+

Tim RodgersMethods and Results

+Method: Design for Low Cost

Re-design, challenging the assumptions:• DFX: manufacturability, sourcing, reliability, support• Integration: one part or subsystem doing multiple jobs• Simplify, remove low-use / low-value features• Reduce size and weight for lower shipping cost per unit

Typical approach, design is the constraint• Lower cost materials• Lower cost suppliers• Lower cost factories

The design is what it is, we’re

stuck with it

There are other designs

that meet customer

requirements at lower cost

+Method: DFM for Printed Circuits

Designer interviews

re: common tradeoffs

Production cost &

yield data

DFM Manual

Tools that enable circuit designers to choose options based on the

relative cost in materials and processing

More circuit layers(material cost)

Smaller conductors(yield loss)

Example

+Method: Analyzing Cost of Quality

Field repair, customer support, and other warranty

costs

Internal yield loss, scrap, and

rework

Design failure:Design doesn’t meet requirements or isn’t robust under a range of operating conditions (often appears as a part failure)

Work instruction

s & training

Production process failure:Improperly assembled from good parts, or damaged prior to shipment

Part failure:Part did not meet the performance required by the design

Tolerance failure:Design fails to account for natural variation in part characteristics and assembly processes

System design

Production process

design

Supplier performance

Part design

+Results: Lower Cost Production

Monthly  J un-2010  J ul-2010  Aug-2010  Sep-2010  Oct-2010  Nov-2010  Dec-2010  J an-2011  Feb-2011

Net Yield 88.02% 91.80% 92.87% 93.18% 94.81% 95.49% 96.65% 97.01% 96.95%

Target 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00%

88.02%

91.80%92.87% 93.18%

97.01% 96.95%

96.65%95.49%94.81%

80.00%

82.00%

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

98.00%

 Jun-2010  Jul-2010  Aug-2010  Sep-2010  Oct-2010  Nov-2010  Dec-2010  Jan-2011  Feb-2011

Net Yi el d Targetyield

Mfg process change to reduce defects for critical subassembly

Design change to provide greater assembly tolerance

Assembly jigs to reduce variability during part installation

Better ESD protection for critical PCAs, eliminating accidental discharge during assembly

Increased production capacity by 10%Reduced operating expenses per lineEstimated savings = US$1.1M per year

+Results: Lower Cost Factory Test

Packaging and outbound audit

Product quality & reliability audit testing

100% end-of-line testing

Top-Level Assembly Rework

Improved yield

Eliminated rework stations

Reduced sampling for audits

Lower operating expensesFaster throughput

Fewer tests and consumables

+Results: Lower Cost SW Testing

+Results: Lower Support Cost

+Method: Support for Quality

> Internal = scrap, rework, hours spent managing quality issues> External = warranty cost, field repair

+Method: Driving Quality Upstream

Cost to address quality issues

Upstream in the value delivery systemHold suppliers accountable for quality

Upstream in the product development processDesign-in quality and verify before ramp

+Method: Quality Maturity Model

Increasing Cost

Effectiveness

External failures

Corrective action

Internal failures

Improve test & inspection

Corrective action

Analyze failures to understand causes

Improve design, part quality, and production processes to make failures less likely

Prevention based on proactive analysis of the design

Control parameters that are critical to product performance, out-of-box quality, and reliability

+Method: SW Development & Test

Checkpoint

Functionally Complete

Code Freeze

Development Priorities Role of Testing

Invention & investigationNew features &

capabilities

Design improvementsAdditional robustness

Optimize for final releaseEmphasis on defect fixes

Rapid, focused evaluation of new

functionality“Does this work?”

