Hi Paul
It is a bit of a hassle, but not so much a nightmare. We have a couple
of customers who give us drawings or POs that specify that all vendors
must be on their "approved vendor list". They can then edit their AVL
as desired. If we can make a good case for one of our preferred vendors
we will do so, the customer will consider it and may add the vendor to
the AVL.
regards,
- Graham
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Edwards [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:20 PM
To: 'TechNet E-Mail Forum'; Collins, Graham (FN) @ PRG - ESI
Subject: RE: [TN] singulation or depanelization of circuit boards
I like Graham's comment but from the documentation point of view it
becomes an ECO nightmare...
Putting the PCB vendor on the PO to the CM would provide more
flexibility, eliminate the need for an ECO and legally tie the correct
supplier to the contract build...
But since I do not have anything to do with quoting, I would like to
open up a can of worms with Jack's comments on cost+plus pricing for CM
purchase PCBs...
If the CM purchases the PCB and if therefore responsible for delivery,
quality issues and absorbing those costs, how would you compute an
appropriate compensation for that effort and possible "future defective
PCBs" prior to the release of the PO to the CM? This also assumes that
purchasing agents want the cheapest or real price of the PCA without all
the contingency "padding" in the cost...
Just would like to get some ideas from some real ops people...
Paul
Paul Edwards
Process/Quality Engineering
Surface Art Engineering
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graham Collins
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] singulation or depanelization of circuit boards
Hi Phil
Wouldn't it be easier to specify on the PWB documentation an approved
vendor list and let the CM take it from there? That way you direct who
makes the PWB but the CM can work their requirements.
regards,
- Graham
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Nutting
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] singulation or depanelization of circuit boards
Jack,
Some of this goes back to "once burned, twice shy". We have had issues
with bare boards purchased from the CM's board house. Solution: we buy
the boards from our preferred vendors.
Each CM has different equipment and therefore different requirements for
panelization, stencils and then depanelization. Now throw in we might
use different CM's to build the same boards. Refere to my previous
statement. Grrrrrrrrr!
Our documentation suggests that when purchasing the boards the targeted
CM should have input on their needs/requirements. Doesn't always work.
Sigh.
Is this issue unique to us or do other OEMs experience much the same
issues?
Phil
From: Jack Olson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:23 AM
To: Phil Nutting
Cc: TechNet E-Mail Forum
Subject: Re: [TN] singulation or depanelization of circuit boards
Well, in that case, I should make one more point:
As a designer, one of my concerns is that, by letting the manufacturer
panelize, they are going to focus on their own considerations and not so
much on the material yield (the most boards you can get out of the same
size panel). Especially in a "cost+plus" situation where the board is
considered a component, and gets a corresponding percentage markup for
the assembler who buys it, adding cost is actually a benefit for them
(I'm not sure how common that is, but I have been there).
I've even experienced a company that insisted on making some pallets in
multiples of ten because the orders were typically in multiples of ten,
(and "they are easier to count").
I'm NOT kidding...
best wishes,
Jack
.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Phil Nutting
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Jack,
Chuckling, both! I'm saddled with the "system", but want to find a
better way (Oh ya, the industry standard).
I "get it", but my thoughts (based upon my 40 years of experience and
the info of all my knowledgeable friends on Technet) are not always
accepted by those making the rules.
What you and others have provide is going to be used to attempt to show
them the light.
Wish me luck.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf
Of Jack Olson
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [TN] singulation or depanelization of circuit boards
It seems like your question contains two different preferences
1) "we insist on supplying the bare boards" (which means you force your
supplier to live with whatever panel/pallette design decisions you've
made)
2) "like to be able to send gerbers... receive perfect product" (which
allows them some flexibility in adapting your design to their process
parameters)
so, which is it?
If you chose the latter in the past, and your supplier's inexperience
caused some "learning curve" waste or yield problems, you shouldn't have
to pay or care about that, and they should be pro-active about
fine-tuning it (especially since you have given them the freedom to
palletize the way they want it).
Regardless, They should still be shipping you perfect product. That's MY
opinion, anyway.
onward thru the fog,
Jack
.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:13:14 -0400, Phil Nutting
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>As we move forward we are finding that each Contract Manufacturer wants
panelization and depanelization requirements that are unique to them.
Part of the problem is we insist on supplying the bare boards due to
previous issues with past CMs. Some CMs destroyed boards that were
V-grooved, some can't make the mouse bites work. I'm looking for
guidance on solving this.
>
>I'd like to be able to send the gerbers to the CM, have them get the
panels made, build them, singulate them and ship me "perfect" product.
Am I asking too much?
>
>Phil Nutting
>Design for Manufacturing Engineer
>Kaiser Systems, Inc.
>126 Sohier Road
>Beverly, MA 01915
>Phone: 978-922-9300 x1310<tel:978-922-9300%20x1310>
>Fax: 978-922-8374<tel:978-922-8374>
>e-mail:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:pn
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>www.kaisersystems.com<http://www.kaisersystems.com><http://www.kaisersy
>stems.com>
>www.linkedin.com/in/philnutting<http://www.linkedin.com/in/philnutting>
><http://www.linkedin.com/in/philnutting>
>
>
>________________________________
>Note: All the information contained in this e-mail and its attachments
is proprietary to Kaiser Systems, Inc. and it may not be reproduced
without the prior written permission of sender. If you have received
this email in error, please immediately return it to sender and delete
the copy you received.
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
