We live in a volatile world
51
description
We live in a volatile world. Chuck Gray. Vice President & COO [email protected]. 691. 621. DoD Operating & Support Costs vs. Investment . Lowest investment share since the Korean War. 1950 – 2010 Average: 36%. Tension between O&S and investment will reach historic proportions. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of We live in a volatile world
FES
Aircraft Production 1999-2018Rough Times After The First Civil/Military Upturn In 25 Years
'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '180
40
80
120
160(Market Value in 2009 $ Bns)
Fighters Bizjets RotorcraftMil i taryTransports/Trainers/Other Jetl iners/Regional AC
FES
691621
FES0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
DoD Operating & Support Costs vs. Investment
% o
f DoD
BA
(Incl
udes
OC
O)
1950 – 2010Average: 36%
Tension between O&S and investment will reach historic proportions
Lowest investment share since the Korean War
O&S (MILPERS plus O&M)
Investment (RDT&E plus Procurement)
FES
BALANCING QUALITY, SAFETY, RISK AND COST IN Volatile SPACE AND DEFENSE MARKETS
FES
Program risks associated with an
“up & down” business scenario
FES
Hurry up, you are behind schedule
• DESIGN PROGRAMS• Shortcut requirements analysis: DESIGN RE-SPINS• Compromise reliability / maintainability / availability analysis: REDUCED SUPPORTABILITY• Reduce scope & content of Systems / Hardware / Software Peer Reviews: MORE RE-SPINS• Shortest lead time becomes principal parts selection criteria: INCREASED OBSOLESCENCE & COUNTERFEIT PARTS RISKS• Hardware – Software trade-off studies scope reduced: PRODUCT DESIGN
COMPROMISED• Reduced emphasis on Design for Manufacturing & Test: PRODUCTION/TEST REWORK
• PRODUCTION PROGRAMS• Shortcut work instruction preparation time: INCREASED “DO OVERS”• Compromise production training: INCREASED SCRAP & REWORK• Reduce rigor of first article / first build reviews: JEOPARDIZE PRODUCT
INTEGRITY/SCRAP/REWORK• Focus on delivery VS first time quality: MISSION FAILURE, INCREASED CUSTOMER
REJECTIONSACROSS THE BOARD RISK TO SYNERGY
“CORNERS”
FES
SLOW DOWN --- THE PROGRAM IS SLIPPING
• Design a ROLEX VS the TIMEX that the customer ordered: costs, lead times, producibility impacted
• Utilize science experiments to solve a problem requiring simple analysis
• Retain people on the program where ROI is low• Introduce production changes that actually reduce producibility
& testability
ANOTHER DAY ON THE PROGRAM IS ANOTHER DAY OF COST!
FES
Subcontractors caught in the middle• Subcontract reduction/terminations/extension• Delayed customer awards = Compressed
Subcontractor Cycle Time
• Extended material/parts lead time• Increased parts materials/cost: Building to
ORDER VS Building to STOCK
“SUBCONTRACTOR”
FES
QUALITYSAFETY
DELIVERY
COST
CULTURE, ROBUST PROCESSES,
LEADERSHIP
FES
A Native American,Woman-Owned Small Business
29 YEARS OF CUSTOMER-FOCUSED EXCELLENCE
IN ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING
High Reliability Manufacturing
Stillwater
86,500 Sq FT Facility
A SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE
Brenda Rolls
President & CEO
FES
FY10 Revenue: $27.8M
D&B Rating: 4A1
Total Team Strength:
154
Support17%
ENG43%
MFG23%
PROFS
17%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $-
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
Our Customers Our People
employeesREVENUE
CUSTOMER, PEOPLE & performance
Boe-ing
52.0%
Lock-heed
Martin22.0%
Ball12.0%
NSWC9.0%
Northrop Grumman
3.0%L3
0.5%Others1.5%
2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
50
100
150
200
99 95119
138 150
FES
UAS Programs
Business Programs
Maritime Programs
Aircraft ProgramsSpace and Missile Programs
SB-4229A(V)/SP
Radar Switchboards
SB-4229
FES
Certifications Awards & Recognition
• Lean Manufacturing
• MIL-I-45208
• MIL-Q-9858
• ISO 9001-2000
• AS9100
• JSTD-001
• NASA 8739.1 - .4
• Boeing Gold Supplier
• Northrop Grumman Gold Supplier With 3 World Class Team Awards
