求高手帮忙翻译,急啊,谢谢啦 10
HelloJames/Ken;Ihavereviewedtheansweranditdoesnotmatchtheissue100%Inrootcauseanalysis...
Hello James / Ken;
I have reviewed the answer and it does not match the issue 100%
In root cause analysis your answer was:
1. The heads in the carton were the same with the large size label outside the carton which were HD WD RH XHOT FW 7FW WMS, but when shipment due to the new operator was unfamiliar with the large size label and small label lead to labeled wrong
Comment: Material requested on the PO was 1,000pzs of PN 2684076 HD WD RH XHOT FW 7FW WMS, 875pzs were ok physically and labels on cartons; 125 pzs NOT OK physically were PN 2684056 HD WD RH XHOT FW 5FW WMS as declared in small label (the same as physical heads), large label declares 7FW (Large size label and head in carton were not the same, small label does match physically with the material inside)
2. The operators didn’t scan the labels with scan gun according to process after they labeled, so they failed to find out this problem in time.
Comment: Could you explain a little bit more how the scanning after placing the label would avoid the issue from happening?
Do you scan both labels (small and large) to make sure both match between each other and vs the packing list?
Maybe there is some misunderstanding of the issue and you are looking to attack the root cause from a different side that is not the one that provoked this failure, Could you please re-evaluate the CAR Answer and provide the correct one ASAP if applicable to change it?
Please understand that in order to evaluate the answer I need to better understand the process and if you help me adding documentation related such as root cause analysis development (not only the final decision) , visual aids, work instructions, quality alerts, etc… it will be easier to evaluate the CAR.
Also on corrective actions, please from every action declared as a change in the process, help me to include the proof of change (changes in: visual aids, work instructions, quality alerts, new lay outs, etc…) and if the action defined is in regard training I would like you to include the training records as well. 展开
I have reviewed the answer and it does not match the issue 100%
In root cause analysis your answer was:
1. The heads in the carton were the same with the large size label outside the carton which were HD WD RH XHOT FW 7FW WMS, but when shipment due to the new operator was unfamiliar with the large size label and small label lead to labeled wrong
Comment: Material requested on the PO was 1,000pzs of PN 2684076 HD WD RH XHOT FW 7FW WMS, 875pzs were ok physically and labels on cartons; 125 pzs NOT OK physically were PN 2684056 HD WD RH XHOT FW 5FW WMS as declared in small label (the same as physical heads), large label declares 7FW (Large size label and head in carton were not the same, small label does match physically with the material inside)
2. The operators didn’t scan the labels with scan gun according to process after they labeled, so they failed to find out this problem in time.
Comment: Could you explain a little bit more how the scanning after placing the label would avoid the issue from happening?
Do you scan both labels (small and large) to make sure both match between each other and vs the packing list?
Maybe there is some misunderstanding of the issue and you are looking to attack the root cause from a different side that is not the one that provoked this failure, Could you please re-evaluate the CAR Answer and provide the correct one ASAP if applicable to change it?
Please understand that in order to evaluate the answer I need to better understand the process and if you help me adding documentation related such as root cause analysis development (not only the final decision) , visual aids, work instructions, quality alerts, etc… it will be easier to evaluate the CAR.
Also on corrective actions, please from every action declared as a change in the process, help me to include the proof of change (changes in: visual aids, work instructions, quality alerts, new lay outs, etc…) and if the action defined is in regard training I would like you to include the training records as well. 展开
3个回答
展开全部
您好詹姆斯/肯;
我已审阅的答案,它不匹配的问题100%
在根本原因分析你的回答是:
1。在纸箱的头与大尺寸的标签外纸箱HD WD RH XHOT FW 7FW WMS是相同的,但由于新的运营商时,运费不熟悉的大尺寸标签,小标签铅标记错误
评论:要求的PO材料的PN 2684076 HD WD RH XHOT FW 7FW WMS是1000 PZS,875pzs确定身体和纸箱上的标签; 125 PZS NOT OK身体PN 2684056 HD WD RH XHOT FW 5FW WMS中声明的小标签(在相同的物理磁头),大的的标签声明7FW(大尺寸的标签和纸箱头是不一样的,小的标签不匹配身体内的材料)
2。运营商没有根据处理后,标记的标签扫描枪扫描,所以他们未能找出这个问题的时间。
点评:你能解释一下扫描后,将标签放置更多的是如何避免问题的发生呢?
