A LEAD MECHANIC IS INFORMED HE REPLACED AN AIRBUS A320 GPWS COMPUTER THAT WAS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR THAT ACFT; EVEN THOUGH TESTS WERE PERFORMED AND ALL PASSED.

Narrative

I HAD THE JOB OF WORKING MEL REPLACING THE GPWS COMPUTER ON ACFT X IN ZZZ. THE COMPUTER WAS INSTALLED AND THE TESTS WERE PERFORMED AND ALL PASSED. THE GPWS WAS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR THE ACFT. I BELIEVE RECORDS FOUND THE PART NUMBER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR THE ACFT. THEN IT WAS PASSED DOWN TO MAINT CTL TO CHANGE THE GPWS ON ANOTHER WRITE-UP. RECORDS NOTIFIED QUALITY CTL; WHICH NOTIFIED MAINT CTL TO PLACE GPWS ON A PRIORITY WRITE-UP AND THE GPWS WAS CHANGED APR/XA/08. THE EVENT OCCURRED BECAUSE THE IPC WAS NOT PROPERLY XCHKED AGAINST THE PART ON HAND; THERE WAS A LOT OF PACKAGE PAPERWORK SCATTERED AROUND ALONG WITH THE AMM REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION PROCS; PEOPLE WERE WAITING ON JOB ASSIGNMENTS; AND THE WORK PACKAGE PAPERWORK WAS HAVING TO BE REDONE. CLUTTER; TIMING; AND RUSHING WERE THE THREE MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THE PART NUMBER NOT BEING XCHKED WITH EFFECTIVITY FOR THE ACFT. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE NEED TO HAVE A DOUBLECHK PROC. ONE SHIFT COULD PULL IPC AND COMPARE IT TO THE PARTS RECEIVED; AS WELL AS THE CORRECT EFFECTIVE PART FOR THE ACFT; AND NEXT SHIFT LEAD WOULD DOUBLECHK THEIR FINDINGS. SO; THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE 2 SETS OF EYES LOOKING NOT ONLY AT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PARTS; BUT THE CONDITION.