Yeh, I see what you mean about contract negotiations. Hard enough in
english, eh (Canadian)? Drawings are always best provided they're clearly
defined.

Earl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jana Carraway" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [TN] Final Audit/Inspection


> Allrightythen..... In a perfect world, all this works, however, we live
and
> work in an imperfect world!  So, from my imperfect world experiences,
here's
> my reality...
>
> What if:
> you are not in the commercial market, and
> there are few companies capable of manufacturing your designs, and
> the design specifications are required for the end product, and
> it's a specialty product, so it is not IBM or Cisco volumes, hence your
> vendor pool is small, and
> the supplier has not been able to meet the yields they initially projected
> for such designs, and
> then on top of all that...it's flex...
>
> A design can only be tweaked (real word? spelling?) or DFM'd within the
> required technology design limits.  If we designed for 100% yield, we
could
> not build the products.  I think that's real life for many people.  We
> accept, and the manufacturer accepts, that the product yield will be
greatly
> less than 100%.  Okay, that's life with these products.
>
> So, then we go back to the basic question(s), what is reasonable to expect
> at incoming - a)100% good product in the door, b) perform an AQL, c)
perform
> 100% inspection, or d)other...?
>
> Perhaps something you've been saying has more impact than I realize, as I
> think about it - contract negotiations.  If the supplier signs up to meet
> design/product criteria and doesn't, my options are:
> a)change suppliers,
> b)if a is not possible, negotiate incremental improvements with the goal
of
> meeting the specifications?
>
> At what point/product type/product complexity does expecting the supplier
to
> provide 100% good parts fail or become unreasonable?
>
> Just food for thought,
> Jana Carraway
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Earl Moon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:29 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]; Jana Carraway
> Subject: Re: Final Audit/Inspection
>
>
> Jana,
>
> I've really missed our interesting conversations. You know how I feel
about
> incoming inspections. I needn't repeat they should be abandoned entirely.
> You know how I feel about DFM/CE and the highly manufacturable designs
that
> should come from their processes. You also know that I revere good
supplier
> evaluation and qualification processes and procedures. Hell, is there
anyone
> who doesn't know how I feel and does it matter?
>
> In the good old days, besides the other MIL documents I've discussed,
there
> was another named MIL-I-45208. When a supplier couldn't conform to some
> other requirements assuring process control was being effected, some
> customers allowed inspections to be performed.
>
> In all cases, inspections performed - whether at incoming, in process, or
at
> final - required results to be correlated with customer contract
> requirements as drawings and/or specifications. Again, in all cases, when
> defects were found, exceeding acceptance criteria, corrective action was
> required. Sound familiar - as in ISO 9000? Anyway, if corrective action
> yielded defects, contracts were cancelled at some point.
>
> Customer incoming inspections could be used to find defect, but it was
> highly desirable, to continue good supplier/customer relations, that they
> were caught at least at final. Another inspection technique was using
source
> inspectors at the supplier site to assist in finding defect or approving
> specified quality. You may think in these terms.
>
> But, as Daan has said, and everyone in the free world knows, you can't
> inspect quality into product. In this light, how much abuse does one have
to
> endure before something affecting adverse quality is done. Do you change
the
> design, process, or both? It's up to the customer and when the right
> decision is made, life is better as quality improves.
>
> MIL-Q-9858A (another AAAAAA) is available in the paper back version
> (actually .pdf) from you local SITNET dealer. It's just for interest's
sake.
>
> Enjoy Jana,
>
> Earl
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>

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