Whether your source data for AOI programming is in CAD or Gerber format, you are probably struggling to quickly extract useful information to program your inspection equipment , for both solder paste and component placement inspections. The problem is shape data. For solder paste inspection this means shapes of the correct stencil apertures for every footprint, often customized according to process needs. For component placement inspection this means accurate body shapes, placement angles and polarity markings. Many AOI systems today rely on “manually self taught” libraries, one for each customer, in order to compensate for differences in component zero angle used by different designers for the same parts. Manual self taught libraries are hugely inefficient, redundant and often requires costly machine downtime time to engage the “self taught’’ programming mode. Valor technology can easily correct for this by quickly creating a manufacturing friendly product data model OFFLINE, from either CAD or Gerber sources, by 1) extracting footprints and correcting centroid locations for asymmetrical components, 2) automatic assignment of fiducials and component types, 3) supplementing accurate shape data, 4) validating and integrating “as built” BOM data, and 5) quickly neutralizing rotation variations. One key to this success is the use of the VPL (Valor Parts Library). Bye the way, the same product data model also supports SMT machine programming and hand assembly so source data can be handled one time and centralized for use by all factory operations.

You may be wondering how Valor can add value to the product data model by supplementing the original CAD shape or shapes extracted from Geber. This is accomplished with the Valor Part Library (VPL) which currently includes accurate component geometries for more than 36,000,000 part numbers. The VPL is used to insert accurate shapes and pin 1 locations into the product data model automatically by cross referencing the manufacture’s part numbers gleaned from the BOM and AVL (Approved Vendor List), to the part numbers and vendor names in Valor’s VPL. The dimensionally accurate shapes from the VPL are then exactly centered on each footprint in the PCB design, resulting in an optimized centroid location. The zero rotation angle from the original CAD data is updated with a new standardized value based on an automated calculation of the direction of pin1 relative to the board orientation. Thus the universal problem of inconsistent rotation angles that result from different CAD tools and/or different preferences from one designer to another, is totally neutralized. This eliminates hassles and expense to manually create and maintain redundant libraries at the AOI machine. Even when VPL data is not used, Pin 1 locations of CAD shapes or extracted shapes can be verified systematically, and then rotation angles neutralized. This robust Valor technology will quickly provide the AOI environment with consistent pin1 attribute of up, down, left, or right, accurate component outline dimensions and centroid locations, and thereby streamline the data preparation process all offline. The result is the reduced waste of machine time to setup and debug multiple libraries, plus the generation of more accurate programs in less time.

In Part 2 of this series, I will discuss how other Valor technologies can be used streamline the data preparation and setup of AOI machines, and what impact this can have on programming for solder paste inspection, and component placement, even when all you have to work with is Gerber data!

Stay tuned.

Bruce Isbell

When we see this kind of strong separation between groups, there must be a reason. Again the research data gives the answer. The data shows a very strong correlation between companies who achieve release dates, development cost and revenue targets and those who invest in and deploy constraint driven analysis and collaboration software. The following chart compares those companies who are using industry leading software for DFM and those who are not, and the impact this has their ability to achieve their business targets over the past 12 months.

The research results also show that Best-in-Class companies are averaging only one re-spin per design and therefore they are saving time and money over their competitors. The cost to implement a design change into the product, averages $13,000 and 20 days. With average and laggard companies re-spinning their products 3 times per design, Best-in-Class are saving nearly $26,000 and 40 days in their development process. This clearly substantiates BIC meeting their target business goals.

The full report on this compelling research is available to everyone. To obtain a complimentary copy of the report, visit: http://www.aberdeen.com/link/sponsor.asp?cid=3973

Soon you will know all the secrets of becoming a best-in-class company for PCB design!

