Guidelines for in-process inspection of PCB repairs:Changing from end-item inspection

T

The Fixer

#1
Let me begin saying I am impressed with the expertise exibited in this forum. I am NOT an expert so please utilize KISS principles if you respond.
My company has 21 branches engaged in the repair of printed circuit boards in telecommunications equipment. Long before I got into the quality organization, someone decided that end-item inspection of workmanship, packaging, cosmetics, and functionality using MIL-STD-105 was the way to go.
I think this whole process needs to go ! End-item inspections:
a) attempt to "inspect" quality into the system
b) cause a QC bottleneck
c) waste time with lot resubmittals via rework and reinspection
d) allows technicians to submit substandard work hoping that their units will not be selected as part of the sample.
e) etc., etc., etc.

I am looking for guidelines to perform work-in-progress inspections so quality is built into the system, not retroactively inspected into it. However, 99% of the information in this forum deals with high volume manufactured product. In my business, all the six-sigma, cpK, characteristic curve stuff was performed on the product when it was originally manufactured. We are basically doing rework when the unit fails in the field.
I am having difficuly determining among other things, (with respect to in-process) how to define a "lot" and "sample". Some processes involved are checking the unit in, following a documented repair process for each unit type, affecting repairs in accordance with IPC-610 standards, proper packaging and labeling, modifications, and shipping.It's seems as if I need an almost perpetual internal audit program.

Allowing for my lack of SPC insight, understand that I have the customer's best interests driving this request.

I'm not looking for a system so riddled with data analysis that it negates the time savings I'm trying to gain by eliminating the "extra" process of end-item inspections. Any arrows pointing in the right direction will be greaty appreciated.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#2
I am looking for guidelines to perform work-in-progress inspections so quality is built into the system, not retroactively inspected into it.
I suspect you are going to have a bit of a problem defining 'work in progress' inspections. Typically in repair you have a variety of possible problems. If you have 21 branches you probably repair a somewhat wide variety of products. I suspect you are hiring folks who are 'qualified' to troubleshoot. Obviously I have no idea what your processes are. Do the techs have automated test equipment? Do they have OEM prints?

You talk about Mil-Std-105 which is a sampling 'procedure'. I'm not sure exactly how you would apply that to your end item inspection. Are you saying you take a sample and examine "...inspection of workmanship, packaging, cosmetics, and functionality..."?

I suggest you determine what checks you currently do at the 'end' of your process and determine where each event occurs. I'm going to assume that a functionality test/check would be made by the technician doing the repair - not at the end of the 'process'.

What I am saying is provide a 'router' with appropriate checks/tests at each stage. You say: "...d) allows technicians to submit substandard work hoping that their units will not be selected as part of the sample..." This is a factor of your company's tenor. If you allow this for any reason you're out of control. I'm not saying this is not typical - many companies are. The question is why? If a tech submits sub-standard work, what happens? Does this affect the tech? Is the tech called to explain what happened? Is there a mechanism to track what techs consistently submit sub-standard work?

What are your current 'end of the line' inspections/tests telling you? What are you finding and how are you addressing the issues?
I am having difficuly determining among other things, (with respect to in-process) how to define a "lot" and "sample".
I don't know that you have 'lots' in your business in the traditional sense. As far as a sample goes, you have to look at your process. Give me an example of what you are currently sampling for.
It's seems as if I need an almost perpetual internal audit program.
You internal audit program should be verifying (by sample) that employees are doing their job in the manner you specify in your documentation and systems in general. I'm not sure what would drive you to a 'perpetual' audit program. Internal audit programs are, by definition, 'perpetual' (you do them every year) but not every day.

Allowing for my lack of SPC insight, understand that I have the customer's best interests driving this request.
What do you currently track statistically?
 
T

The Fixer

#3
This is how it works: (broad brush)

Defective units are received and a Repair Order is generated.

The units are filtered into the "tech room" by dept based on unit type.

The units are diagnosed, repaired, and modified as necessary by technicians using both company designed and OEM automated test platforms.

Repaired units then go to labeling.

NOW, the units are placed on a "Awaiting QC" cart and inspected in lots by single or combined department number.

The sample size is determined by MIL-STD-105 for lots usually ranging from 30 - 150 units.

The QC inspectors, AT THE END OF THE "LINE" now inspect for packaging, cosmetics, workmanship, and functionality. (The samples have to be taken back to the test platform and run by QC inspectors)

Then the units are taken to the warehouse area for return to stock and eventual shipping.

The QC function stuck at the end of the process adds additional turn around time. Also, the technicians have to move to another function while QC has their bench for QC testing.

This whole process is reactive and time wasting. You can see why I want to change it.

By the way, we have been registered to ISO9001 since 1995 and have had very successful registration and surviellance audits. I'm not trying to imply that there is no quality conciousness here. I just think that you can only improve the quality of work so much with this end-item approach.

I want to have the QC inspectors on the floor auditing all the functions in real time, not after the fact. That's what I meant by "perpetual internal audits".

