search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Page 74


www.us-tech.com


May, 2017


New Traceability for Electronics Manufacturing


Continued from previous page


the market, going back many years, have some sort of data availability, which may require machine-vendor software support. Data may also be collected from transactional systems such as planning and material con- trol, and by including verification operations. All of these sources of data can


be combined more easily through the adoption of a single format, such as the Open Manufacturing Language (OML), which already supports IPC- 1782 requirements. A single common language simplifies integration into cloud-based systems and intelligent, Industry 4.0 processes. Negotiation of contracts and


agreements between manufacturing and product owners is next, using the much more simple definitions of expectation. Some education about the implementation of the standard, including how data is collected, may be required in the earliest stages. The level of traceability selected


may be a lower level than what is eventually needed, since the inter- process communication infrastruc- ture will take time to implement reli- ably. The levels may then be in - creased over time, as increased value from the traceability data is sought and related costs of data acquisition diminish — for example, as machine vendors adopt communication stan- dards directly.


Expected Results Unlike management-driven re -


quirements that include a degree of traceability, positive results from adoption of IPC-1782 can be signifi- cant. These include:


Streamlined Negotiation. Because it is relatively easy to determine the required level of traceability between the product owner and manufactur- er, the risk of any misunderstand- ings is vastly reduced. Since the standard clearly defines each level of traceability, negotiations are less complex and contract lead times can be shortened.


Reduced Cost of Data Collection. Since the standard clearly shows


what information needs to be collect- ed, the overall cost and impact of traceability can be lowered. At the same time, it ensures that the trace- ability data meets expectations.


Effective Auditing. As trust is built between manufacturer and product owner, audits can be far less painful, since both parties know exactly what to expect and what is required.


Reduced Recall Costs. Any serious product issues that occur have the scope of remedial activity identified, minimizing recall and rework costs. This is due to the content and quality of the data and affects brand reputa- tion as well as customer satisfaction.


Reduced Cost of Poor Quality. Within the manufacturing operation, exceptions and deviations can be understood quickly. The traceability data can be used to improve quality well beyond conventional quality management techniques. Issues can be quickly and accurately attributed to production, materials or design, creating the environment for contin- uous improvement.


Counterfeit Material Accoun - tability. A shocking trend in manu- facturing, the range of counterfeit materials now includes key compo- nents, such as ICs, batteries, etc., and also regular passive components. Using counterfeit materials can cause serious quality and reliability issues in the market. Counterfeit detection only acts as a filter, but is not a real deterrent to counterfeiters entering the market. Traceability data can provide a line of accounta- bility back to the point where coun- terfeit materials are introduced. The IPC-1782 specification has


been created to bring an end to the confusion surrounding and ineffec- tiveness of complex and vague trace- ability requirements. Ultimately, traceability enables factories to get much closer to the goal of zero defects, throughout the entire manu- facturing and supply chain. Contact: Mentor Graphics Corp.,


8005 SW Boeckman Road, Wilsonville, OR 97070 % 503-685- 7000 E-mail: sales_info@mentor.com Web: www.mentor.com r


Impact of German Automotive


OEM Connector Test Spec Continued from page 70


Proper Documentation Needed The final area discussed in LV


214-4 is documentation. In order to meet LV 214-4 criteria, proper docu- mentation must be kept of all assem- bly data, machine data and the results of all testing. This includes terminal ID, crimp data, wire cross- section, wire type, machine, the applicator and crimp force monitor used, relative deviations, headroom, and feasibility study results. This information is not only for internal purposes, but can also be shared with customers or manufacturers to help them understand why a specific ter- minal is or is not appropriate for their application. It is important to remember that LV 214-4 is intended for termi-


See at SMT Hybrid Packaging, Booth 4-129


nal validation in automotive har- nesses. This means that when an OEM receives a terminal that has been approved for automotive manu- facturing, all of this testing has already been completed. However, the LV 214-4 is a culmination of knowledge from top automotive man- ufacturers and provides consistency among expectations and processes in terminal requirements for automo- tive use. Thus, it is important for OEM manufacturers to have at least a basic knowledge of what the LV 214-4 is and how it may impact man- ufacturing. Contact: Schleuniger, Inc., 87


Colin Drive, Manchester, NH 03103 % 603-668-8117 fax: 603-668-8119 E-mail: sales@schleuniger.com Web: www.schleuniger-na.com r


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  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116