Following my previous blog entry, in this post I discuss the various solutions that are being implemented by MES companies to meet the demands of OEMs for automatic and fail-safe solution that is consistent across the whole operation, so all data is easily accessible in whatever form they want it:

In-house developed solutions

This is probably the most commonly used solution until now. It is typically a point-solution, with separate applications handling specific issues. In many cases parts of the solution are based on manual data collection, maybe partly paper based. Very few companies have managed to develop integrated and fail-safe solutions that cover the complete factory and are able to pass the new audits. Most companies that use this approach get caught in the fact that the structure cannot handle the constant growth in functions and data-content. Another typical problem is that once one or more key persons leave or move to other positions, further development and maintenance becomes almost impossible.

Local software companies

In every region and city there are local software companies and some of them have specialized in delivering solutions for electronic manufacturing. To a certain degree they have the same advantages and disadvantages as in-house development. They are typically good at making a specialized solution that fit well to the customers need. But making a factory-wide MES system is not a simple task. In most cases it will end-up in a fragmented solution that cannot scale very well. Making good integration to SMT machines, testers, repair stations etc. is essential for getting a good and robust solution. I it is a difficult task, which is rarely obtained by local software companies. In most cases all development will depend on one or few persons, and it can have serious consequences if anyone leaves, or even worse if the company closes.

Typical MES suppliers

Some of the world-leading MES vendors have very nice and mature products, but none of them are focusing specifically on the electronic manufacturing, so they lack the detailed knowledge about the business, processes and pains. Many of the products looks nice on high level and at “presentation-level”, but when it comes to real implementation, they completely lack the ability to get detailed data (interface to equipment etc) and perform control functions like direct interaction with machines. This integration (SCADA level) is essential for a well-performing, accurate and robust solution.

Equipment Vendors

Most equipment vendors have solutions for performance monitoring, part verification and traceability. It works fine, with good integration to the machines, so fail-safe operation can be assured. The problem is that the vendor-solution will cover limited machines, typically the SMT machines. Most vendors cover their own machines, and have no intentions to cover a competing brand. The equipment vendors don’t intend to develop factory wide solutions, their main scope is to produce and sell machines, and to develop solutions around them, so they will not be able to fulfill all audit requirements from the OEMs.

Global MES vendors focusing on electronics assembly.

All major OEMs get their products produced on all major continents, and they prefer to see the same MES system across their production sites. There are only a few global MES vendors that really focus on electronic assembly, but as I see it, they are the only candidates to deliver an MES system that can really satisfy the larger OEMs, and guarantee successful passing of their audits.

These MES vendors have the knowledge and focus on electronic manufacturing. Some of them make close integration to all the equipment on the floor and thereby assure an accurate and robust system. Few of them are covering every process from goods receiving to packing and shipment. At least one of them can provide a fully integrated end-to-end solution that can assure a successful audit from any “larger mature OEM”.

To implement a factory-wide MES system is a big decision, it is something that the company will have to live with for many years, so it’s important to choose the right solution and supplier. It's a long-term partnership.

I know it was coming, but during my last trip in China it became clear to me that the larger and mature OEMs like Cisco, HP, IBM, Dell, Sony, Intel etc. are now putting stronger demands on their suppliers and partners - the electronics manufacturing services providers.

These OEMs are not just concerned about the delivery performance and quality, but also want to see systems that can ensure that all processes are under control, that the scrap-rate is low, and also a low and controlled repair rate which will help assuring on-time and good delivery. They are not accepting paper-based registration and control-systems anymore. They demand fully integrated, automatic factory-wide systems that can ensure error-free production.

This is a typical list of functions that are audited by the OEMs:

