TECHNET Archives

May 2011

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:
Jim Carlson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Date:
Wed, 4 May 2011 11:00:57 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Wayne,

Well put!

QA needs to view themselves as a service organization.  Experience is the differentiator, IMHO, between respected QA people, and the window dressing you have today.  Having battled the gators lurking in engineering design & manufacturing processes, using good data analysis tools and learning from very talented people, i.e. Pauls & Hillman, you come out with a better viewpoint on what is important.  Unfortunately, most QA people don't understand what is important, and the need to focus most of your effort on those areas.

Jim Carlson 
Quality/Configuration Manager 
L-3 Communications 
Applied Signal & Image Technology 
443-457-1111 Ext. 238


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thayer, Wayne - IIW
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 9:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion piece by James Smith

I have seen a similar progression at my facility, but it has been very rapid.  Quality was held in very high esteem, then with the institution of all of the quality standards and demands that they report "independently" to ever higher levels, quality engineering became a separate degreed profession.  I have now run in to several "quality engineers" who will tell you they are one of the most important beings on the production line and that they should report "independently" to the highest levels in the organization (sweet deal, no local boss).  These people didn't rise up through the ranks of process development engineering and production engineering, so their high and mighty attitude was not endearing to the rank and file in the lines.  So we have "quality experts" who know almost nothing about the products and no local boss.  No wonder we have a big backlash!

The rank and file must feel that Quality Assurance is a valuable service to them.  And the people doing the QA must have the respect of the workforce.  To make sure that happens, they need to report to a local manager, even if that situation's not as "independent" as it could be (of course, if the local manager is putting out products with quality problems, they shouldn't last long!).

Wayne Thayer

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 9:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion piece by James Smith

Ah hah! Maybe you have put your finger on a good point, Doug. Have the
mandatory audits for ISO-900x and ISO-1400x etc. not formalised the
mindset of the process people that they now conflict with "normal"
dialogue in the striving to a better quality at a lower cost??? And with
common sense?

