Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Manuals; Procedure
I was assigned Aircraft X for my nightly workload on DATE. I was troubleshooting and repairing and MEL on CIDS (Cabin Intercommunication Data System). 'CIDS caution light on FAP'. MEL# 23-XXX. Control Number X. Log page X. The problem discovered to be the Cabin Announcement Module. So I replaced the part with the part that was assigned with the workload; following all maintenance manual references. Specifically AMM 23-73-19. Even checking the supplements attached to the reference. According to the supplement; manufacturer part number Z0XXXXXXXXXX is required to be installed. That number translates to M&E number 29-XXXX-X-XXXX; which was the part number that was assigned to the workload for the night. I did not order this part for this aircraft but verified it was the correct part number according to the supplement. While installing the part; I noticed a part number difference and re-verified I did install the correct part. So I continued with my work. Replaced the module. Reprogrammed it according to the AMM. And completed the operational check. Everything checked good. The caution message disappeared. So I signed off the discrepancy. While filling out the paperwork; I went back in to re-verify I did have the correct part number. It wasn't until DATE1 that I was informed that it was the incorrect part number. I am being told that M&E number 29-XXXX-X-XXXX is in fact the correct part number; which is different from what is listed in the supplement. There is also data missing from the original discrepancy after it was signed off. Both the M&E number and serial number are blank despite there being a tracking tag number written. When the serial number of the part I installed is searched for; it has two different M&E numbers: 29-XXXX-X-XXYY and 29-XXXX-X-XXZZ. The data listed in the computer application is not is not matching up. Also; according to the computer application; I was assigned M&E 29-XXXX-X-XXYY; which as stated before; is the correct part number according to the supplement.Faulty computer application not properly tracking aircraft data. Possibly a miscommunication between technical documents since a supplement has one part number listed and I am being another part number is required. Possibly data manipulation by a third unknown party.Correcting the computer application; by removing the bug that is causing the problem. Add more information to the supplement that is attached to the AMM/IPC of the required part numbers. IPC 23-XX-XX-XXX item 090s states M&E 29-XXXX-X-XXXX contradicting what is written in the attached supplement.
Technician reported misidentifying the correct part number due to bugs in a computer program; and installing the wrong part.