design for excellence (dfx) - generis · pdf filedesign for excellence (dfx) brian morrison,...

Design for Excellence (DFX)

Brian Morrison, B.A.Sc., P. Eng. Director, Value Engineering & Technology Oct 5, 2016

Driving Product Optimization Through Early Stage Supplier Engagement

2Strictly Confidential [Rev. July 2015]

SMTC Corporation

§  Established in 1985 §  Over 600,000 square feet of manufacturing capability §  Facilities that covers a large global footprint §  More than 40 manufacturing and assembly lines §  Approximately 1,300 employees §  Listed on NASDAQ since 2000 (SMTX) §  Frost & Sullivan Awards Winners – Growth Leadership

and Product Quality Leadership Awards

Our Vision To simplify the lives of our customers by delivering extraordinary Customer Service,

Responsiveness, Quality, Technology Solutions and Value, fueling their Success and Our growth

Our Values•  Solution Oriented•  Collaborative Partner•  Professional integrity

•  Proactive•  Innovative•  Dependable


Medical Device Markets

Specialists in the Design and Manufacture of Complex Class I and II Medical Devices We design and manufacture class I and II medical devices that require a mix of highly specialized technologies including: •  Diagnostic devices •  Imaging equipment •  laboratory equipment •  Patient Monitoring systems •  Infusion Pumps •  Dispensing Systems •  Consumer Wellness Products.


DFX Product Optimization

§ What is DFX? § DFX Benefits § Value Equation § Product Design Review § Ability to Impact Product Value § Early Supplier Involvement (ESI) § Impact of Design Decisions § Applying DfX to Product Development


What is DfX?

§  DFX or Design for eXcellence is the application of Rules, Guidelines and Methodologies during the Product Development with the purpose of impacting it’s Value while meeting the Product Design Requirements. §  The x in Dfx represents an aspect of the product value to be targeted; these may include (but not limited to)

Component

Quality

Manufacturing

Tes:ng

•  DFSC -‐ Design for Supply Chain

•  DFR -‐ Design for Reliability

•  DFF -‐ Design for Fabrica3on •  DFA -‐ Design for Assembly •  DFM -‐ Design for Manufacturability

•  DFT -‐ Design for Test


Product Value Equation

Performance can be a function, need, feature or aspect that is deemed

critical to the product design.

Cost can include material, labor, test, logistics or any other aspect required to provide the required performance.

Quality

Features

Reliability

Life:me Func:on

Components

Design

Labor

Tes:ng PCB


Typical Product Development

Requirements Feasibility Design Input/Specifica:on Design Phase Verifica:on/

Valida:on Cer:fica:on

What does the product need to do?

Can the technology support the need? Gaps, Risk, Unknowns.

What will the product be able to do?

What will the product look like, how will it func:on, how much will it cost?

Does the product perform as expected?

Does the product meet the regulatory requirements?

DfX Review

DfX Review

DfX Review

DfX Review

DfX Review


DFX Benefits

§  Ease of Manufacturing §  Improved PCB yield, performance and cost (DFF) §  Improved Assembly yield and reduced labour content (DFA)

§  Optimized Test Strategy §  Improved Coverage, Reliability and Final yield, reduced RMA and field failures.

(DFT, DFR) §  Reduced development engineering resource commitment, improved time to market

§  Product/ Process Stability and Repeatability §  Reduced lead time, improved availability/lifecycle and material costs (DFSC) §  High quality, reliable and robust performance for the life of the product (DFR)

§  Capability §  Improved Production Stability and Predictability (DFM)

§  First Pass Yield and Capacity §  Continuous Improvement (DFM)


Ability to Impact Product Value

•  Component selection – Major (e.g. Processor)

•  Hardware / Software partitioning

•  Schematic Design •  ASIC/FPGA Design •  Component

Selection

•  PCB Layout •  DFM •  DFT •  Component

Selection (e.g. passives)

•  Quick Turn Prototype

•  Early DFM/DFT Feedback

•  Device level testing •  System integration

testing •  EMC testing •  Agency submissions

•  Supply chain tweaking

• Continuous process improvement

AB

ILIT

Y TO

IMPA

CT

TIMELINE

DFSC – Design For Supply Chain

DFT – Design For Test

DFA – Design for Assembly

DFM – Design for Manufacturability

DFR – Design For Reliability

Architecture High Level Design Physical Design Prototype Valida3on NPI Volume

80% of Product’s Recurring Cost Established

DFA – Design for Assembly DFF – Design for Fabrication

TYPICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

DFX

EN

GA

GEM

ENT

CO

STED

AC

TIVI

TIES


Early Supplier Involvement

DfX


§  Selection of Critical Components

§ Defining Environmental Requirements

§ Detailed Product Specifications

§ Hardware / Software Requirements

§ Defining Key Features/ Functions

Architecture High Level Design

Physical Design Prototype Valida3on NPI Volume

Impact of Design Decisions

§ Design for Reliability (DFR) § Critical Component Selection § Desired Lifetime/ Environment §  PCB Design Considerations

