TECHNET Archives

August 1999

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Keel, Mike" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:05:06 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (94 lines)
Hi Peter

It looks like you have a good start toward solving your puzzle.

You have already identified some of the qualifying criteria for a simple
matrix.

This matrix should be comprised of relationships;

IF/THEN  attributes tied to DESIGN/PRICING requirements.

For example -

IF this design is a power supply;
THEN do not quote using a pin count method.

IF there are multiple power & grounds that require special isolation and
verification;
THEN we add X amount per requirement until the requirement exceeds
     a complexity threshold which demands more time and effort.

IF the matrix is well planned it will ask all the right questions up front.

THEN it should be a simple task to investigate each design,
     identify the design requirements (IF), match your quote structure
(then),
      next, add up the costs.

The trick is identifying ALL ACTIVITIES / ALL COSTS (UP FRONT).
Try establishing honest relationships (activity/costs).
Modify your matrix as you learn. (feedback)

In Short;
We call it activity based costing.
You MUST identify ALL activities
then assign TRUE COSTS to each activity.
People won't like it but you will get the most accurate results
by matching costs with activity.

Best Regards

M Keel
San Diego

Ps. use your own numbers, don't rely on other sources.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Ling [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] PWB Metric


A question for board designers and others? - Ive been challenged to come up
with a reasonably simple method of identifying PWB design complexity.
Gone are the days of - hey that's a tight board. I'm only dealing with 2
layer boards.
I have a couple of possibilities for SMT/mixed - number of component
connections plus vias over the area of the board or total component area
over the board area. My problem is getting relativity with our power boards
that have small component counts, large complex plane areas of solid or
hatched copper and generally a large board size. Any help would be
appreciated
Thanks - Peter

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following
text in
the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2