TECHNET Archives

May 2013

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:
Blair Hogg <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Blair Hogg <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 16 May 2013 07:16:08 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (105 lines)
And we would have to document each usage of the standard repair process and analyze for trends. 

On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:14:29 -0500, Blair Hogg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From my old Mil-Q-9858 and Mil-Std-1520 days I remember that the defeinitions we used were that rework would leave the item indiscernible from original manufacture, while repair would bring the item to a usable state, however, one could tell upon inspection that it wasn't originally intended to be manufactured in  that manner. Repairs were normally actions that had to be approved via a Materials Review Board, which was typically representatives from Engineering, Quality, Manufacturing Engineering, and, in many cases, a customer represntative. MRB actions had to include a corrective action statement as to why the defect occurred and what actions would be taken to minize recurrence. 
>
>If a MRB repair process was defined well it could be approved as a Standard Repair process and allowed to be used repeatedly without MRB approval.
>
>I suppose that if you get 6 people in a room you might get 8 different opinions as to how repair could be defined.
>
>Blair
>
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:32:46 -0400, Bob Landman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>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] 
>>______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2