• Boeing Supplier of the Year 2001, 2005, 2009
• Lockheed Martin Star Supplier
FES
Enabling infrastructure -AS9100-
FES Corporate Quality PlanFES-QP-1
FES Quality Systems ManualFES-QSM-1
Measurement, Analysis and ImprovementSection 8.0
Product RealizationSection 7.0
Resource ManagementSection 6.0
Management Responsibilities
Section 5.0
Quality Management
SystemsSection 4.0
Control of DocumentsFES-QSP
4.2-2
ManagementReview Input
FES-QSP5.6-1
TrainingAssessment Delivery and EvaluationFES-QSP
6.2
Product Quality
PlanningFES-QSP
7.1-1
PurchasingFES-QSP
7.4Return
Authorization ProcedureFES-QSP
5-2-1
Measurement, Analysis and Improvement
FES-QSP8.1-1
Non-conforming Material/Service
ReportingFES-QSP
8.3-3
•3rd Party Certified by NQA•Last Audit March 2011•Score 1000 out of 1000
First Article Product Validation & Verification
Proof of the
Pudding
FES
Integrated Enterprise Processes
Corporate Vision
Customer Contract
Requirements
Quality Policy Goals ,
Program Management
Guidelines
ISO Management Responsibilities Process 5.6-1
• Program Plan
TechnicalDocumentation
Sub-Tier Supplier
Management
Hardware Development
Software Development
GFE/CFE Control
Quality Plan
Repair/Support Plan
Product Realization -Manufacturing -Test
Budget / Schedule
Configuration Mgt Plan
Pre Bid Risk Assessment &
Bid/No-Bid Decision
Proposal Preparation
Process 7.2-1-2
FES
• Monthly Program Performance reviews with Executive Management – Earned Value and Risk Assessment– Technical, Delivery, Schedule, and Cost Performance
In-Depth Performance Reviews
Program Team Performance Measurement
Daily Program Task Status
Weekly
Program Team Meetings / Performance Review
PM Updates Program Schedule, Estimates to Complete, &
Earned Value
Program Performance Review with Executive Management
Program Performance/Risk
Business Area Performance Assessment & Resource
Analysis
Weekly Customer Telecons
Monthly
Continuous Customer Interface
Quality Performance
Supplier Performance
Financial Performance
Contracts Performance
FES
Product Assurance Network
Corporate Quality Goals
GUIDELINES REQUIREMENTS TOOLS APPLICATIONS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT/
FEEDBACK
Departmental Goals
Customer Specifications
MIL-SPECS
Contractual Requirements
Process Specifications
ISO Documents
Process Training
SPC
CAB
MRB
TQM's
Prog Review
BA Reviews
Vendor Rating
Semi-annual Mgt Review
Pivot Table
Program Mgt System
Contract Mgt System
Supplier Mgt
Internal Process Audits and Validation
Pareto Charts
Process Improvement
Process Analysis
Q-Codes
Bench-marking
Audits
Metrics
Customer Feedback• FES-QP-1
• FES Quality Plan
8.1-28.5-2-1
8.3-2
8.1-5
5.6-1
5.6-1
7.4-1
5.6-1
7.4-1
8.2-1
5.6-7
7.1-1
7.2-1
• FES-QSP-
8.5-2-1
8.2-1
5.6-1
• FES-QSM-1 • FES Quality
Manual
• FES-QSP -7.2-2
• FES-QSM-1 • FES Quality
Manual
• FES-QSP-7.2-1
7.1-1
7.2-2
7.1-1
7.4-3
8.5-1
• FES-QSP- 8.5-2-1
8.5-2-1
FES
CORE PROCESSES
• Design
• Material Acquisition
• Manufacturing
• Product Support
FES
• Systems analysis• Design Rigor• Peer Reviews• Systems testing, Validation, Verification• Configuration Management and Documentation• Technology innovation and product enhancement
Tomorrow
Yesterday
Today
Subsystems/Product/Systems Engineering
design
Contract Award
KickoffMeeting
System Requirements
Review
H/W & S/W Requirement
Analysis
Analysis:Reliability,
Producability, Maintainability,
Availability
Parts and Equipment Selection
Producibility Integration
Preliminary Hardware
Design
PreliminarySoftwareDesign
Peer Reviews
PreliminaryDesignReview
Part Procurement (Production)
ProductionRelease
Drawings/ATP
Critical Design Review
PeerReviews
Lessons Learned Capture/
Application
Design Qualification
Testing
Informal Functional Verification
Testing
Hardware and
Software Integration
Prototype/Hardware
MFG
Software Code and
Test
Transition to Production Planning
Drawing Release
MFG Readiness
Review
Test Readiness
Review
First Article Build/
Qualification
Integrate Lessons
