An OEM customer purchased a sheet-metal kit containing twelve different part types. The parts were supplied in split production deliveries, so each shipment needed to remain connected to the correct drawing revisions, inspection results and batch identity.
The project’s central issue was release control. A dimensionally acceptable part could still be wrong for the assembly if it belonged to an obsolete revision, while an inspection report was difficult to use if it could not be matched to the delivered batch.
The customer’s challenge
Drawing revisions changed frequently. Old-revision parts reached the assembly area and caused fit problems. Batch labels did not consistently support investigation of nonconforming parts, and the customer did not accept the supplier’s inconsistent inspection-report formats.
The customer needed a common identity running through the drawing, part, report and package. This was particularly important because the order was not delivered as one undivided production lot.
Material and fabrication route
The kit combined 1.0–1.5 mm SECC steel, 1.2 mm 304 stainless steel and 2.0 mm aluminum. Those materials belonged to different parts within the assembly set.
Process route: Laser cutting → bending → hardware insertion → welding → surface finishing → kit sorting → batch inspection → report preparation → packing and shipment.
Sorting and documentation were treated as release operations within the route, rather than administrative work left until after packing.
Manufacturing changes
The team established a drawing-revision control process. Every part was laser-marked with its revision and batch identifiers, linking the physical component to the version intended for that production release.
A standardized inspection-report template covered dimensional, appearance and functional checks. Each batch received its own report, and the parts were packed separately by batch with a matching traceability card.
These changes made the batch a complete release unit: the parts, their identities, the inspection report and the packing information travelled together. This also gave the customer a clearer starting point for any later traceability enquiry.
Engineering analysis
Revision identity and batch identity answer different questions. The revision identifies the design to which the part was made; the batch identifies the production group from which it came. Keeping both on the component avoids asking the customer to infer one from the other.
The standardized report then connects those identities to the checks performed. For split deliveries, a report from one batch should not be treated as evidence for another simply because the nominal part numbers are the same.
The twelve-part kit added a further requirement: the correct mix of components had to reach the customer together. Separate batch packing and kit sorting supported that control alongside the fabrication inspections.
Inspection and project results
| Project measurement or production detail | Recorded value |
|---|---|
| Different part types per kit | 12 |
| Production batch size | 50 kits |
| Revision and batch marking coverage | 100% of parts |
| Inspection-report content | 18 items per batch |
| Recorded batch-traceability accuracy | 100% |
| On-time delivery | ≥98% |
| Weekly delivery frequency | At least 4 batches |
The project recorded no mixed revisions, first-pass customer acceptance of the revised inspection reports and no customer complaints during the reported work. These are project results, not a claim of zero defects or complaints across all company deliveries.
The on-time-delivery figure applies to the supplied project record. It does not establish an unspecified company-wide reporting period or a guaranteed delivery rate for a new program.
Planning a similar OEM component
For OEM sheet metal assemblies, agree:
- The released drawing list and revision-control responsibilities.
- The part-marking method and any restricted marking locations.
- The batch size, kit composition and packing identity requirements.
- The inspection-report template and documents required for each release.
The quality-control scope should identify which records accompany each shipment, so the buyer can connect the delivered components to the accepted production batch.