§ Design for Supply Chain (DFSC) §  Predicted Lifecycle and

Sourcing §  Process Compatibility §  Strategic Supplier Alignment

Impact of Architecture Design Decisions


Design for Reliability (DFR) Total Cost of Ownership à Cost vs. Reliability

Critical Component Considerations §  Physics of Failure §  Mean Time to Failure §  Technology §  Wear Out

Environmental Considerations

§  Temperature – Operating/ Max §  Exposure - Humidity §  Stress - Electrical Load/ Vibration/ Shock/

Power Cycling PCB Design

§  Materials - Surface Finish. Laminate §  Technology - Blind/Buried Vias, Microfill/ Plating §  Electrical Clearance


Design for Supply Chain (DFSC)

Is the BOM Clean? §  Is it orderable and in preferred supply.§  Does MPN match with Part description§  Meet Regulatory Requirements§  Appropriate for the Process?

Is the BOM Stable? §  Form-Fit-Function (FFF) replacement reviews§  Predicted Lifecycle and YTEOL Forecasts§  Change Notices and Counterfeit Alerts

Is my Supply Chain Optimized? §  Preferred supplier strategy§  Long Lead Time Components§  Custom vs. COT§  EOL and Alternate Qualification§  Cost Reduction

Supply Chain Risk Assessment


BOM Health Check

§  Supply Chain Scorecard

§  Approved Manufacturer List (AML) §  Total AML: 7883 §  Total Active AML: 5093

§  Risk: §  Discontinued w/o Alts: 142 §  Discontinued with Alts: 498 §  EOL: 26 §  Single Sourced 1860 §  RoHS Non-Compliant 87

§  Calculated Health Score: §  612.6 out of a possible 1000


BOM Analysis

Risks Identified §  Discontinued AML §  Years to EOL (YTEOL) – Lifecycle §  Non-compliant - Regulatory §  Single Sourced AML

Risk Mitigation §  Evaluate FFF replacement recommendations or

develop strategy to address Discontinued/EOL components.

§  Qualify RoHS equivalent orderable part numbers or provide alternates to address compliancy issues

§  Continuity of supply through strategic FFF AML Alternates to provide multiple sources to single sourced components.

§  Re-design requirements and NPI funnel.


DFSC Case Study

Strategic Supply Chain Alignment Project A Scope of the Project Targeting cost reduction, and obsolesce 40 parts were identified as FFF alternates to existing approved AML with a potential for 20% reduction in material costs. Cost avoidance of $38K was identified through alternate sourcing due to obsolesce

Value Engineering Services Implemented Cost Savings §  Component Engineering §  $126K

Alternate Vendors Project B Scope of the Project FFF alternate to address poor supplier performance on a Power Supply resulting in 8% reduction in cost. Full functional part evaluation in system and test reports provided to support qualification

Value Engineering Services Implemented Cost Savings §  Component Engineering §  $87K


Impact of High Level Design Decisions

§ Design for Testability § Schema:c Review § Test Strategy Review

§ Design for Supply Chain (DFSC) § Predicted Lifecycle and Sourcing § Process Compa:bility § Strategic Supplier Alignment



•  Schema3c Design

•  ASIC/ FBGA Design

•  Cont’d Component Selec3on

•  Hardware/ SoQware Requirements

•  Defining Key Func3ons/ Features

•  Test and Performance Defini3on

Impact of Design Decisions


Design for Testability (DFT)

Is my product testable? Have I made included the appropriate test design rules?

What will my current test strategy cost?

Is there an opportunity to op3mize my test strategy? Improve coverage?


Impact of Physical Design Decisions

§  Impact of Design Decisions

§  PCB Layout and Routing

§  PCB Stackup and Fabrication

§  Physical Placement §  Via – Blind. Buried §  Test Point § Access

§ Design for Assembly (DFA) §  Physical Layout §  Assembly and Manufacturer

§ Design for Fabrication (DFF) §  Stack up and Impedance §  PCB Fabrication Design Rules

§ Design for Testability (DFT) § Nodal Analysis §  Test Strategy Development




Physical Design Review Timing

Pre-‐plac ement P lacement

Manufac turingpre-‐build review

(Pre-‐DFM)

AssemblyAnalys is

(Pre-‐DFA)

Assembly Analys is(DFA)

PCB Fabric ationAnalys is

(DFF)Test Ac c ess

Analys is(DFT)

IC T PressureAnalys is

(FEA)

Manufac turingpost build review

(Post-‐DFM)

Gerberrelease

# daysTBD

Week 2S tart Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 Week 10 Week 12

# daysTBD

5 days

90% routingcompletion of tight

sec tions

Plac ementfreeze

Prototypeshipment

BOMAnalys is

Routing Verific ation PCB FAB PC BA produc tion

Typical Engagement Target Engagement Too late to impact

change


Design for Assembly (DFA)

Component models can be used to replicate a virtual prototype.

Utilizing Valor or similar software, design rules checks can be made to generate a manufacturing risk assessment report.

§ Component Analysis§ Pad stack Analysis§ Pin to Pad Analysis§ Test Point Analysis § Solder Paste Analysis


Design for Assembly (DFA)

Example DFA Output outlining Critical (Major), Hot (Yield improvement), Warm (Minor), Cool (No immediate concern) and Ignore (acceptable)


Design for Reliability (DFR)Ref Des U37, U38, distance between pad too close (0.0059”). Prone to solder bridge. Recommend decreasing pad from 13.78 mil to 11 mils.

Quality and Reliability Concern. 28 OFE, 14 Location – 392 OpportunitiesProbability of Occurrence 40%Expected Yield Detractor 0.72%Rework Cost $0.42Potential Failure Cost $727.50

Ref R1050, C239, RN96, FB2, etc., masked trace between toe print is too thin, may break and cause insufficient solder. Minimum recommended clearance between exposed via and toeprint is 5mil.

Quality and Reliability Concern. 2 OFE, 130 Locations – 260 OpportunitiesProbability of Occurrence 50%Expected Yield Detractor 2.5%Rework Cost $2.80Potential Failure Cost $4,021.01

Ref Des U48, U103, land pattern is not optimal, heel distance is too big. Too much heel may cause solder bridge under component, not visible to visual inspection. Recommended to decrease by 25 mil on heel side.

Quality and Reliability Concern. 50 OFE, 2 Location – 100 OpportunitiesProbability of Occurrence 50%Expected Yield Detractor 0.23%Rework Cost $0.70Potential Failure Cost $386.63


Design for Fabrication (DFF)

What stackup do I need for my impedance requirements? Trace width? §  Reviews typically include determining workable stackups, including

impedance trace width

Is my design within the capability of my fab house? Do I have special requirements/ features? •  Most supplier utilize automated DFX tools

such as Valor to apply their internal Design Rule Checks (DRC) and will provide comprehensive DFM reports for Design Reviews



•  Suppliers will typically provide their DFM guidelines upon request.

•  Incorporating these rules into your native Design Package can help drive value further up the Product Development Cycle


What is the op3mal Panel Design §  U:liza:on of a master panel is a

primary cost driver.

§  Fabricator will focus on high u:liza:on without considera:on for assembly

•  Manufacturer will focus on ease of assembly without considera:on for u:liza:on

Op:mal panel is one that considers both!



DFF Case Study

Panel Optimization Project A Scope of the Project Optimized panel design to meet automated equipment requirements based on EAU increased the master panel utilization from 52% to 72% yielding 20% more panels than the existing design and providing high throughput and lower cost per unit.

Value Engineering Services Implemented Cost Savings §  PCB Panel Design §  $20K

Material Specification Project B Scope of the Project Relax Tg constraints for 10 layer board and realize savings by switch from S1000-2 (Tg 170) to IT158 (Tg 150) with existing supplier

Value Engineering Services Implemented Cost Savings §  Design for Fabrication §  $34K


Design for Testability (DFT)Do I have the necessary access to support my coverage needs? Are my test points appropriate for my test strategy? What is my product coverage? What is not tested? Is my test plan still valid?


Test Strategy Overview

Electrical Tes3ng $$ • Is the component measurement correct? • Strategies include Manufacturing Defect Analyzer (MDA) Flying Probe,

Structural Tes3ng $ • Is the component soldered, present and correct? • Strategies include Visual Inspec:on, X-‐Ray (2D or 3D) and Automated Op:cal Inspec:on (AOI)

Func3onal Tes3ng $$$ •  Does the product func:on as expected? •  Strategies include In-‐Circuit Test (ICT) and Func:onal Test (FT)

Reliability Tes3ng $$$ • Does my product perform in the intended environment? • Strategies include Run-‐in, Burn-‐in and Environmental Stress Screening (ESS)


Test Strategy Analysis

OPTIMAL


DFT Case Study

Test Strategy Recommendation Project A

Scope of the Project

Review existing test strategy and coverage to determine optimal test strategy to provide highest first pass yield, lowest coverage gaps, RMA and overall cost of quality.