你扫描标签(小和大),确保彼此之间及与装箱单的比赛吗?
也许有一些误解的问题,你正在寻找攻击从不同的侧面,是不是一个引起此故障的根本原因,能不能请你重新评估的CAR回答,并尽快提供正确的改变(如适用)呢?
请理解,以评估的答案,我需要更好地了解的过程,如果你能帮我将作为发展的根本原因分析(不仅是最终的决定),直观教具,作业指导书,质量警报等相关文件...是更容易评估CAR。
采取纠正措施,请声明为一个变化的过程的每一个动作,帮助我改变的证明(变化:直观教具,作业指导书,质量警报,新的非专业出局,等...),如果定义的动作方面的培训,我希望你能以及包括培训记录。
我已审阅的答案,它不匹配的问题100%
在根本原因分析你的回答是:
1。在纸箱的头与大尺寸的标签外纸箱HD WD RH XHOT FW 7FW WMS是相同的,但由于新的运营商时,运费不熟悉的大尺寸标签,小标签铅标记错误
评论:要求的PO材料的PN 2684076 HD WD RH XHOT FW 7FW WMS是1000 PZS,875pzs确定身体和纸箱上的标签; 125 PZS NOT OK身体PN 2684056 HD WD RH XHOT FW 5FW WMS中声明的小标签(在相同的物理磁头),大的的标签声明7FW(大尺寸的标签和纸箱头是不一样的,小的标签不匹配身体内的材料)
2。运营商没有根据处理后,标记的标签扫描枪扫描,所以他们未能找出这个问题的时间。
点评:你能解释一下扫描后,将标签放置更多的是如何避免问题的发生呢?
你扫描标签(小和大),确保彼此之间及与装箱单的比赛吗?
也许有一些误解的问题,你正在寻找攻击从不同的侧面,是不是一个引起此故障的根本原因,能不能请你重新评估的CAR回答,并尽快提供正确的改变(如适用)呢?
请理解,以评估的答案,我需要更好地了解的过程,如果你能帮我将作为发展的根本原因分析(不仅是最终的决定),直观教具,作业指导书,质量警报等相关文件...是更容易评估CAR。
采取纠正措施,请声明为一个变化的过程的每一个动作,帮助我改变的证明(变化:直观教具,作业指导书,质量警报,新的非专业出局,等...),如果定义的动作方面的培训,我希望你能以及包括培训记录。
展开全部
你好,詹姆斯/肯,我回顾了答案和它不匹配问题根源分析100%你的答案是:1。头一端在纸箱是相同的与大尺寸的外箱标签高清WD RH XHOT FW 7 FW WMS,但是当货物由于新运营商是不熟悉的大尺寸标签和小标签导致标记wrongComment:材料要求在PO(这个是术语缩写吧)是1000 pzs PN 2684076 HD WD的RH XHOT FW 7,875 pzs FW WMS是身体上和纸箱上的标签;125 pzs不可以用于身体PN 2684056 HD WD RH XHOT FW 5 FW WMS小标签(相同的物理头)、大型标签声明7 FW(大尺寸的标签和纸箱是头不一样,小标签匹配身体的材料里面)2。操作员并不与扫描枪扫描标签根据过程后,标记,所以他们没有发现这个问题在时间。评论:你能解释一点后如何放置标签扫描会避免这个问题的发生?你扫描两个标签(小型和大型),确保两个相互之间的匹配和vs装箱单吗?也许有一些误解的问题,你想攻击的根源的另外一面,不是,激怒了这个失败,请您重新评估汽车回答并提供正确的尽快改变它?如果适用请理解,为了评估答案我需要更好地理解这个过程,如果你帮我添加文档相关的如根原因分析发展(不只是最后的决定),视觉教具、作业指导书、质量警报,等等…这将是更容易评估汽车。还在纠正措施,请从每一个行动都声明为一个改变在这个过程中,帮助我的证明,包括改变(改变:视觉教具、作业指导书、质量警报,新躺出局,等等…),如果行动是就定义培训,我希望你也包括培训记录。------完。艾玛,累死我了。我是学英语专业的,一半自己翻译,一半查字典的。都是工业术语啊,晕。亲~给个分吧
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是?
