Preventive action tool

[adisc]

Hi,

I was thinking about writing a program which would prevent different manufacturing plants within the organization about potential failures on electronic components (resistors, chips, condensators, etc.). The point is that for example manufacturing plant X has complaint and after investigation it looks that component X is damaged, there is a risk that whole batch is NOK, so responsible person from manufacturing plant X fills the form (few fields ) with the basic data about component type, part number. batch number, etc. and such message is sent to another manfuacturing locations. There is a big chance that some part of components are common for different locations, so they could for example block suspected batch in advance. What do you think about it? What kind of "fields" to be filled do you think migh be needed, except component type, part number, batch number?

 

[Funboi]

Have you ever heard of “8D”? What you seek has already been designed.

 

[Tidge]

This topic takes me back... and not just because of the "condensator" term! I agree that an 8D approach is almost certainly the best tool. depending on the industry... and where in the supply chain the industry is located (e.g. sub-assembler, final assembler).... different electronic systems (purchasing controls, PDM) are likely to be used at different steps in the 8D process.

In my experiences, it is quite rare that failures of electronic components themselves are allocated by batch or lot. More typical of my experience, there are marginal designs which don't tolerate inherent variation in electronic components. That being written, there have been times in my career when the exact circumstance described has occued (and an 8D process was used (including for containment and remediation):

• A 'new' overseas manufacturing facility for a major manufacturer of simple, discrete components simply made pure junk (barely rising to the level of counterfeit).
• There seem to be waves of sub-standard electrolytic capacitors; the pricing/sourcing decisions by major manufacturers in certain industries tolerates (possibly encourages) this.
• Several IC manufacturers have "use by" dates on certain ICs (typically for wave solder assemblies) because time can allow enough moisture ingress that results in "popcorning" (occasionally invisible) internal to the IC during standard assembly processes. Not all distributors or purchasing agents will honor the use by date.

I have also found that "cutting edge" ICs occasionally have design sensitivities that haven't yet made it onto the data sheets or technical notes. Engineering efforts prior to design transfer are the best tools to identify such issues, as such sensitivities can't easily be attributed to supply chain variation.

 

[adisc]

Have you ever heard of “8D”? What you seek has already been designed.

Yes and no. My idea was supposed to be more "user-friendly". 8D requires time to be properly filled. In failure cases which I mean, I think it is overquality. I just would like to make a tool which will inform team located many kms away about potential risk, not going into the details. Details will be provided by the supplier in 8D form. I do not like to make a tool where people will just not have time to fill.

This topic takes me back... and not just because of the "condensator" term! I agree that an 8D approach is almost certainly the best tool. depending on the industry... and where in the supply chain the industry is located (e.g. sub-assembler, final assembler).... different electronic systems (purchasing controls, PDM) are likely to be used at different steps in the 8D process.

In my experiences, it is quite rare that failures of electronic components themselves are allocated by batch or lot. More typical of my experience, there are marginal designs which don't tolerate inherent variation in electronic components. That being written, there have been times in my career when the exact circumstance described has occued (and an 8D process was used (including for containment and remediation):

• A 'new' overseas manufacturing facility for a major manufacturer of simple, discrete components simply made pure junk (barely rising to the level of counterfeit).
• There seem to be waves of sub-standard electrolytic capacitors; the pricing/sourcing decisions by major manufacturers in certain industries tolerates (possibly encourages) this.
• Several IC manufacturers have "use by" dates on certain ICs (typically for wave solder assemblies) because time can allow enough moisture ingress that results in "popcorning" (occasionally invisible) internal to the IC during standard assembly processes. Not all distributors or purchasing agents will honor the use by date.

I have also found that "cutting edge" ICs occasionally have design sensitivities that haven't yet made it onto the data sheets or technical notes. Engineering efforts prior to design transfer are the best tools to identify such issues, as such sensitivities can't easily be attributed to supply chain variation.

Of course, I meant capacitor. I wrote it too quick.

Really? Many of failures I have encountered, were related to the specific batches (at least it was risky to use them) - that's why I think such tool would be beneficial for others, especially that mostly electronic components are catalogue items and are distributed in high quantities.

What came to my mind, you said that some IC manufacturers have "use by" dates on certain ICs. Why not add feature to the program to inform other people that "we got such components which should be used by X, let us know if you are able to use it earlier". This could make additional savings for the organization.

 

[Tidge]

What came to my mind, you said that some IC manufacturers have "use by" dates on certain ICs. Why not add feature to the program to inform other people that "we got such components which should be used by X, let us know if you are able to use it earlier". This could make additional savings for the organization.

As I wrote, this is the sort of thing that will affect different manufacturers differently. Honestly: "use by" dates ought to be explicitly incorporated into the manufacturing/supply chain. Manufacturers of such IC have (to my knowledge) leveraged tight controls over their distributors, explicitly because they don't want their reputation to suffer. The only two circumstances I've encountered with components used past their "use by" (really it is an "assemble by") date have been:

• An unscrupulous individual actor at a sub-component PCBA assembler shifted stock that should have been discarded at one facility to another plant for use on a new assembly. The manufacturer, distributor and PCBA assembly house all had controls to prevent this; it was essentially "enemy action".
• "Broker buys" of components (which ought to otherwise be off the market), these require additional controls prior to assembly and use. Specific to popcorning, ICs can be conditioned/ dehydrated prior to soldering but generally this will be against the manufacturer's recommendation. This failure mode is more typical of flow soldered assemblies.

Each of these bullets ought to have inherent controls that ought not require any additional systems. The first is a pro forma issue that begins at the IC manufacturer the parties early in the supply chain already do this; reputable distributors will notify those who've bulk-purchased such components when the "assemble by" date is approaching. There would have to be rather extreme cost-cutting elsewhere in an organization in order for an extra system just to check for this to have any noticeable impact (IMO).

The second bullet describes a special circumstance that requires commensurate levels of engineering controls. The purchasing department ought to have general processing controls already, and there ought to be some sort of inventory process already, e.g. FIFO, lot tracking.

 

[Bev D]

adisc: do you have an ERP system such as SAP? These often allow for “quality notifications” and “quality holds” that will work across the organizations physical locations.

 

[Funboi]

Yes and no. My idea was supposed to be more "user-friendly". 8D requires time to be properly filled

I‘d recommend researching 8D. The time isn’t in filling forms, it’s doing the work to gather data and understand the causes. Isn’t that time well spent?

 

[Bev D]

@adisc Can you elaborate or be more specific about what you are trying to do? Are you looking to notify people of suspect defective lots, batches or serial number ranges (containment) or to notify people of upcoming expiration dates or are you trying to notify people of the proven solution to a defect?

these are quite different from each other.