Yes, I doubt that "lots" would be relevant and therefore MIL-STD-105 would no longer apply. I have gone out to the floor and experimented with this and found a host of issues that never came up during the end-item inspections. I found I was fixing the cause, not the effect. This is exactly the goal of what I termed an "In-Process" inspection technique.

I posted to this forum to see if there were any guidelines with which to govern a non manufacturing inspection scheme like this.

If not, maybe I'll just go ahead and invent it !


Thanks,
Glenn
 
#4
My opinion follows each step of "The Fixer's" process:

1- Defective units are received and a Repair Order is generated.
a- Tech verifies and signs off as complete

2- The units are filtered into the "tech room" by dept based on unit type.
a- Estasblish a designated hold area. Release work based on FIFO.

3- The units are diagnosed, repaired, and modified as necessary by technicians using both company designed and OEM automated test platforms.
a- Develop checklists that the Tech can sign off to indicate verification/validation of repair requirements.

4- Repaired units then go to labeling.
a- Tech sign-off

5- NOW, the units are placed on a "Awaiting QC" cart and inspected in lots by single or combined department number.
a- Eliminate this step.

The sample size is determined by MIL-STD-105 for lots usually ranging from 30 - 150 units.
a- Archive the MIL-Std-105

6- The QC inspectors, AT THE END OF THE "LINE" now inspect for packaging, cosmetics, workmanship, and functionality. (The samples have to be taken back to the test platform and run by QC inspectors)
a- Eliminate this step

7- Then the units are taken to the warehouse area for return to stock and eventual shipping.

Develop a checklist for your inspector/auditor to use for randomly auditing the process,i.e, two audits in the AM, two audits in the PM.
In-process is completed and documented by the Tech.

Hope this helps a little.
 
T

The Fixer

#5
Sam,
Guess I should have provided a little more info. The Repair Order goes through the entire repair process from receiving to shipping and contains signature blocks for the Receiver, Technician, QC, Labeler, and Shipper. So everyone already has accountability along the way. Each equipment "handler" is responsible for certain entries on the RO Card. This isn't difficult to inspect. However, we find that the vast majority of errors are in the information that is entered on the RO Card. (Wrong unit ID, Wrong repair code, Wrong warranty status, etc.)
By the time the unit reaches QC, the errors have already been committed. Most get fixed as the unit moves through the process. But some get through the whole process. Those are the ones that QC finds. That's where I think the inspection of work-in-process would be valuable. We would have a better chance of correcting the root cause so NO-ONE will have to fix someone elses mistake.

The biggest problem I'm having is structuring the auditing of the repair process. A lot of the technicians' job is cognitive. We have no Quality System Procedures which define the techs diagnostic thought processes. So, if I am auditing the testing process of an "ABC" unit, there will come a time at which the tech will utilize cognitive skills to diagnose the problem. So what does the QC inspector do at this point ? Go to another bench and come back later ? It could take the tech a couple minutes or an hour to figure out what's wrong with the unit.

The other processes (receiving, labeling, etc) are not difficult to monitor because they follow an established routine. But trying to observe the repair process is tough.

But someway, our process has to ensure reliability before this equipment goes to the customer. I just don't see a way to get around re-testing by QC at the end of the process.
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#6
When you analyze what 'gets past' your technicians, what do you find? That is what would be my initial guide.
 
T

The Fixer

#7
Marc,
Your last response evoked an interesting theory which I haven't seen presented as a part of common statistical analysis techniques.
First, I have created a national database via which I can monitor QC data in any dept, branch, region, or nationally. I use primarily a PARETO analysis or a parameter search to examine specific QC stats.
Now, the theory. Looking at the data over the past year or so, I've concluded that our Quality System has reached what I will term our PME - Point of Maximum Effectivity.
Given the "society/environment" in which a quality sampling technique exists and the specific type of technique used, is there a point (practical not theoritical)at which there can be no more improvement ? We seem "locked in" to relatively the same types and quantities of errors regardless of continuous improvement initiatives.
Considering your last response, I'm convinced that although I had not looked at it from this perspective before, my perception of the need for a change in inspection methods is due to the fact that management involvement, internal audits, corrective actions, etc. have made "this" system as effective as it's ever going to get.
Specifically addressing your response, the PARETO charts can certainly go a long way in determining what to "look for" when performing "work-in-progress" inspections. Unfortunately, due to the number of functional failures showing up in the charts, I don't think I'll be able to eliminate the need for the "invasive" process of having QC re-test finished product. It's just too high a risk to the customer at this point. I'll have to just wait and see if new inspection techniques eventually reduce functional failures by embedding a higher quality mindset into the repair process.

Glenn
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#8
My overview of quality assurance and all that jazz is that of an evolutionary process. That combined with continually hypothesizing and testing. The rut is the problem for many. It becomes "..This has worked for the last x years..." or "...we tried TQM and it failed..." What I line about implementations, and what makes me shine, is during an implementation (typically) the company is forced to take a hard look at some aspects of their processes. It's not me - I shine because some people 'open their eyes' and it *appears* to be me...