Learned into MFG
Processes
Equipment MFG
(Production)
Acceptance Testing
Physical Config. Audit
Functional Config. Audit
Packaging and
Shipment
FES
• Develop Bill of Materials
Generate Purchase Request
Request for Quotes
•Issue Purchase Order
•Monitor Vendor Performance
•Receive • Inspect/Test•Prohibited Materials
•Counterfeit parts
•Stock
CONFIG MGR MATERIALS ENGINEER QUALITY ENGINEER
NO
YES
NO Acceptable quotes
YES
Supplier Performance
•Certified•Qual-Deliv•Special Certs•Source Inspec
•Traceability /•Sources•GIDEP•Screen/Test
PROJ ENGR
•Requirements Analysis
CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS
Product Integration /
Documentation
PROGRAMTEAM
PGM/PURCHASINGTEAM
PURCHASINGTEAM
Identify Alternate Parts
PartsObsolete
Customer Approval
PR
Best Value Award
Vendor Selection•Approved Vendor List
•Past Performance•Process capability•Customer directed
YES
NO
NO
YES
PURCHASINGTEAM
PGM/PURCHASINGTEAM
MATERIAL MGT
PROGRAM MGR
Start
Turn-key material acquisition process
FES
Process 1: Stencil Print
Process 3: Reflow
Process 4: Cleaning
Process 2: Automated Placement
Process 8: Install Thru-
Hole Components
Process 9: Solder Connectors
(and Thru-hole Components)
Process 5:AOI
Process 6: Touch-Up
Process 12: Break Panel, &
inspect individual boardsProcess 10:
Cleaning
Process 7: Lead Forming (as required)
Mirtek MV-3LP AOI
DEK Horizon 03L My Data My12 Heller 1809 KM3 AQUEOUS Tech Trident III
AQUEOUS Tech Trident III
Manufacturing process flow
Selective Soldering Machine
FES
Processes without organizational champions & cultural buy-in are a
house of cards ready to Fall
FES
Developing a corporate culture of commitment & process optimization
• Leadership Integrity and Organizational / Employee Commitment Beyond Reproach
• Foster Transparent Communication & Mutual Respect in Both Directions Throughout the Company
• Welcome New Ideas
• Specific Goals and Accountability Established Annually
• Resources Allocated to Achieve Quality Goals in Company Operating Plan
• Clear, Timely and Accurate Performance Feedback
• Fruits of Success Shared with All Who “Make it Happen” on a Fair & Equitable Basis
• Lessons Learned are Captured & Re-deployed
FES
Integrated Product Team Approach– Team includes CUSTOMER, Program Engineering, Quality Test, Manufacturing,
Configuration Mgt, Sub-tier suppliers– Open Communication, Proven Process Deployment, Risk Mitigation, Metrics Based
Performance Assessments• Nimble and Responsive to changing customer requirements Monthly Program Performance reviews with Executive Management
– Delivery, schedule, and cost performance & Lessons Learned
• CUSTOMER BENEFITS
NO SURPRISES– Performance to Plan
Reduced customer oversight costs
Customer Focused Program management
FES
Key Quality Metrics• Line of Balance• Customer Satisfaction• On-Time Customer Deliveries• Customer Quality Acceptance Rate• Warranty Returns• Nonconformance Requests by Area• Customer Complaints• Supplier Corrective Actions• Scrap• Rework and Repair Labor• Supplier Performance• Risk
FES
CLIN7 ProductionPCU Line of Balance
7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-10 7-11 7-12 7-13 7-14 7-15 7-SP 7-SP 7-SP
PCU 86706-507-11 % SN 200 SN 201 SN 202 SN 203 SN 204 SN 205 SN 206 SN 207 SN 208 SN 209 SN 210 SN 211 SN 212 SN 213 SN 214 SN 215 SN 216 SN 217
On Dock Date/ Huntsville100% 8/27 9/3 9/23 9/23 10/24 11/20 10/24 11/20 10/24 2/9 11/20 12/12 2/9 12/12 1/12 3/9 3/9 3/9
CSI 99%
Final Test 95%
Environmental Test 90% 11/25
Conformal Coat 85% 9/23
Confidence Test 65% 11/6
Hand Solder Components
60%
8/28 10/1 11/6 11/6
Solder Reflow 25%
Kit Inspection 10%
Kitting 5%
PWO Complete
Other Issues D E C C C C
PCU Shortages 1) JANTXV1N5806US Diode qty 38
Flag Impact Issue Action Plan
A
B OVD on hold until resolved Confidence test during continuity Alternate part needs wider limit
in test software
C Ten per CCA, parts will have to be hand soldered PCU #1 Insufficient parts provided by Boeing Customer to provide Exp.