Value Engineering Services Implemented Potential Savings

§  Design for Test– Recommend AOI and ICT (FCT only required if full analog frequency testing required) over existing AOI and 5DX testing (no electrical). Reduce coverage gaps from 0.24% to 0.04% and expected RMA from 11.38% to 3.94%. ROI 0.20 years.

§  ICT Development – Quote includes all aspects of ICT development, including future maintenance and production support.

§  $89K - $18K = $61K


Impact of Prototype Design Decisions

•  Quick Turn vs. Production Supplier?

•  Production Tooling or Soft Tool?

•  Material and Component Sourcing Tradeoffs?

•  Understanding your supply Risk, Process Gaps and Plan for them.



§  Design for Manufacturability (DFM)

§  Equipment Requirements §  Tooling Considerations §  Process Considerations §  Labor Requirements


Design for Manufacturing (DFM)

What compromises were made during prototype vs. produc3on?

§  Do I understand the tolerances and gaps between suppliers?

§  What is my transfer plan, knowledge plan?

§  Manage Variability and Risk


Design for Manufacturing and Assembly

Is my product design op3mized for cost?

DFMA Simplifica3on •  Minimize Opera:ons •  Minimize Weight •  Simplify Assembly •  Tooling Complexity

Supplier Levers •  Reduced Tooling Costs •  Reduced Labor Cost •  Minimal Equipment Needs •  Op:mize Piece Price


Impact of Validation Design Decisions

§ Design Verification Testing (DVT) § Highly Accelerated Life Test (HALT) § Highly Accelerated Stress Screen (HASS)

•  What is my product requirements?

•  Is my plan representative of the product end user environment?

•  Is my test coverage effective to detect failures to drive corrective action?




§  What is the right test plan?

•  Design Verifica3on Test •  U:lizes rela:vely low stresses and requires many cycles. Typical user environment.

•  Design Vibra3on, Drop and Impact •  Replicate Product Stresses

•  Design Highly Accelerated Life Test (HALT) •  Run at the edge of the opera:ng limits over :me to emulate typical product life:me.

•  Design Highly Accelerated Stress Screen (HASS) •  Test methods specifically designed on finding defects in products, destruc:ve limit.

Design for Reliability (DFR)


Impact of NPI Design Decisions

Volume Production Supplier Selection Transfer/ Mitigation Plan Critical Component and Risk Management, Supply Chain risks?

Introduction of Production Tooling/ Process. Master Device Plan Development and Qualification



§  Design for Manufacturability (DFM) §  First Article Reports §  Process Development (pFMEA) §  Yield and Detractor Analysis §  Problematic Design Improvements

§  Design for Testability (DFT) §  Coverage Gap Strategy


Was there issues during the build? Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control

Focus areas should include… •  Opera:on Steps and Cycle Time •  Automa:on – Panel Design, Supply

Compa:bility •  Tooling – Stencils, Pallets, Other •  Process – SMD, Reflow, Wave, Mechanical •  Misc. Process – Conformal Coa:ng, Cabling,

System Program Parts •  Test Yield and Detractors •  Quality – First Pass Yield, Top 5 detractors

Design for Manufacturing (DFM)


Impact of Volume Production Decisions

What are the key DfX considera3ons to ensure a successful product ramp to volume? 1) Product Design for Manufacturability (DFM Gaps addressed)

•  Even small defects can become big problems at volume.

•  Focus on ability for full automa3on, minimal touchup/repair and repeatability of manufacturing.

2) Product Design for Testability (DFT Coverage Gaps addressed)

•  Does the Test plan s3ll make sense?

•  Detec3on should be as early as possible in the process to have an impact.

.




Impact of Volume Production Decisions

What key A`ributes of a volume supplier should be reviewed? 3) Product/ Process Stability and Repeatability -‐ Tooling

4) Capability -‐ Equipment, Repair, Processes, Troubleshoot

5) First Pass Yield and Capacity




§ Performance vs. Cost trade-offs should never lose sight of requirements.

§ DfX is a design review tool to help align requirements

§ Collaboration is key to a successful DfX implementation program

§ Early detection and supplier involvement helps identify risk for an effective program management

Final Words


THANK YOUSMTC Corporation

design for excellence (dfx) - generis · pdf filedesign for excellence (dfx) brian morrison,...

Documents