You know, Glenn, your attitude will achieve as much as (if not more than) any tool out there. Question, hypothesize and test.

What this means to me is new ideas. New thoughts. New blood. Look at San Jose - they want kids who are asking questions. Looking. Feeling.

Management says "...implement TQM..." What does that tell one? TQM is a number of tools.

The US repubilcan party fights statistical techniques in the 10 year census. What does that tell us?

If statistics 'grabs' you, they can tell you a lot. But - don't let that keep you from looking everywhere for answers - or from looking for alturnate tools. Use stats to guide your questions and hypotheses. Then use stats to evaluate your test results.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 29 February 2000).]
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N FDA Guidelines for implementing Continuous Improvement Process US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
G Very Basic PFMEA (Process FMEA) Guidelines FMEA and Control Plans 17
P VDA 6.3 Process Audit Scoring Guidelines VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 14
D Process Validation Protocol (API) as per new FDA Guidelines Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 18
Stijloor New Special Process Guidelines are now available from AIAG IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 18
K 4-Color Process Printing Acceptance Guidelines Nightmare Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 9
A Layered Process Audit Guidelines - The AIAG's CQI-8 Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 17
D ISO 11462-1 Guidelines for implementation of Statistical Process Control (SPC) Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
R Design and Manufacture Guidelines for Surface Mount Technology Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 8
M Informational Final guidance – GUIDELINES on the benefit-risk assessment of the presence of phthalates in certain medical devices covering phthalates which are carc Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S FDA Registration food facility - We operate under CGMP guidelines US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
M Informational EU – 12th Meeting of the Working Group on Guidelines on benefit – risk assessment of Phthalates in Medical Devices Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational Eudamed Data Exchange Guidelines Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational EU – Hearing on the SCHEER preliminary Guidelines on the presence of Phthalates in certain medical devices (Brussels, 04 April 2019) – Summary records Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
H Invalid ISO Standard / Guidelines - ISO 22301 BCMS and a local standard Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 1
Sidney Vianna Informational ISO 18091 - Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001 in local government Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
M Informational EMA – Guidelines for certain medical devices incorporating medicinal products – Orientações para certos medical devices que incorporam medicamentos Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational EU – SCHEER – Minutes of the Working Group meeting on guidelines on the benefit-risk assessment of the presence of phthalates in certain medical devic Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
M Informational BSI – MDR Documentation Submissions Best Practices Guidelines Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S IAQG guidelines for AS9100 report writing AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 0
K Rules or guidelines for quoting FDA announcements and such? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
K Inter/Intra assay precision study per CLSI guidelines Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
J Biologic Injectable Device Clinical Trial Packaging/Labeling/Artwork Guidelines Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 4
Sam Lazzara Clinical Evaluation MEDDEV Guidelines SmackDown - 2017 EU Medical Device Regulations 3
Sidney Vianna ISO 20700:2017 - Guidelines for management consultancy services Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 2
Marc New FDA Cybersecurity Guidelines for Medical Devices (Dec 2016) Other US Medical Device Regulations 0
P Small company of approx 28 Employees - ISO-9001:2008 Guidelines ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
S Document Control Guidelines in Engineering Projects - Excel sheets with VBA coding Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
shimonv CFDA Technical Guidelines for Clinical Evaluation on Medical Devices (English) China Medical Device Regulations 8
R Wellness Device Labeling Guidelines and question Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
Sidney Vianna Informational ISO/TS 9002 - Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001:2015 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
X Where to find UAE medical device registration regulation and guidelines Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 3
Marc Are you looking for ISO 31000 - Risk Management Principles and Generic Guidelines? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 1
R New draft guidelines for 510 (K) with Different Technological Characteristics. 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
Q Need Procedures related to Maritime Convention, Guidelines, Legislation, etc Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
S MSA Help or guidelines - Plastics - Setting up an MSA on a multi cavity fixture Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
M Diesel Generator Stack - Sample port guidelines required Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 2
K Coding Standard vs Coding Guidelines vs Code Review Checklist Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 2
F Tips, Guidelines and Checklist to conduct Audit of Supplier & Subcontractor Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5
optomist1 Software QA Template/Guidelines for deliverable Software Software Quality Assurance 4
G Irrigation Kits Labeling Guidelines EU Medical Device Regulations 3
M General Guidelines on how to start a Quality Campaign Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 2
A Japan Medical Devices Vigilance Regulations or Guidelines Japan Medical Device Regulations 4
I New AIAG CQI guidelines published - Are they worth buying? Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 2
AnaMariaVR2 EMA: Guidelines on Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GVP) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
T ISO 2230 (Guidelines for Storage of Rubber Products) - Temperature, Humidity & Light Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 8
M Diagnostic Guidelines, Clause 7.3.3.1 - Need to some examples IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
H OTC (Over The Counter) Wipe Product Labeling Guidelines - Question Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 6
B What are Guidelines? Compliance to ISO 9001 Clause 4.2.4 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
V ISO10002:2004 (Guidelines for Handling Customer Complaints) Self Assessment Checklist Customer Complaints 5
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom