We have changed our part numbering scheme to provide even more detail.
There are basically 4 different classifications of components how we
split,
(1) Fully RoHS Compliant, (2) RoHS Compliance with permanent Exemptions,
(3) RoHS Compliant with temporary Exemptions, and (4) Not RoHS
Compliant.
We have a space in our new P/N scheme identified with a letter (not
number) dedicated to this.
That way everyone who knows the scheme can tell.
And since our new scheme is visibly different than the old scheme, we
know immediately if we don't know if the part is compliant.
Hehehe
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] Putting new part numbers on RoHS components - was Re:
[L F] marking PWAs as lead-free
We toyed with not changing numbers and controlling/tracking via Mapics.
We use Agile as an Eng database and had experimented with flags on the
existing number system.
After looking at a few designs most required circuit changes. These need
to qualified and tested as possibly should some of the new RoHS
compliant parts.
In the end it seemed that changing the numbering system seemed best. We
basically added a character to the end of our existing part numbers e.g.
123 is non compliant or unknown compliance
1230 is compliant to RoHS
1231 would be compliant to RoHS+1
So for us all RohS compliant numbers end in zero and are longer than the
old number. And yes even if the existing part is compliant it will be
cranked up to the new version part number for ease of recognition in
BoMs and by assembly/stores operatives.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Genny Gibbard
Sent: 08 February 2005 15:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] Putting new part numbers on RoHS components - was Re:
[L F] marking PWAs as lead-free
I agree, there are issues. What about parts that have always been
compliant, and will continue to be used on SnPb (because we have
products
that we will never change from SnPb) as well as being used on new Pbfree
products. Ex. an inductor with a Pt/Pd/Ag finish. a gold connector.
etc.
Would you change their part number? Would you store some in two
locations
(SnPb product stock and Pbfree product stock)?
We are going to try to implement a boolean type of indicator (checkbox)
in
our database that we can use to sort with - Pbfree parts will be checked
off. Any new parts we bring in that are PbFree we will make new part
#'s
for, but I doubt we will change any existing ones. We haven't figured
out
how we will tackle storage, yet.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Nutting [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: February 8, 2005 9:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] Putting new part numbers on RoHS components - was Re:
[LF] marking PWAs as lead-free
Your point is good. However, our system is such that to change the
underlying parts on a BOM requires an ECO (Engineering Change Order) and
data entry, not to mention new parts to buy and double the bins in the
stockroom. There has to be some form of traceability to know the
history of your changes.
There is no easy way out of this mess. We have to face the fact that
this is going to be an enormous task and we will make implementation
mistakes. We are humans and we are prone to making mistakes... not that
I would <grin>.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could go home on Friday night running tin/lead
and start Monday morning lead-free.
Just my opinion.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Camille Good
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 5:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LF] Putting new part numbers on RoHS components - was Re: [LF]
marking PWAs as lead-free
From my limited knowledge:
Against adding new part numbers - A LOT of extra
paperwork and hassle as you go through all your old
part numbers.
For adding new part numbers - It becomes a LOT easier
to make sure an assembly is RoHS-compliant. Just look
at the BOM and make sure that none of the old-style
part numbers are on the supposedly RoHS-compliant BOM.
My experience with people is that simpler systems
lead to less opportunities for mistakes,
misunderstandings or forgotten steps. But making a
system simple (in this instance) for manufacturing
means a LOT more work on the data-entry side.
So, it is really a philosophical decision. Which
are you most worried about occurring, a mistake which
will put a non-RoHS compliant part on a supposedly
RoHS-compliant assembly, or extra costs, personnel
time, overhead, opportunity costs, etc. from the
duplicate parts numbers being put in the system?
If you know that your system is rock-solid,
mistakes on BOMs are rare if ever, your personnel are
all well-trained about which parts to take from which
bins and it is generally unlikely that a non-RoHS
compliant part will be put in a
should-be-RoHS-compliant assembly and you are in a
low-margin or very competitive segment of the market
where extra data-entry and -tracking personnel are not
really affordable, then you might get by with only
having new part numbers for non-backwards-compatible
parts.
But if you know you are going to have both leaded
and lead-free assemblies being built in the same
factory for quite some time and you have any worries
about human error causing non-RoHS-compliant parts (or
worse, leaded solder!) to be used in a
supposedly-RoHS-compliant product or assembly line,
then a whole different set of part numbers for ALL
RoHS-compliant components is probably the way to go.
That way, personnel training is simpler - assemblers
know if it's used on the RoHS line then it had better
come from a bin of parts with the new part numbers,
receiving and purchasing know that any component that
goes in bins with the new part numbers had better be
RoHS-compliant, and if there is a question about a
particular assembly being RoHS-compliant it is easy to
scan through the BOM and make sure all the components
have the new part numbers.
-Camille
Portland, Oregon
--- Moshe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> For an OEM,what are the pros and cons of adding new
> part numbers for all RoHS components .vs. adding new
> part numbers only for
> components which are not backward compatible ?
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV
1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site
http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100
ext.2815
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-----------------------------------------
This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are
not
the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the
intended
recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based
on
this message is strictly prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV
1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site
http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100
ext.2815
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