Broad and deep: many use cases and configurations

“Find defects so we can fix them”

Rapid, focused regression to verify defect fixes“Did we fix it without breaking something

else?”Final Release

+Results: Rework from China Factory

W17

W19

W21

W23

W25

W27

W29

W31

W33

W35

W37

W39

$0

$4,000

$8,000

$12,000

$16,000

$20,000

Rework cost

Problem: Excessive rework on subassemblies from China factory

Possible solution:Outbound inspection

Better solution: Raising awareness of costs with local managers Training Team incentives Work instructions in local language instead of English

+Results: Software Install Time

Before After0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Call rateAverage length of call (min)

Original SW installation process

Focused design effort to shorten time and eliminate

defects Up to 30 minutes to install on a

single system

Confusing process including specific manual steps that must be executed in sequence

Many opportunities for the user to interrupt the process, requiring a lengthy phone call to customer support

Customer less likely to use the SW after installation, negative impact to revenue and loyalty

+Results: Part Quality Improvement

W26

W28

W30

W32

W34

W36

W38

W40

W42

W44

W46

W48

W50

W52

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Defe

ct

PP

M

Old inventory

Additional inspection

before shipment

Improved handling

procedures

Process changes to eliminate causes of damage

Leadership of kaizen projects at this critical supplier reduced inspection and rework costs by 45%

Goal

+Results: Eliminating Inspection

Stable platform consistently exceeding customer’s quality goals

Excessive inspection reduced margins

Wee

k 5

Wee

k 8

Wee

k 11

Wee

k 14

Wee

k 17

Wee

k 20

Wee

k 23

Wee

k 26

Wee

k 29

Wee

k 32

Wee

k 35

Wee

k 38

Wee

k 41

Wee

k 44

Wee

k 47

Wee

k 50

Wee

k 1

98

98.2

98.4

98.6

98.8

99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

Ne

t E

OL

Yie

ld (

%)

Target = 98.5%

Eliminated all in-process inspection, saving 5 people per shift

Reduced incoming part sampling rate for most parts, and reverted cost of remaining incoming inspection to suppliers, saving 8 people per shift

Implemented SPC on critical factory processes to provide earlier detection of quality issues and control

+Method: Process Investigations

1. Do they know there is a process?Inform them

2. Do they know how to use the process?Train them

3. Do they ignore the process?Explain to them

4. Do they have a better way?Learn from them

Does the process take too long?Apply Theory of Constraints (identify and manage the bottleneck)

Does the process deliver inconsistent results?Determine the causes of variability and eliminate

Does the process fail to deliver expected results?Check output from each step

Process is not being used

(people problem)Process is

inefficient or ineffective (process problem)

+Method: Process Convergence

Communicate value of

convergenceDetermine value of

local configuration

s

Clearly articulate expected benefits

Change managemen

t

+Results: Factory Line-Down Process

Define Problem

Describe Current

Situation (Is / Is Not)

Propose Possible

Root Causes

Test Root Causes

Propose Solutions

Test Solutions

Integrate and

Monitor Change

Before After0

1

2

3

4

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Cycle Time (hr)Recurrence (%)

Before: No process, rapid trial and errorHigh recurrence of issues

After:Systematic approachLonger process, but highly effectiveLower overall cost

+Results: Design Change Process

Situation: Part design changes to reduce material cost or address field quality issues hampered by a slow and ineffective process

+Method: WW Supplier Experience

SingaporeMalaysiaThailandIndonesia

GermanyFranceUKIrelandSpainHungaryCzech Rep. India

JapanS. KoreaTaiwanChina

USCanadaMexico

Brazil

+Method: Supplier Audit Program

Routine Audit:• Management commitment• Statistical process control• Problem solving• Incoming inspection• Training, work instructions• Preventive maintenance, calibration• Specifications and document control• Internal audits• Record keeping• Shop floor control & 5S

Competitive quote

from RFQ

First articles

pass inspection

Is the supplier capable of sustaining

performance?

+Method: Supplier Quality Maturity

Supplier

Supply Chain Partner

+Method: Driving Quality Upstream

It’s not about preventing bad parts from being shipped …

It’s about preventing bad parts from being built in the first place

Product characteristic (e.g., functionally critical

dimension)Production

process parameter (leading

indicator)

Process capability to consistently

meet specification

Process control to reduce variability

+Method: Benefits of Partnership

+Results: Favored Supplier Program

Favored suppliers (based on quality performance)Favorable pricing and payment termsLow inventory, ship-to-stockAccelerated qualification of new part numbersAudit inspection of incoming lots

Other suppliersIncoming inspection charges reverted(First article failures, defective parts found on the line)

+Results: Molded Plastic Supplier

Supplier provided large quantities of injection molded plastic parts

Problem: inability to consistently meet critical dimensions and cosmetic requirements

Optimum temperature and pressure had been defined for the part, but the supplier had failed to conduct a window study to determine the allowed ranges, or account for mold wear and cavity variations

Performance improved after the supplier established process control limits and regular sampling from cavities with support from the customer.

