Steve:
Speaking specifically to assembly, the learning curve that results from documenting
the criteria of the manufacturing process for proto's is clear (in my view).
But, it requires an enhanced procedure such as separating out proto's from
production via the latest acronym to reach vogue-dom in our world; namely
"NPI" or New Product Introduction.
Procedurally, the process for NPI can meet ISO standards. However, the process
is clearly different BUT TRANSFERABLE to production with obvious modifications
for volume. As stated earlier, co-operative engineering must rule the day
here and that is why we have resistance to it. The industry is
abhorrent to open kimono communication between diciplines and therefore,
we lose manufacturing value.
The result is slower turns, less DFM, longer turn-around and loss of market
share. Has not recent history shown that.
My comment has been the business has not disappeared.....its moved!
What to do? Choose companies that understand that meeting your needs means
flexibility of process without, as you say Steve, any loss of Quality.
Just my view
Charlie McMahon
Steve Gregory wrote:
[log in to unmask]">
Hi Charlie!
I'm not suggesting ANY compromise in quality what-so-ever. What I seem to
encounter is that the reason a prototype job is not released to build is
that the work instruction is not done, or the travelers are not done, yada-yada-yada...
So the assembly sits, and sits. I'm saying that something can be built without
all the normal production stuff...epsecially when it's a proto.
I'm asking if the time that is spent on all the documentaion, etc., that
is normally done on production product under a ISO system, needed for proto's?
To me, it's not...but I sure appreciate any debates...
-Steve Gregory-
Steve:
If I may suggest a two pronged attack....
As one experienced in QT and production boards, I have found no loss of
turn around capability due to ISO. High end process control is what it is
afterall and
should result in high yield (low waste) performance when adhered to.
(1) Clearly, I suggest ASAP DFM as quickly as the design allows is of utmost
importance.
(2) I am a believer in the Deming Principals of Co-Operative Engineering.
That is....at the proto-type stage, involve the PCB fabrication supplier,
assembly engineering, test AND service to design in the best value.
The result is a quicker to market design.
With designs demanding leading edge capability, there should be NO EXCUSE
ffrom qulaity suppliers to cut corners due to a board being proto-typed.
The benefit is that in fact when the proto is built...it will reflect the
production quality as well therefore negating re-engineering.
This is what the Industry has evolved to out of customer demand in my view.
And let's be frank, as the industry continues its writhing is it not true
that customers are using ISO as a litmus test for building product?
Customers deserve nothing less Steve, reagardless of the quantity.
Charlie McMahon
-Steve Gregory----------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
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
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------