展开全部
你好詹姆斯/肯;
我有了答案,它不匹配问题的100%
在根本原因分析你的回答是:
1。头在纸箱是相同的与大尺寸的外箱标签高清WD RH XHOT FW 7 FW WMS,但当装运由于新运营商是不熟悉的大尺寸标签和小标签导致标记错误
备注:材料要求在PO 1000 pzs PN 2684076 HD WD的RH XHOT FW 7,875 pzs FW WMS是好的身体上和纸箱上的标签;125 pzs不可以身体被PN 2684056 HD WD RH XHOT FW 5 FW WMS宣布在小标签(相同的物理头)、大型标签声明7 FW(大尺寸的标签和纸箱是头不一样,小标签匹配身体的材料里面)
2。操作员并不与扫描枪扫描标签根据过程后,标记,所以他们没有发现这个问题在时间。
评论:你能解释一点后如何放置标签扫描会避免这个问题的发生?
你扫描两个标签(小型和大型),确保两个相互之间的匹配和vs装箱单吗?
也许有一些误解的问题,你想攻击的根源的另外一面,不是,激怒了这个失败,请您重新评估汽车回答并提供正确的尽快改变它?如果适用
请理解,为了评估答案我需要更好地理解这个过程,如果你帮我添加文档相关的如根原因分析发展(不只是最后的决定),视觉教具、作业指导书、质量警报,等等…这将是更容易评估汽车。
还在纠正措施,请从每一个行动都声明为一个改变在这个过程中,帮助我的证明,包括改变(改变:视觉教具、作业指导书、质量警报,新躺出局,等等…),如果行动def
我有了答案,它不匹配问题的100%
在根本原因分析你的回答是:
1。头在纸箱是相同的与大尺寸的外箱标签高清WD RH XHOT FW 7 FW WMS,但当装运由于新运营商是不熟悉的大尺寸标签和小标签导致标记错误
备注:材料要求在PO 1000 pzs PN 2684076 HD WD的RH XHOT FW 7,875 pzs FW WMS是好的身体上和纸箱上的标签;125 pzs不可以身体被PN 2684056 HD WD RH XHOT FW 5 FW WMS宣布在小标签(相同的物理头)、大型标签声明7 FW(大尺寸的标签和纸箱是头不一样,小标签匹配身体的材料里面)
2。操作员并不与扫描枪扫描标签根据过程后,标记,所以他们没有发现这个问题在时间。
评论:你能解释一点后如何放置标签扫描会避免这个问题的发生?
你扫描两个标签(小型和大型),确保两个相互之间的匹配和vs装箱单吗?
也许有一些误解的问题,你想攻击的根源的另外一面,不是,激怒了这个失败,请您重新评估汽车回答并提供正确的尽快改变它?如果适用
请理解,为了评估答案我需要更好地理解这个过程,如果你帮我添加文档相关的如根原因分析发展(不只是最后的决定),视觉教具、作业指导书、质量警报,等等…这将是更容易评估汽车。
还在纠正措施,请从每一个行动都声明为一个改变在这个过程中,帮助我的证明,包括改变(改变:视觉教具、作业指导书、质量警报,新躺出局,等等…),如果行动def
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是?
推荐律师服务:
若未解决您的问题,请您详细描述您的问题,通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询