TECHNET Archives

October 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:
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:38:49 +0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (256 lines)
Hi, again, Poh,

Ideally what we need to do is ensure that we employ people who naturally
take great pride in themselves and in doing a good job, and who are very
focussed in what they do. These people are largely self regulating, as they
will be letting themselves down to do something wrong.

I think the secret of continued success in this area is Continuous Change.
No matter how much operators may take pride in their work,  or whatever
system is introduced, people get used to an unchanging situation after some
time and eventually turn it to their own advantage. "Familiarity breeds
contempt" and if the familiar is not replaced with the unfamiliar from time
to time, problems and errors start creeping back in. No one way of doing
things works perfectly for long.

Systems, like everything else we make, break down after they've been in
service for a while, and need to be fixed or replaced. Preventative
maintenance is as important for systems as it is for hardware,

People are induced to be more careful, not so much because an 'effective'
system is introduced, but because a new system is introduced. When systems
are new, people are not familiar with them, and a combination of caution
and appreciation of the novel keeps them on their toes until they
understand enough about it to again use it to their advantage.

My thought for the day!

Peter



Poh Kong Hui <[log in to unmask]> 09/10/2002 11:15 PM

              To:  "TechNet E-Mail Forum." <[log in to unmask]>, DUNCAN Peter/Asst Prin Engr/ST
              Aero/ST Group@ST Domain, [log in to unmask]
              cc:
              Subject: Re: [TN] First Article Buy-off Process for SMT & Wave Solder








Hi,

Having hearing from many members express their opinion, I
do agree to certain extend that invest the time to ensure latter
mistake; that can be painful.

However, is there any way to challenge this current system to
eliminate such so-called "long" process.

I learnt from many Quality guru that the person who performed
the job must take the ownership as well as  make sure the
next person who performed next job can rest assure that the job
being done is good before passing to next person

I believe it the the culture and the system defined that created
such "excuse".

I do believe there is way to overcome such kind of system, except
I do not know how.

Poh




At 08:25 AM 10/9/02 +0800, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>A nice, concise answer, Steve. I work in Aerospace, where Inspection costs
>are a huge percentage of the overall costs. We have gradually managed to
>eliminate some of the extra cost by improving certain processes, but not
>that much. Nevertheless, where humans are involved, mistakes are made or
>variances creep in because we're not robots (much as some employers would
>like to think of us as such).
>
>Some of the reasons for having someone else inspect work or set-ups or
>whatever are:
>1. Mistakes do happen and need to be detected as often and as early as
>possible.
>2. If the people making the mistakes could see or know about them, they
>would either correct them themselves or not make them in the first place,
>but they can't or don't and in the real world of fallible humans trying to
>make infallable products, the more eyes on the ball the better. To
>paraphrase what Steve said, human nature is such that it's always easier
to
>see someone else's mistakes than our own.
>3. Having made a mistake, it is unfortunately a fact of human ego, vanity,
>cowardice, dishonesty, whatever that we like to try and hide our mistakes,
>especially if a large penalty is involved, like it affects the money in
our
>own pockets. Hide our mistakes and maybe they won't be noticed, or hide
our
>mistakes and maybe someone else will be blamed but not us. Not very nice,
>but I've seen it so many times in companies where people are villified,
>penalised and generally made to feel sh---y for making mistakes, rather
>than involving them positively in ways to reduce the mistakes. So we
>continue to need another pair of eyes to witness that things are done
>properly.
>
>I agree with Poh that in theory, viewed narrowly with naivity and with an
>eye more on the $$$ and less on the people who make the $$$, all this
>inspection is a waste of time in money. Why not make the processes
perfect?
>We're engineers and know why - nothing is infinitely and perfectly
>repeatable. If you think it's stupid and time-wasting, then you're either
>very inexperienced or not a very good student of the nature of things -
>human or engineering particularly. If 5 out of 5 Companies have used this
>method, there has to be a good reason for it, since no Company likes to
>waste more money than necessary. Reflect on the reasons why something is
>done instead of first condemning the stupidity of it all. Maybe, in
>practical terms it's not so stupid after all, but is making the best of
>things.
>
>Here endeth the lesson.
>
>Peter (no saint himself)
>
>
>
>Steve Thomas <[log in to unmask]>    09/10/2002 01:37 AM
>Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Please respond to "TechNet E-Mail Forum."; Please respond to Steve Thomas
>
>              To:  [log in to unmask]
>              cc:  (bcc: DUNCAN Peter/Asst Prin Engr/ST Aero/ST Group)
>              Subject: Re: [TN] First Article Buy-off Process for SMT &
Wave Solder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I know of 3 reasons.  The oversimplified rationale is that it's easier to
>detect mistakes in someone
>else's work. It's the same reason that I like to have someone else
>proofread docs that I originate after I've
>proofed them a time or two myself, even after running a spellcheck.
>
>It also guarantees that two sets of eyes have witnessed the results of the
>operation for better coverage.
>
>Finally, it's the elimination of the opportunity for a conflict of
>interest, or the "fox watching the henhouse".
>
>For stuff like medical products assembly, GMP REQUIRES that any
>verification of a process step has to be
>performed by someone other than the individual that performed the step,
>whether it's setup, assembly, repair,
>etc.  If you can't verify the process steps that can contribute to
defects,
>you have to inspect the product itself.
>
>I'm sure similar adaptations of the same basic practice have been applied
>to military, aerospace, etc., although
>I haven't worked in those fields personally.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Poh Kong Hui [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:54 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>
>
>
>
>[This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not
the
>intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you should
>not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other
>person. Thank you.]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>




[This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you should
not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you.]

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2