Pre

ssure

Melt temperature

Flash

Shorts

+Results: Gold Plating Thickness

Supplier provided gold plated contacts for printed circuits.

Problem: gold thickness varied outside the spec limits

Control chart for gold thickness indicated a process that varied outside 3 sigma limits.

Concentration of gold in the plating tank was not monitored regularly and chemical additions were made based on rough estimates.

With support from the customer, the supplier implemented a regular laboratory analysis and strict controls on chemical additions.

+Method: Rapid Time-To-Market

Invention & investigation

Execution

Design verification:

Can you build one unit that meets requirements?(rapid prototyping)

Production system verification:

Can you build many units that meet requirements?

(early engagement with supply chain)

Experiments, feasibility studiesEvaluate concepts vs. requirementsConverge on a product design

+Method: Re-Use and Leverage

Product Development Model

Advantages Limitations

Single product: Development of a single product, feature set and price point: one-at-a-time to respond to the market

Laser-focus, enabling design to achieve minimum cost for that feature set without being constrained by earlier choices

Limited design re-use, possibly lengthening the development time; design costs, tooling and parts not amortized across a larger number of units

Platform: Development of a fixed core or foundation that becomes the leveraged, common basis for follow-on derivative products

Initial design and tooling investment is leveraged to subsequent derivatives or extensions with rapid time-to-market

The initial platform design limits derivative product design options, reducing flexibility and market responsiveness

Architecture: Development of a set of interchangeable modules or assets with well-defined interfaces that are designed to enable forecasted product options to meet anticipated needs

High level of design flexibility; initial investment enables lower product development cost for later products; leveraged tooling and faster time-to-market; can easily shift to other development models

Modules are optimized for leverage and re-use, not necessarily for absolute minimum cost

+Method: Development Phase Gates

+Method: SW Development Checkpoints

o Testing begins after development is “complete”o Scramble to find and fix high priority defectso Quality usually sacrificed to meet schedule

Traditional “waterfall” software delivery model

Defect fixing, additional non-critical enhancements added and verified

Development

Test & Defec

t Fixing

Modular architecture, core functionality verified by design team before check-in

Later replaced by agile/scrum with staged development & testing

Functionally complete

checkpoint

Phased “prototype” model based on hardware design

Fixed release

date

Lower cost development, better quality

Code freezecheckpoint

+Method: Time to Achieve Quality

Qualit

y

Prototype builds

#1 #2 #3 Start of production

Target

Failure to meet quality target

at start of production

Additional cost and loss of production capacity

+Results: Stable Design at Ramp

Wee

k 5

Wee

k 8

Wee

k 11

Wee

k 14

Wee

k 17

Wee

k 20

Wee

k 23

Wee

k 26

Wee

k 29

Wee

k 32

Wee

k 35

Wee

k 38

Wee

k 41

Wee

k 44

Wee

k 47

Wee

k 50

Wee

k 1

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

Ne

t E

OL

Yie

ld (

%)

Target = 95%

Insufficient attention to DFM and quality during development Improvement after ramp required repeated problem solving to determine root causes and successfully eliminate them Higher cost and delayed product introduction until issues resolved

Wee

k 5

Wee

k 8

Wee

k 11

Wee

k 14

Wee

k 17

Wee

k 20

Wee

k 23

Wee

k 26

Wee

k 29

Wee

k 32

Wee

k 35

Wee

k 38

Wee

k 41

Wee

k 44

Wee

k 47

Wee

k 50

Wee

k 1

95

95.5

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100

Ne

t E

OL

Yie

ld (

%)

Target = 98.5%

Emphasis on design stability No design changes permitted after last manufacturing readiness build Steady reduction in design-related defects throughout the development phase Zero open waivers at ramp Daily tracking of yield and defects during prototype builds

+Results: Software Program Tracking

Build

Build

Build

Func

tiona

lly com

plet

eBet

a

Code

free

ze

Relea

se can

dida

te

Relea

se

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tests passedTests failedTests not runTests blocked

