Hi all,

I've read a lot of responses from many of you outlining various
methodologies and philosophies regarding receiving inspection and skip lot
practices.  So, I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth's.

It really boils down to whether or not you trust your supplier.  I believe
receiving inspections are a necessary non value added costs that should be
applied only to new suppliers and then only for a predetermined time.

Once a supplier has proven themselves as being able to supply acceptable
product consistently, then simply move them to dock to stock. Once a
supplier is moved from Dock to stock  monitor their performance from
feedback from the floor. I believe Skip lot inspections are a waste of time,
money, and efficiency.

Typically I have found receiving inspections to be marginally effective
anyway.  This being exemplified in many instances by the fact the assembly
floor culls outs more non functional product than do "most" receiving
inspections.

Receiving inspections also tend to generate rejections that are either
cosmetic or non functional in nature. These types of rejections many times
end up getting "bought off" and used as is due to delivery requirements.
It would be interesting to have some statistics that address the ratio of
board level problems found by the manufacturing floor verses problems found
by receiving inspections.

Receiving inspections , in my opinion, are most effective if used in the
qualification process and then certification review. Checking to see that
the supplier has provided objective evidence inspecting and measuring the
product.  i.e. dimensional reports, certs, ect...

Well, that's my two cents worth.. Have a nice day.

Ed Cosper



----- Original Message -----
From: "Noble, Ed" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [TN] PE: PCB Inspection


> we all have different quality requirements and reasons for what we do.
> maybe its the board vendors we choose to work with, but i do not like just
> giving them cart blanc.  i guess i've had enough bruises from
manufacturing
> when a quality issues arises that's board vendor related (the further a
> quality issue gets thru a manufacturing process, the more expensive it is
to
> correct).  'inspecting the heck' out of a vendor doesn't seem to be the
way
> we would like to go.  but, then again, it comes down to choices.  i do
> appreciate and thank you for the feedback.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Brewer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 11:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] PE: PCB Inspection
>
>
>   Ed Noble writes:
>
> "..     consider, at least, changing to a SAMPLING PLAN in your evolution
to
> addressing board quality.  that way, you can still 'keep an eye on' the
> copper plating concern.  from 'inspecting' to 'dock to stock' is quite the
> change."
>
>
> Hi Ed!
>
> I'd tend to  disagree. Consider that, while you have the opportunity
> to do a full Incoming/first article, you're getting the most complete
> and detailed information and feedback in the form of data, to make
> your dock to stock decision on.
>
> Going to sampling/skip lot as an interim state seems to be  more
> of a period of weaning, rather than a statistically valid step.
> I think it's a "warm and fuzzy feeling" period.
>
> If you're concerned about a vendor, inspect the heck out of their
> stuff, and get the issues worked. Once they are, and they
> demonstrated their ability to sustain their process, make the jump
> to ship to stock while you still have the BES, and most complete
> data you have regarding their incoming quality.
>
> Restpectfully,
> John
>
> ##############################################################
> 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 Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> ##############################################################
>
> ##############################################################
> 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 Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> ##############################################################
>

##############################################################
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 Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5315
##############################################################