The Factory Acceptance Test (FATs) is one of the most critical activities when procuring automated packaging equipment and custom automated systems. In 20-plus years of consulting, I have been a part of many. In my last article, I outlined some of the considerations when faced with laying the groundwork for a Remote FAT. This time, we’ll cover some key considerations for documenting and executing a Remote FAT. As we well know if an activity isn’t documented, ‘it never happened’.
Documentation
When coordinating and executing an FAT from multiple locations, a detailed FAT Plan will be more important than ever. It has always been important to share the document with the Vendor so their team can perform a dry run. In this case, there will be a further need to pre-plan the technology, acquire it, test it, and determine the locations and methods to best capture each Test Step. During execution, both teams will want to have a copy of the approved FAT Plan to follow along.
To make the remote concept work, there will need to be new accepted practices for documenting results of the FAT. There will need to be an agreement on what is to be recorded, how, and where. It will need a combination of scanned documents, videos, and screen shots. Planning for the Remote FAT will include agreeing on which Test Steps will be recorded. The Owner may agree to pay for more in-depth documentation by Vendor technicians in advance (e.g., 100% verification of wiring and screen navigation) followed by spot checks during the Site Acceptance Test (SAT). A shared file location on the Vendor’s web site would come in handy along with someone assigned to organize and curate the files. Both teams should also have access to a complete set of manuals, drawings, and technical documentation ahead of time. As with a conventional FAT, there are going to be times it will be necessary to look things up.
Execution
One of the things we miss by not attending an FAT in person is that participants will not experience the initial thrill and that surge of adrenalin at seeing their new machine or system for the first time as they open the guards and climb all over the equipment. This experience will need to be replaced by a remote tour. Waving an iPhone past the machine will not suffice. It will take a well-choreographed review to orient those watching from the plant and familiarize them with key elements. Nobody on the receiving end should be reluctant to ask whatever questions they have about what they are seeing. This is the foundation for the rest of the activities.
By following the posted schedule, participants at both locations can follow along on the FAT Plan, documenting test results. As with the introductory tour, communications need to be two-way, with an open audio feed, taking into consideration background noise at the factory. This is where headsets may come in handy. And I would like to emphasize again that no one should be afraid to say, ‘Stop. Go back. I missed something.’
It will be necessary to capture individual Test Steps with multiple views. For instance, one camera focuses on the open guard door and the other on the control station with the operator attempting a restart. As mentioned, some static testing such as I/O checks, wiring verification, and wire-pull tests can be performed in advance with documented results available for review and storage. However, there are advantages to seeing screen navigation, security access verification, and alarm checks in real time.
Moving into Operational Testing, testing of safety circuits including e-stops, guard interlocks, and light curtains should be mandatory. Slow motion capture of quality-related processes such as filling, weighing, and sealing will help the Owner’s team understand details and critical settings as well as how to formulate training plans and quality check procedures. Fault and alarm testing would also be a high priority as would step-by-step changeover procedures.
Moving on to Performance Testing, the Vendor will have to plan how best to capture all relevant parts of the system on video. If multiple runs are anticipated, it makes sense to focus on one or two key subsystems during each run. Although these runs are always time consuming, they are the heart of the process and must be captured in real time. Remember: No do-overs. If a run fails, discuss it and understand what happened. Correct the problem. Repeat.
As with a traditional FAT, both teams will want to keep lists of follow-up Action Items and a ‘Parking Lot’ to review daily and guide the next day’s work. And finally, a formal document should still be issued releasing the system for shipment with a list of outstanding issues and responsibilities for resolution.
After all this, try as everyone might, there will be Punch List Items that won’t be identified until the equipment is on site. Time and expense will need to be allotted to make corrections in the field. Expect and plan for more on-site time for factory technicians.
Conclusion
Remote FATs are likely to be a part of our automated equipment purchase process for a while. I’m sure each of you have additional considerations specific to your situation. If you had to organize and participate in a remote FAT what would be your thoughts and concerns? Things are evolving. One thing for certain is that we have not yet seen the absolute best solution.
PAMC has a long history of helping its clients purchase and install equipment. We have extensive experience participating in and orchestrating FATs. Contact me at andy@malcolmconsulting.com if you need a sounding board for your upcoming project. If you want support for your FAT (remote or traditional), we can do that, too.
Speak Your Mind