Your point is good.  However, our system is such that t
Camille,



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

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------

>



------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------