12/10
D Must go through review board Nickel Plating lifted with conformal coat mask
NCR to Boeing MRBE Pending Confidence test failure Troubleshooting
FES
FY 2010 Customer Satisfaction Score (Company Wide)
Customer Satisfaction Weighted Formula
.810 + .988 - .002 x 100 = 89.90 % 2
Proposals Won = 86Proposals Lost = 20Total Proposals = 106Wins ÷ Total Proposals Submitted = Proposal Win Rate Proposal Win Rate:
81.0 %Delivery Rate: 98.8 %Warranty Returns = 4Units Shipped = 2035Warranty Returns ÷ Units
Shipped X 100 4
÷ 2035 X 100 = 0.002%
Proposal Win Rate + Delivery Rate2
Warranty ReturnsUnits Shipped
= Satisfaction ScoreX 100
FES
Boeing updated the B.E.S.T. for 02/15/2011
Huntington Beach: Quality: 15 each received with no rejects Quality: Gold Delivery: 15 each delivered on time Delivery: Gold
Huntsville:Quality: 122 each received with no rejects Quality: Gold Delivery: 122 each delivered on time Delivery: Gold St. Louis:Quality: With Complexity Factor: 99.99% Quality: SilverDelivery: 1013 each delivered on time Delivery: Gold
Wichita: Quality: With Complexity Factor: 100% Quality: GoldDelivery: 86 each delivered on time Delivery: Gold
Composite & BDS RatingQuality Rating: Alternate Quality Rating 100% Quality: GoldDelivery: 1236 each delivered on time Delivery: Gold
Northrop Grumman Oasis Rating Quality: Gold Delivery: Gold DLA Ratings Updated on 2/22/11
Delivery Quality # Of DLA CLINs Vendor DLA Score Average DLA Score
100 100 15 100 91.7
FES
Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-110%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%95%
97%
95%97%
98%
94% 95% 97% 99%96% 95%
93%
FIRST PASS YIELD
PCB First Pass Yield PCB First Pass Yield Target=98%
FES
Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-110.00%
0.02%
0.04%
0.06%
0.08%
0.10%
0.12%
0.14%
0.16%
0.18%
0.20%
0.19%
0.07%
0.05%
0.07%
0.02%
0.10%
0.07%
0.16%
0.06%
0.10%
0.06%
Burdened Rework Percentage vs. Burdened Mfg Labor Percentage
Series1 Linear (Series1)
FES
Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-110.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
1.60%
1.80%
2.00%
0.32%
0.12%
0.02%
0.59%
0.16%
1.72%
0.07%0.11%
0.20%
0.05%0.06%
0.19%
Burdened Scrap Percentage vs. Burdened Material Percentage
Series1 Linear (Series1)
FES
Supplier performance
55.00%
60.00%
65.00%
70.00%
75.00%
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
95.00%
100.00%
On-Time DeliveryTotalGroup 1Group 2
On-
Tim
e %
Jan-0
9Fe
b-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
May-09
Jun-0
9Ju
l-09
Aug-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Dec-09
Jan-1
0Fe
b-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-1
0Ju
l-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Oct-10
Nov-10
Dec-10
Jan-1
1
90.00%91.00%92.00%93.00%94.00%95.00%96.00%97.00%98.00%99.00%
100.00%
QualityTotalGroup 1Group 2GoalAc
cept
ance
%
FES
Enclosure Delivery Quality12 Month Avg = 15%
No Failures
FES
Supplier RatingsFrontier's Supplier Quality Rating System is based on a 9 point system. It is divided into three categories,
which will be the basis for a supplier remaining on the Approved Suppliers List.