Brian

On 04/05/2011 15:47, Douglas Pauls wrote:
> Ahhhh, good point Graham.  I forgot that common sense is a lot more common
> in Canada.  Haven't heard anyone asking for the birth certificate of your
> Prime Minister......
>
> On the other hand, Hillman and I (and our group in general) have saved the
> collective arses of many programs, and have patiently explained materials
> science to many individuals.  Consequently, we are considered (by most) to
> be allies and welcomed.  But when we go wandering around with clip boards
> in hand, "walking the process", the eyes start nervously darting, people
> tense up.  I swear I need to make a sign to hang around my neck "I AM NOT
> AN AUDITOR".    The point being that Quality personnel are not viewed as
> favorably as they once were in most places.
>
> Doug Pauls
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
> 05/04/2011 07:33 AM
>
> To
> "TechNet E-Mail Forum"<[log in to unmask]>,<[log in to unmask]>
> cc
>
> Subject
> RE: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion piece by
> James Smith
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now Doug, how could anyone view Bev, Laura, or Joyce with suspicion???
> That would be like treating the pope with suspicion... what is he hiding
> in that hat???
>
> regards,
>   - Graham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Douglas Pauls
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 9:29 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion
> piece by James Smith
>
> Ahhhh, but the question is, are you viewed as allies or viewed with the
> same suspicious air as outside auditors (the enemy)?
>
> Doug Pauls
>
>
>
> Bev Christian<[log in to unmask]>
> Sent by: TechNet<[log in to unmask]>
> 05/03/2011 06:43 PM
> Please respond to
> TechNet E-Mail Forum<[log in to unmask]>; Please respond to
> Bev Christian<[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> To
> <[log in to unmask]>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion piece by
> James Smith
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Inge,
> Hey! Laura Turbini, Joyce Koo and I are still Quality and people in our
> company KNOW we are still here!
> Bev
> RIM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Inge H
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion
> piece
> by James Smith
>
> .....quality teams...! Do they still exist? When I was young, they were
> semper fi. Nowadays more like semper fin. The quality engineer was
> highly
> respected, not to say dreaded. Not seldom he reported directly to the
> head.
> The q guys today are often reduced to shy people anxious not to disturb
> and
> without the authority that comes after many, many years of sniffing
> machine
> oils.
> I hope on the return of Yoda.
> Inge
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)"<[log in to unmask]>
> To:<[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion
> piece
>
> by James Smith
>
>
> The 5 S principles have had that effect on a lot of floors.
> Nice to find you in good spirits.
> Dewey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 10:58 PM
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)
> Subject: Re: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion
> piece by James Smith
>
> The bar seems to raise itself at times, after the sixth single malt. As
> for the floor lowering, five suffice before it moves all over the place.
>
> Brian
>
> On 02/05/2011 20:30, Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE) wrote:
>> Even with the best intent on your part to justifiably "raise the bar",
>> this is a potentially false perception due to your supply chain
>> implementing a "lowering of the floor" strategy.
>> This is on a par with me trying to explain how clever and witty
>> "Deweyisms" are to someone when English is not their native language.
>> Dewey
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brooks, Bill
>> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 9:52 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion
>> piece by James Smith
>>
>> I have been 'listening' to this thread and it kind of struck a nerve.
>> 'Designing to minimums' or to 'just meet a spec'.  Not just meeting
>> minimums on the low side of the 'bell curve'... but DESIGNING to the
>> minimums... I have seen this happen a number of times where someone
>> reads a MIN. requirement spec and then designs to it. WRONG! Only
>> inexperienced folks who don't understand tolerances' do this sort of
>> thing.
>> When we train PCB designers we drill it into their heads... don't
> forget
>> the tolerances. Worst case means WORST case....even after everything
>> else has gone to the extreme limits... If you want reliability you
> need
>> to design in some 'de-rating' into your tolerance calculations... give
>> yourself some 'head room' for things to go wrong... a good design will
>> still fly even if everything else has failed... by design. It doesn't
>> happen by accident.
>>
>> I believe board manufacturers use the IPC standards as a way to
> commonly
>> agree what minimum acceptance they can 'get away with' process-wise...
>> but if their customers aren't designing their products to achieve the
>> results needed then they are going to just make a lot of scrap.
>> Tolerances statistically will get you every time!
>>
>> Maybe what this guy James Smith was 'trying' to say is, (even though
> he
>> did it badly), that he needs to 'raise the bar' of the design higher
>> because he is seeing the quality of the boards coming in and they
> aren't
>> acceptable to him or his company... even though they are meeting the
> IPC
>> standards. Maybe he needs to hold his vendors to a 'higher standard'
> or
>> or rather a higher design requirement... ??? Typically when the min
>> requirements stated in an IPC standard are not acceptable to us for
> our
>> product, we put an exclusion or acception in the notes of the drawing
> to
>> say how our requirements differ from the spec. IPC specs are a
>> baseline... from there you can design in the higher quality through
> your
>> DESIGN requirements. DON'T design to the minimums... BAD DOG... TIME
>> OUT... NO COOKIE...
>> Frankly, James is blaming the wrong guys... it's not the IPC
>> standards... it the design and quality teams not setting the
>> requirements high enough for his product.
>>
>> Imho :)
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> Bill Brooks | Datron World Communications, Inc.
>> PCB Designer/Engineer | Office: 760-602-7004| Fax: 760-597-3777 |
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 3055 Enterprise Court, Vista, CA 92081 | www.dtwc.com
>>
>> Performance You Require. Value You ExpectTM
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Woolley, Mark D.
>> (Mark)
>> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 7:16 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] "The Curse of IPC-A-610 and IPC-J-STD-001" - opinion
>> piece by James Smith
>>
>> Sorry, Let me try again.  (I don't know what happened the last time.)
>>
>> Being a slave to "Standards" is not where we should be as an industry.
>> The "standards" are, in reality, minimum acceptable criteria.  I often
>> hear manufacturers state that they build to a standard or their
> product
>> meets the "standards."
>>
>> However, as I inspect these products per the same standards (mostly
>> IPC-A-600 and IPC-A-610), I see that while the product might meet the
>> "Standards" it was manufactured along the minimum edge of
> acceptability
>> per the standard.
>>
>> An example: Visible, opaque particulates embedded in the solder mask
>> might meet the IPC-A-610 standard if they do not encroach on certain
>> areas of the PWB.  But what does finding multiple occurrences of
>> particulates in the solder mask mean in terms of the PWB manufacturing
>> quality?  Unless you are dealing with military classes, in mass
>> production a close visual inspection can only be performed on a
> limited
>> number of units. If those units barely meet the standard what does
> that
>> indicate about the remainder?  (How many particulates might be
> embedded
>> within the PWB layers where they are not readily visible?  And of
> these
>> how many could eventually cause a short?)
>>
>> Meeting the Standards is not sufficient to build a reliable product.
>> The standards must always remain as the minimum acceptable criteria
> not
>> as the expected mean or median product.
>>
>> The IPC committees put long hours into each specification to clarify
>> points and make the items as understandable as possible.  IPC-A-610E
>> (and later revisions) is a great asset.  Pictures showing both the
> good
>> and the bad are presented.  But never is it stated in the
> specification
>> (that I have read) that a process that consistently produces products
> at
>> the edge of acceptability (per the standard) is acceptable to
> industry.
>>
>> Having said that I must agree with Brian's statement:
>>
>> "In short, Standards, used appropriately, can help, as far as
> possible,
>> to perfect reliability for a given application. Used inappropriately,
>> they can drive up costs dramatically ..."
>>
>> There needs to be common sense in the application of the standards,
> both
>> from a user and a manufacturer point of view.  Customers' don't want
>> manufacturers to hide behind the "Standards' Wall" when confronted
> with
>> issues with their products.  And the products should be manufactured
> in
>> a manner that places only the smallest percentage, (ideally none) of
>> products below these limits.
>>
>>
>>
>> mark
>> Mark Woolley |PTRL Laboratory | Avaya | 1300 West 120th Ave |
>> Westminster, CO 80234  USA |
>> Voice (Lab): (303) 538-2166 | email: [log in to unmask] |
>>
>>
>> ----
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
>> 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
>> For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> [log in to unmask]
>> or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
>> 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
>> For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
> 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
> For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
> or
>
> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
> 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
> For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
> or
> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
> 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
> For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
> or
> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
> 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
> For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
> or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
> 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
> For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
>

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
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
For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________


---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
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
For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________




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

Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0

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

For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815

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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2