Bar Coding for Warranty

1
Bar Codingfor Warranty
2
ISM-RIF-Warranty Working Group

• Bill Smith BNSF
  913-551-2655 william.smith_at_bnsf.com
• Russ Ferretti Metro North
  212-672-1222 ferretti_at_mnr.org
• Mark Fiedler CSXT 904-359-1489 Mark_Fiedler_at_CSX.
  com
• Mike Lane GETS Global Signaling Mike.Lane_at_gehh.
  ge.com
• Tony Sciacca NYCT 212-544-4008 ansciac_at_nyct.com
• Kim Rider CSXT
  904-366-4450 Kim_Rider_at_csx.com
• Luann LaLone NYAB 315-786-5250 llalone_at_nyab.com
• Steve Peterson Continental Data
  speterson_at_cdgnow.com
• Brian Kelly GETS 814/875-5132
  Bkelly_at_msx.trans.ge.com
• Frank Upton CSXT 904-359-3625 Frank_Upton_
  Notes_at_csx.com
• Paul Penney CN
  514-399-7044 paul.penney_at_cn.ca
• Dalene Hofferd CP
  403-319-3928 Dalene_Hofferd_at_cpr.ca
• Gary Moe ID Integration 425-438-2533 gary_at_id-inte
  gration.com
• Richard Sullivan RWMEC 703-241-0636 richardsulliv
  an_at_worldnet.att.net
• Wayne Cross WABTEC 630-561-0983 Wcross_at_WABTEC.com
  
• Jon Keserich, CamCode Inc. 216-714-0053 JonKes_at_cam
  cod.com
• John Vikara WABTEC 412-825-1320 jvikara_at_wabtec.co
  m
• Tom Bump EMD
  thomas.r.bump_at_gm.com
• Dave Reardon Progress Rail davereardonprogres
  s_at_worldnet.att.net

3
Warranty Working Group's Mission

• Review both new and existing technologies and
  business processes to develop a warranty
  administrative program suitable to railroads,
  suppliers, and OEMs. This will include
  development of an industry-recognized standard
  for equipment identification and labeling.

4
Each Railroad did it their own way !
5
We,

• Completed Research
• Benchmarked against others Success
• Agreed on a Method
• Developed a Standard
• Tested it against the REAL World
• Are proposing it to the Industry
• Supports control down to LLRU
• Need to start implementation in 2002

6
What is Warranty ?

• The responsibility for repair or replacement of a
  component that fails within the contractually
  designated period or function.
• Any additional cost such as handling, shipping
  and extra labor will be governed by contractual
  agreements between the parties.

7
The Proposed Standard

• A proposed AAR Specification in 2002
• Used by Railroads and Commuter Lines
• Supported by the ISM-RIF
• Compatible with existing requirements
• Basic Guidelines
• Room for Quality Improvement

8
Warranty Process Flow Chart
Page 8
9
How do I know it is under warranty?
10
Bar-coding

• Proven and existing technology
• Auto Identification of assets
• Six Sigma error proof

11
Types of barcodes

• adopted by ATA and ISM (NAPM)
• 1D
• code 39 or code128
• CODE 39 Format is the de facto standard for
  Government, Manufacturing, BarCode Industry,
  Education, and Business applications.
• CODE 128 Format is more compact and flexible
• 2D
• Datamatrix
• two-dimensional barcode which can store from 1 to
  about 2,000 characters

12

• OEM Label covers five (5) types of information
  in two (2) sections Manufacturer Cage Code-
  Part Serial Number- Date Manufactured Part
  Number- Warranty Expiration Date

• Because part numbers change, the part number
  line may be changed
• Rebuilt information may be added to part number
  line, such as New Part Number - Warranty
  Expiration Date - Re-manufacturers Cage Code

• Both parts of the label must survive for the
  life of the component
• Information must be human and machine readable
• Bar coding is required on any new label (Code
  39 or 128 or DataMatrix)

13
Warranty Process Flow Chart
Page 8
14
Two Basic Types of Warranty

• 2. Pre-Service Failure
• Noncompliance upon receipt of material
• Manufacturing errors
• Just installed
• Not yet in full service
• Does not conform to the prescribed
  requirements

• 1. In-Service Failure
• In full service
• Failed prematurely
• Physical evidence
• Design flaw
• Does not conform to the prescribed agreements

15
Warranty Process Flow Chart
Page 8
16
Purchaser Claim Administration

• 1.) Tag Component
• 2.) Gather Items Data
• 3.) Contact Supplier for RMA
• 4.) Cut P.O. if applicable
• 5.) Fill out AAR QA 7.1 Form
• 6.) Send to Supplier a copy to AAR

17
Supplier Claim Administration
?????

• 1.) Determine Root Cause
• 2.) Fill out AAR QA 7.2 Form
• 3.) Send to Purchaser
• 4.) Copy to AAR
• 5.) Repair or Replace or Charge PO
• 6.) Implement Corrective Action,
• as necessary

18
AAR Claim Administration

• 1.) Input into Data Base (Confidential)
• 2.) Review by QAC Member
• 3.) Contact Supplier if necessary
• 4.) Recommend Audits if applicable
• 5.) Review General Trends at AAR
• QAC Meeting
• 6.) Audit for Compliance

19
Warranty Example using Car Repair Billing
20
Defective Empty Load Valve
21
How do I know it is under warranty?
WDT
Look at the WDT (Warranty Expiration Date)
22
If NO, Handle per Rule 85 Guidelines.
If YES, gather detail information for the Car
Owner.
23
Read
1. MFR Cage Code (5C) 2. SER Serial Number
(15C) 3. DMF Date of Mfg. (6C) 4. PNR Part Number
(15C) 5. WDT Warranty Date (6C)
or Scan
6. Car Number 7. Date of Repair
8. Failure Detail Information (May use WM codes)
24
Does it need an RGA ?
25
CALL
or
26
Faxcom
or
E-mail
27
(No Transcript)
28
Get Feed Back
29
Ship
30
Owner fills out the
Supplier
QA 7.1
31
Supplier figures out
32
Within 30-days
33
Supplier fills out the
Owner
QA 7.2
34
We agree !
35
Overall Impact ?

• Improved Warranty Handling
• Quicker Information Gathering
• Error Proof Data Collection
• Cradle-to-Grave Tracking
• Standardized Labeling
• Continuous Quality Improvement