The system stores this information in the data collection record for the SFC without further evaluation. From a business perspective, you use this scenario when you require information about the manufacturing process, for example, for further analysis or due to obligatory documentation requirement.

During quality inspection, the worker collects information about the manufactured device (or the manufacturing process), for example, the as-is values of the front and rear tires, respectively. During the design phase, engineering specified an acceptable pressure range (for example, 2 - 3 bar). Depending on the measured value, the inspection characteristic either passes (if the value is within the range) or fails (if the pressure is outside the range). Similarly, if the lights do not work, the system rejects the respective inspection characteristic. Unlike the recording of as-is data, the system now evaluates and reacts to the information the worker entered. As depicted in the following image, there are two possible scenarios, depending on the outcome of the quality inspection:

The worker conducts the quality inspection and records the results as depicted in the figure. In our example, the pressure of the front tire (3.5 bar) falls outside the acceptable range (2 - 3 bar) and the lights are non-functional. Consequently, the quality inspection is unsuccessful, and the system automatically directs the SFC to an analysis and repair station. Here, a worker investigates the quality issue. If they can resolve it, they document the process in the system, then direct the SFC back to its original routing to perform the next manufacturing operation, such as packaging. If the worker cannot fix the defect, they scrap the SFC.

As illustrated in the figure, the system only initiates the analysis and repair sub-process if the worker detects a defect. If quality inspection is passed, the system directs the SFC to the next operation of the routing, for example, packaging.