GOLD LEVEL 9 points Supplier Partner - Exceptional supplier performance, exceeding expectations.
SILVER LEVEL 8-6 points Preferred Supplier - Very good supplier performance, meeting or exceeding expectations.
BRONZE LEVEL 5-3 points Qualified Supplier - Satisfactory supplier performance, meeting expectations.
YELLOW LEVEL 2 points Marginal Supplier - Marginal Supplier performance, supplier is not meeting expectations.
RED LEVEL 1 - 0 point Unsatisfactory Supplier - Unsatisfactory supplier performance, clearly fails to meet expectations. Supplier is placed on Probation and has 60 days to implement corrective action. Unacceptable performance requires mandatory performance review.
FES
Program Risk Assessment
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
ITEMIZED
Risk Level
Likelihood
5
4
3 5
2 4, 6 2,3 1,7,8
1 1 2 3 4 5 Impact/Consequence
Risk Estimated Value Likely Value
Item Phase Score Risk Eng Mat Mfg Total Prob Eng Mat Mfg Total
TOTALS $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ 25,000 $195,000 $ 27,500 $35,500 $ 8,500 $ 71,500 1 Design 6 New Electrical Design $ 25,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 40,000 30% $ 7,500 $ 3,000 $ 1,500 $ 12,000 2 Design 4 New Mechanical Design $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 11,000 30% $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 300 $ 3,300 3 Design 4 New Test Set Design $ 10,000 $ 2,500 $ 1,000 $ 13,500 30% $ 3,000 $ 750 $ 300 $ 4,050 4 Mfg/Test 2 New Work Instructions $ 2,500 $ - $ 2,500 $ 5,000 30% $ 750 $ - $ 750 $ 1,500
5 Mfg 9 Part Procurement to Meet Schedule $ 10,000 $ 50,000 $ 5,000 $ 65,000 50% $ 5,000 $25,000 $ 2,500 $ 32,500
6 Mfg/Test 2 New Assy / Test Fixtures $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 500 $ 5,500 30% $ 750 $ 750 $ 150 $ 1,650
7 Test 6 Unit Failure to Meet Requirements $ 25,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 40,000 30% $ 7,500 $ 3,000 $ 1,500 $ 12,000
8 Mfg/Test 6 Assy/Test Error During Production $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 15,000 30% $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 4,500
FES
DoD Nunn-Perry Awards
Northrop Grumman World Class Team
AwardsBoeing Supplier of Year
Awards
MILI 45208
MILQ 9858
Lean Journey Begins
ISO 9001-1994
ISO 9001-2000
USN BMPAudit
AS9100
NGST Gold
Supply Chain Mgt System
ERP
1989 1994 1999 2000 2001 2005 2006 2008 2009
A journey of continuous improvement
FES
challenge• Forced re-design of the F-18 E/F Engine Fuel Display
due to LCD supplier Bankruptcy o Hardware / Software
• No break in productiono Required 75% reduction in re-design time
• Focus on 1st Time Quality to Reduce Production Cost
FES
approach• Formed integrated FES – Subcontractor – Customer
Re-design team• Opportunity to Integrate Lessons Learned
o Designo Producibility
• Integrate EFD production team into Design for Manufacturability (DFM) and Design for Test (DFT)
• Formed a Joint FES – Customer – Subcontractor accelerated improvement team o First Time Qualityo Reduce Contract Award Delivery Cycle Time
FES
Reduce Order to First Delivery Cycle Time
Boeing PO Award
FES Critical Path
Sub Critical Path
FES & Sub Critical Path
Initial State
PO Award to
Sub 8 wks
All material received
FES 25 wks
All material received
Sub 30 wks
Sub 1st Delivery
56 wks
FES 1st Delivery 76 wks
12wks
34 wks
FutureState
38wks2 wks
18 wks4 wks
CurrentState
18wks
41 wks
48 wks
20 wks
Supply Chain LEAN Deployment
FES
Result
Achievements: Design Time Cut -75%
MTBF Improved +33%
