TECHNET Archives

January 2002

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:
Darrel Therriault <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:04:02 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (105 lines)
Olivia,

It seems you are dealing with what I would call "inspection escapes" from your processes.
Since you have
the data from catching these in final inspection, I would first start with these escapes and
fix the processes
where they are being performed incorrectly.  Once the processes yield "zero defect" product,
any subsequent
escapes should be viewed as a process deviation and you need to address it to find out what
went wrong with
the process control.  If you maintain this as an inspection process update, you should find
your process and yield
will be in better control.  As an aside, for any escape ( or failure for that matter),
evaluating the process, doing
root cause and fixing/improving the process is the first order of business.  Verifying it is
fixed is the second, so
instituting a followon inspection step for the process that generated the defect is what I
have done to verify the
fix was effective.  Usually adding an inspection step to the offending process to verify a
previous escape has been
corrected and is now done correctly.  Continuous improvement of this type should give you more
process control
and certainly improve your output or defect rate, depending on how you choose to measure it.
You can suspend
inspection steps once you determine the process is in control and escapes are no longer being
generated.  I would
also suggest that process development and training play an important role in yields, which
includes the DFM/CE
recently being discussed on TechNet.  Without a good process and trained operators, your
inspection problem
will probably be very active.  Simply put, if you don't develope a good process and have
trained people to implement it,
chances are you will have many and varied escapes.  If the process/operators don't perform it
correctly, its already a defect and it becomes an inspection issue that you hopefully catch
and not your customers.

Good Luck...........DT




Olivia Mc Dermott wrote:

> We do have inspection points throughout the process. The problem is they are
> also missing defects and letting them through to final inspection.I wondered
> if there is a direct instruction on inspecting.
> 1. you do this
> 2. you do this.
>
> >From: Kathy Kuhlow <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: "TechNet E-Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: [TN] Final Audit/Inspection
> >Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:49:32 -0600
> >
> >I would first start with some in-process sampling so you can pinpoint what
> >types of defects the process is currently producing.  Do you see more
> >missing components from surface mount or do you have a problem withe solder
> >shorts on the solder side because of wave issues or snapping problems.
> >All to many organizations use a final inspection as a safety net.  In my
> >dream world I would have no one doing final inspection but bring it back to
> >the process and do the inspection at the process through auditing by both
> >production and quality personnel so immediate feedback can be accomplished.
> >  Otherwise you get data that is out of date and you can't really take
> >effective corrective actions, especially if your world is as a CM or small
> >run lots.
> >
> >If you must do a final inspection then we typically start with a complete
> >part verification (value, polarity, AVL check) than solder (quality,
> >quantity, lead placement) and finally any specific customer
> >instructions(labeling, rev add, etc).
> >
> >Kathy
> ><< TEXT.htm >>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a free 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 Technet
> To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send the following message: SET Technet NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Darrel Therriault
VP, Mfg. Operations
INCEP Technologies, Inc
(858)547-9925 223
[log in to unmask]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free 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 Technet
To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send the following message: SET Technet NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2