I expected this kind of response, and it typically comes from those who
don't have to worry about a high turnover of employees. (Right now that is
just about all us, but in a year or two, when the electronic industry kicks
into high gear, it will be just the opposite)
I have worked in other industries besides electronics, where a buy-off was
required by the technician doing the work, another technician verifying the
work, a QA inspector from a different department, and the technician's lead
or supervisor. (Leftover mentality from military contracts AND just about
everyone had worked for another military contractor). Lots of paperwork
right down to the smallest part. You are fooling yourself if you think that
people don't rubber stamp buy-offs.
After all, when you see that signature or initial, how do you know that
person actually verified the step(such as checking the part number on a reel
is supposed to go in a specified slot on the machine)? You don't! The only
way to know is to stand in the shadows and watch.
It always comes right down to time. The tighter the margins, or the heavier
the work load, no matter who you build for, people will begin taking short
cuts. That is the reason YOUR company has such stringent Lock Out/Tag Out
procedures. But if you watch carefully, you will still see equipment
support technicians cutting the occasional corner with Lock Out/Tag Out. It
is something that all humans will do when under time pressure, even in the
military. It is also the fundamental reason behind "Poke Yoke", designing
into the *process* a way to take out the human factor. And until management
and process engineers recognize this, they will never even consider changing
the process, rather instead deal with problems by disciplining the operator.
Which is only as effective as that persons memory. As soon as they are no
longer in that position, either by quitting or promotion, you have lost the
discipline affect.
However, I will admit, the thought that someone is inspecting you own work
causes a person be more careful. Therefore, a buy-off procedure has merit.
Where I'm at now, the supervisor in charge of buy-offs is a retired
submarine quality officer, so you can imagine how he runs his ship. As good
as they are (which they are), the operators and inspectors still follow the
rules of human psychology. I have never seen buy-offs completely prevent
mis-builds, (just like a car alarm only stops the honest people from
stealing).
Ryan Grant
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:18 PM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum.; rgrant
Subject: RE: [TN] First Article Buy-off Process for SMT & Wave Solder
This kind of behavior only continues if you (not you, necessarily, but the
management directly
responsible for the performance of the people performing the work) don't
hold people accountable
for doing the work the way it's documented. You write a procedure, train
the people on the procedure,
get their signature on the training record, and then hold them accountable
for performing the operation
per procedure.
If they don't they get a talking to, or a ding on their review, or a paltry
increase when it comes time for
a raise if they're prone to poor performance. Termination is always an
option too. I worked for
a company that went from very few proceduralized operations to documenting
every move, and verifying every
move with a second operator. You'd be surprised how people get used to it as
standard ops. after doing it
for a while. This was in medical device mfg., too, so non-compliance was a
precursor to a line stop.
People CAN follow procedures, and it CAN make for a very efficiently run
operation, but you have to demand
compliance. I've seen it work, and work very well. Maybe if the management
and tech. support staff
believes it can work, it will? I just know it's far from impossible.
Whether or not it costs you more than
it saves you in a Class 1 or 2 operation, I don't know. In Class 3 it's
mandatory, at least in med. products.
-----Original Message-----
From: rgrant [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] First Article Buy-off Process for SMT & Wave Solder
Poh,
I have read all the other replies, and in spite of them I agree with you.
Unless an operator has a reputation for fouling things up, his peers will
usually rubber stamp the buy-off with out actually thoroughly checking the
machine set up. As I'm sure you have seen, thoroughly checking and buying
off can often take up to a half hour or more. With pressure to get the line
running, people will either just spot check or just buy-off without checking
at all. There are lots of reasons why this doesn't work. However, like you
said, EVERY company I have been to uses this fallacy. We collectively seem
to believe that humans will follow a procedure like a machine, totally
ignoring human psychology. The question is, what is the alternative? I
have seen it where a production line will drop the buy-off procedure because
it wasn't working, only to put it back in place after a major misbuild. I
guess its like a car alarm, you get this sense of *security* that really
isn't real.
Pick and place machine manufactures and AOI manufactures have been working
this problem for years. I think we are very close to a solution.
Ryan Grant
-----Original Message-----
From: Poh Kong Hui [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] First Article Buy-off Process for SMT & Wave Solder
Hi Technetters,
I would to share some experience with you all.
I have been working for 5 companies. I realize that every
company that I worked for, has a buy-off system; so called
the first article buy-off before releasing the either a SMT or
wave soldering line for mass production.
I am rather curious why the people who are managing the
lines cannot perform their own self check, but rather
depends upon someone to check their work and to ensure
they loaded the right to the machine or to the boards.
I would like to hear your opinion about this system as I find it
rather stupid and it is wasting time.
Poh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/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 1.8e
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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/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 1.8e
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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