Price Reduced -48%
F/A-18E/F Engine Fuel Display Redesign (Tech Refresh)
New EngineFuel Display
New Multi-Purpose Color Display
Customer Recognition:
Boeing’s Avionics Supplier of the Year
2001
New Up-FrontControl/Display
FES
Follow-on EFD cost optimization
• Price established during negotiation of MYP-2 pricing
• LEAN Quality Initiative
• FES tookOver glass
Ruggedizationfrom GE
• STE Upgrade
• Improved sub
Test process
• ReducedESS Req’t
• Eliminated PRAT
13.8%
20%• FES internal process enhancement initiatives
drove additional cost reductions
27.3%• Boeing committed to participation
in the FES CRI resulting in reduced testing & inspection
FY09
(FR
P-10
)PR
ICE
(MYP
-2, 5
th Y
r)
Prev
ious
CR
IA
ctio
ns(U
nfun
ded)
Initi
alN
egot
iate
dM
YP-3
Pric
e
MYP
-3 R
epric
e,10
% In
cent
ive
(No
CR
I)
Fina
l MYP
-3N
egot
iate
d Pr
ice
(With
CR
I)
FES
challenge
• Transition of Production for SM-3 guidance unit circuit cards from Boeing to FES without a break in production
• Subsequent to Production / Test Readiness Certification, transfer of High-Reliability material responsibility to FES
FES
approach
• Full FES process verification withboth Production & Test Readiness Reviews requiring Government Prime and Boeing approval prior to FES start
• Integrated FES / Boeing Customer & Subcontractor Product Team formed to optimize production transitions
FES
ABMD Production Transition To FES
Solder J7 ConnectorInstall & Solder Individual
Components to Board
Install Connectors & SpacersUsing Fasteners &
Kapton Tape under J1
Guidance Processor (GP) Components
Kitting
GP ComponentsKit Inspected
Thermal Bond
Stencil Print Automated Placement
Assemble per Drawing:
GP CCAFunctional Testing
GP ModuleConformal Coating
GP Module ESS Thermal Stress
Screening
GP ModuleFunctional
TestingGP Module Ready for CSI / Shipping
Mass ReflowSolder & Clean
Install Press Fit Connector
Component Lead Form & Tin
Mechanical BondComponents
Final CleaningCleanliness Test
Vacuum Bake
Clean & Vacuum Bake PWB
GP ModuleInspection
PAL Programming
Automated Optical
Inspection
GP Assembly Assembly Inspection
AOI
FES Value Added
Color Coding:
Customer Production Line Certification
FES
FES Production Facility Upgrade Program
FES
Assembly
PCB
FES
Solder Separation Fishbone People Processes Equipment
Material Measurements Environment
Solder Separation
Assembly Technician
sMachine
Operators
Cleaning
Cross sectioning
Solder touch-up
Pre heating
Soldering
PWB
Solder
X-ray Inspection
Humidity
Lighting
Air quality
Methods/Procedures
Calibration
Work Instructions
Safety PrecautionsIndicates that this has been eliminated as a cause of the problem
Solder Temperature
FluxConnector
Temperature
Pre-tinning
Application Speed
Solder Pattern
Solder wave height
Flux Application
Heating Rate
Cooling Rate
Solder purity in nozzle
Specification Requirements
Temp Sensors
Mechanical Clearance
Batch Cleaner
Functional Test
Equipment Setup Selective Solder Machine
Indicates that is under current scrutiny
FES
Counterfeit Parts Mitigation Process Flow
FES
Roadblocks to watch forInadequa
te Training
Tackling Too Much too early
No Link to Company
Objectives
No Incentive
Dirty fingernail
gang looses clout
Diverging goals and objectives
Poor Communication
Leadership Buy-In
Backsliding
FES
A Closing Thought
If the rate of change outside your business
exceeds the rate of change inside your business,
the end is in sight.
-Jack Welch
Profitability
PRICE
Pre Lean Post Lean
Cost Cost
ProfitProfit
Customer Price Target
