Aberdeen Group, a Harte-Hanks Company (NYSE: HHS), completed an independent research project in April 2007 to determine if there is differentiation between PCB design companies based on achieving target release dates and the number of design re-spins encountered over a one year period. The results of this research are very compelling and documented in the research report “Printed Circuit Board Design Integrity”.

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.

Electronics manufacturing has never been easy. But in the past few years, it has been subject to unprecedented pressures making it now one of the toughest businesses in the world.
As profit margins get tighter, runs get shorter and boards get more densely packed with components, it can be useful to step back, take a look at the forces driving the market and try to identify patterns that will lead to an intelligent response.

The OEM in Europe. The New Product Development center in California or India. The high-volume EMS in China. All of these companies are engaged in the same basic activities: getting new, better products to market as fast as possible. Whether your customer is the consumer unwrapping a new mobile phone or the major brand that badges it, you’re operating in a pressure cooker – and the pressure is rising fast.

The sources of this pressure can be summarized as three major challenges:
Change • Complexity • Competition

These three Cs are the forces that electronics manufacturers battle with every day. And an increasing number are losing that battle.  In the following blogs I will analyze these three challenges and help you better understand how successful EMS companies rise to meet these challenges and try learn from their approach and experience.

I am confident that these issues can be addressed and I welcome the involvement of the entire industry in moving towards better ways of doing business. If you have thoughts about this blog, please share them with me.

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.