Page 18
www.us-tech.com
June, 2013 ElEctronic Mfg SErvicES
Juki/Cogiscan Tracking Solution Helps Hager Security Productivity
By Staff, Production Process Department, Hager Security Agency H
ager Security Annecy, head- quartered in France, is a key part of the company’s larger
Hager Group, supplying printed cir- cuit board assemblies (PCBAs) for se- curity alarms and other electronic products. With approximately 50 employ-
ees, Hager Security Annecy sup- ports a variety of electrical safety installations in residential, commer- cial, and industrial buildings. To handle the wide diversity of prod- ucts, Hager Security needed the ap- propriate technology, and began working with Juki and their de- pendable production equipment in 1999. Hager Security current has eight of Juki’s parts placement ma- chines, each incorporating intelli- gent feeder system (IFS) technology. The IFS control system, which was co-developed by Juki and Cogiscan, tracks components from initial re- ceipt through placement.
Avoiding Misplaced Parts According to Damien Agnellet,
Production Process Department of Hager Security, “when we decided to
ture, if we have other machines, we will be able to extend the use of the Cogiscan system. Additionally, it is adaptable to manual processes and is the only intelligent feeder system that works with Juki.” Encouraged by the benefits
gained from the IFS-based place- ment machines, Hager Security be- gan a project in September 2011 to incorporate additional Cogiscan tech- nology into their production process- es. The project was divided into sev- eral phases, in order to test and vali- date different functionalities of new systems to better manage their pro- duction materials. Agnellet felt that breaking the
A project to improve production-line productivity started with the use of intelligent feeder system (IFS) technology in Juki production equipment.
implement intelligent feeders, we chose IFS because this system pre- vents misplaced components, ideally
corresponding to our needs and it seemed very flexible.” Agnellet added: “Also, in the fu-
project into phases helped their oper- ators to learn the new approaches: “The system requires operators to change their way of working, so this ‘step-by-step evolution’ also permit- ted them to adapt more easily. This way of managing projects is in line with our group’s continuous improve- ment policy.” The first phase of the project
was designed to prevent component misplacement, and included hard-
Continued on next page
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92