• ECN control, to ensure that any design changes are updated correctly in all processes.
• Correct registration of incoming materials, as a basis for detailed material control (incl. scrap), good traceability, and for controlling Moisture Sensitive Devices (MSD)
• Correct handling of AVL (approved, preferred and alternative suppliers)
• Fail-safe solution for setting-up screen printers which includes correct set-up and handling of materials and tools such as PCB, solder paste, stencil, squeegees etc. and ensure that all materials, tools and operators are traced as well. It must be fail-safe in such a way that production will stop automatically if the verification procedures are not followed correctly.
• Fail-safe solution for setting-up SMT placing machines - To fulfill the sail-safe demand, it’s essential to choose a system that integrates well with the machines. It is necessary not only for ensuring a correct set-up, but also for getting exact material data (i.e. component scrap). It’s essential for fail-safe handling of MSD components, and to ensure accurate traceability data.
• Tracing all products and materials throughout the factory, including Hand Assembly, Test, Repair, Box-Build and shipment. Passed and failed tests as well as repairs shall be registered for immediate display of First Pass Yield, DPMO, repairs per board etc., and for driving automatic control functions and alarms.
• Enforced Routing is also becoming a common demand. This is to ensure (and document) that each individual product (i.e. PCB) follows and passes all processes in the right order. As an example, enforced routing checks that a fault found by a tester is repaired and passes a retest before it is allowed to move forward in the process.
• Direct and real time visibility is another common demand. The OEMs (customer) want the ability to see various KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), such as WIP (Work In Process) and OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness). Typically this information’s should be available via the internet, with immediate drill-down capabilities.

It is obvious that complex functions such as those described above cannot be accurate, safe and efficient, if they are based on manual registration or a paper-based system.

It’s now becoming very evident that OEMs are no longer accepting manually and fragmented solutions. They demand an automatic and fail-safe solution that is consistent across the whole operation, so all data is easily accessible in whatever form they want it.

These are the kind of solutions that I will discuss in my next blog entry.

The next BIG in implementing a lean philosophy is to engage the whole company to reach a waste less process. The fundamental unit of improvement is called a kaizen team: 8 to 10 people composed of operators of the work station being improved, engineers and a few support people such as Finance, HR or top managers. Every unit of production should have tens of kaizens going on every week. The big difference here with traditional process reengineering is to accept that fundamental changes takes time, comes from continuous effort from all employees and is a bottoms-up effort. It is not just the top-down “program du jour” with a few consultants. Kaizen events should be a one week effort very focused but very demanding in terms of results. A good image is: do not try to resolve world hunger but begin to drill a well in a village in Africa…, then another well…, then another well…, and soon you will begin to see real measurable results. Trust and empower your people, the ones who are doing the job everyday to be the agents of improvement. This is the fundamental key to success.

In the next Blog we will address how you can help them to succeed with leadership, outside advice and key tools.

Recently, Valor has published its guidelines and recommendations for traceability audit teams responsibile for subcontractor process quality monitoring. Many OEM (original equpiment manufacturers) conduct monthly audits to ensure their subcontractors are meeting their demand for exact assembly traceability database. Valor has been approched by many OEMs to come up with guidelines for such teams to assist them with building the right specification matrix and a structured framework for audit process. In response to that request, we came up with 7 recommendations for the audit process. Here they are:

1. When auditing an assembly shop-floor, auditors should request traceability reports to understand the level of traceability provided by their supplier. We advise auditors to ask suppliers for a Traceability level that allows tracing each reference designator and component position on each assembled PCB. Also the specific lot number for each component should be shown in relationship to the PCB ID, even if component reels have been replenished.

2. Electronic part subcontractors are advised to ensure that the link between each reel's IPN and its MPN is validated. Only components from the approved vendors list are allowed to be used in conjunction with the specific IPN.
 
3. Auditors should request a clear explanation from supplier as to which actions take place when (and if) reel splicing is preformed. Also the specific lot no. for each component should be shown in relationship to the PCB ID, even if component reels have been replenished.

4. Auditors should request traceability reports that include Process traceability - including indication of programs that have been used, their version, on which machine the components have been mounted, and also operator traceability.

5. Auditors should request a clear definition of how handling of Moisture Sensitive Devices (MSD) is done. We advise auditors to ask suppliers for an automated system to monitor MSD throughout the assembly process.

6. Auditors should request a clear explanation from supplier about the traceability of SMT machine coverage. This will give auditors the ability to estimate the flexibility to move production from one environment to another quickly by demand.

7. When auditing modules that are based on automatic placements as well as on manual assembly, auditor need to make sure that all information is collected in a single database.