Exactly my thoughts.
Having just spent considerable time at our assembler dealing with boards that did not test ok due to a variety of pick & place and solder paste problems,....
To me they required rework, not repair.
Repair, to me, implies that at a point in time the assembly did power up and test ok.
Rework covers a multitude of sins in assembly.
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On May 15, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Ahne Oosterhof <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A repair is due to damage. Rework is due to assembly error.
> A thought from Mike Bogden, Engineer
>
> My follow up on that thought: "Rework" is "Repair waiting to be needed".
> ===
>
> Why wait for a "standard" to do tracking of rework and repair? The
> requirement exists in-house.
> The better you track both of these, the better and quicker you can fix these
> problems in order to improve quality and bottom line.
> It helps if you determine the cost of each individual of these problems so
> that you can tackle the most costly ones first. And cost should include time
> to analyze cause of the problem, determining frequency of problem, cost of
> component involved, cost of time lost, maybe even the cost impact of field
> failures (hard to put a number on).
>
> Ahne.
>
> PS: I have stated before: some people are very proud of their rework
> department, but should not be of the fact they need one.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
> Sent: 15 May, 2013 06:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Trend Analysis of Repair Usage
>
> I am trying to find out if there is an industry requirement or
> recommendation that usage of Repair Procedures be tracked and monitored? I
> could not find any information on this in IPC-7711/7721. In previous lives
> the number of repair usages was tracked, and pareto was published quarterly
> (number of repairs used versus number of total CCAs built, number of repairs
> used by a given CCA part number, number of repairs associated with a given
> component part number, etc.) .
> Because repairs are infrequent, it is not easy to detect any trend in their
> usage, but over time the trend analysis can provide good data to detect root
> causes.
> I just want to know if there is any industry standard that covers this.
> I am talking about repairs, not rework. If you don't know the difference
> please do not respond.
> Thanks
> dean
>
> This message and/or attachments may include information subject to GDC4S
> S.P. 1.8.6 and GD Corporate Policy 07-105 and are intended to be accessed
> only by authorized recipients. Use, storage and transmission are governed by
> General Dynamics and its policies. Contractual restrictions apply to third
> parties. Recipients should refer to the policies or contract to determine
> proper handling. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
