In a message dated 9/2/99 5:57:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> Agree ; we have notifications even on change of laminate brands ;
> than validations of pilots ; then it can flow to production .
> But all of this is hardly applicable in subcontracting, unfortunately .
>
> paul
Hi Joyce and Paul!
This is the "Pilot" run...we built about 25 or so of these puppies on the
first go, and then discovered the problem after we had them all loaded (the
mask doesn't flake until after the 3rd cleaning cycle). They sent a second
batch of 10, they got built and had the same thing happened, so that's where
all the money is, in these 35 assemblies.
The fab vendor sent 10 more fabs and that's when I showed up out here. So
before populating anymore flakey boards, I've been running them thru the mill
duplicating the heat and cleaning cycles to see if they could stand-up before
putting any real bucks on em'...and that's where we're at now.
The problem was that there was no specific mask called out on the drawing
other than just a dryfilm that meets IPC-SM-840 Type B (I believe that's the
spec). Our customer was and is involved, and being the bureaucratic
organization that they are, the guy doesn't want to go through the hassle of
changing the drawing and specifying a certain brand of mask...he wants to
keep things as generic as possible other than to specify a dryfilm that meets
the IPC spec's...basically leaving up to us and the fab vendor to fight it
out...
I done my part, and I SURE don't wanna get in the middle of the pissing
contest about the money we've sunk into this fiasco. I have my opinion, I
think that the fab shop could've been a little more proactive to help solve
the problem WAY before things got this expensive, but I don't know if that's
anything that they could be held legally liable for. If it was my decision,
I'd definately be getting my fabs made somewhere else. But what do I know?
I'm just a lowly production floor rat...hehehe
-Steve Gregory-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: joyce [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, 3 September 1999 8:23
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Dryfilm mask adhesion, the saga continues...
>
>
> I would not like anyone to qualify using one material and production using
> the other! Any significant process or material change (thermal/chemistry)
> after the qualification shall have written notification with information
> provided by the vendor, in a reasonable advance time zone (4 to 6 weeks)...
> Any vendor went ahead did on their own without any notification is putting
> their "brand name" on line. It is not acceptable from my point of
view...(On
> the other hand, if the information was provided to your company on time,
but
> not communicated to the right personnel, such as production Engineer or
> QA..well, it is the assembly company's fault)...Anyway, it should not
> happen...jk
##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################
|