Metrics for tracking status: Requirements verified by testing Code turmoil (new or changed LOC) Remaining open defects (weighted) Defect find/fix rate

Clear understanding of work remaining to trade schedule vs. scope vs. quality Predictable outcomes

that meet business objectives

+Method: Metrics Alignment

Link business objectives to individual/team objectives and performance measures

Considerations:Control over outcomes and improvementBehaviors that are encouraged

+Method: Improvement Cycle

Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul Aug0

2

4

6

8

10

Improvement Plan

Owner Date

A B C D E F0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Pareto of Root Causes 1. Measure performance2. Identify negative trends3. Determine root causes4. Develop improvement

plans to address leading causes

5. Hold owners accountable for improvement

6. Measure, verify, repeat

+Method: SW Product KPIs

Product Development Objectives

Key Performance Indicator (KPI)

Key processes and behaviors

Value-added: new features that meet customer needs

Incremental revenue dollar contribution as a result of the new features

Better understanding of customer needs to target high-value features

On-time delivery Actual checkpoints vs. plan

Disciplined development processes, an architecture that supports design of incremental features, and high quality to ensure customer rapid qualification

Deployment Penetration, percentage of the installed base using the new features

Tight collaboration with sales and field support to drive new orders and installations

Quality Escapes, defects reported by customers, especially those that prevent the customer from qualifying and deploying value-added features

Dedication to zero defects and reduction of variability

+Results: Cost Based Metrics

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%

Production Yield

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Defects per Unit

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

Cost of Quality

Scrap costRework cost

The data is accurate, but doesn’t inspire

action

Shifting to a cost measure focuses attention on the opportunity for savings

+Results: Factory Quality TeamFunction Primary

ResponsibilitiesKey Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Quality program management

Quality issue management, primary customer contact window, data reporting

1. On-time and accurate data reporting2. Rapid response and closure of quality

issues3. Effectiveness of issue management

New product quality

Quality plan development and implementation for new products

1. Time-to-quality after production ramp2. NPI Product Quality Scorecard

Manufacturing test

Software support, script development, implementation and maintenance

1. False positive or negatives due to test script

2. Rapid ramp to required level of engineering capability and independence

3. Contribution to productivity and COQ

Document control

BOM and change request management, other document control processes

1. BOM accurate and up-to-date, all partners informed about changes and revisions

2. No mistakes due to incorrect PN revisions3. Cycle time for change process, from

initial request to approval and implementation

Quality engineering

Proactive opportunities for yield, quality and COQ improvement

1. Measurable yield, outbound quality, or COQ improvement

Quality assurance

Inspection, testing and data reporting for production lines

1. Escapes found by subsequent audits2. Contribution to productivity

Supplier quality management

IQC inspection, management of corrective action with suppliers, proactive monitoring of part quality

1. COQ for IQC2. Percent of suppliers achieving favored

status3. Escapes and line-downs due to part

quality

What’s important is that each function has independent control over their KPIs

+Results: R&D Department Aligned

Gross margin / R&D expense

Every activity should contribute,

or why do it?New feature

Improved performance

Improved cost or quality

Improved infrastructure

Sales, revenue

Operating expense

Productivity, throughput

+Results: SW Testing Effectiveness

A B C D E F G H J0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Reported Defects FixedCall Rate

SW release

Offshore software testing service engaged as a partner

With encouragement from the customer, the supplier invested in training to improve testing and increase the percentage of defect reports that resulted to a code change (defect fix)

The improved quality of service contributed to the steady reduction in support call rates for each software release

+Method: Quality Culture Transformation

Passive reporting of quality issues

Waiting to react to customer escalations

Corrective action to fix the problem

Issue closed when plan is implemented

End-of-line quality measures based on testing and inspection

IQC, sorting, testing, audits, inspection

Quality metrics required by the customer

Test plans developed and provided by the customer

Quality is the responsibility of the Quality department

Leadership to close quality issues

Proactive quality improvements based on understanding

Understand and eliminate root cause

Issue closed when improvements are measured

In-process measures as early indicators (SPC)

Drive quality upstream (design and parts)

Cost of quality (COQ) and other internal metrics

Quality plans developed with the customer in mind

Quality culture in the entire organization

FROM TO