best manufacturing practices - · pdf filebest manufacturing practices ... manpower &...
TRANSCRIPT
REPORT OF SURVEY CONDUCTED AT
HAMILTON STANDARD ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CENTER
FARMINGTON, CT
OCTOBER 1993
BEST MANUFACTURING PRACTICES
Center of Excellence for Best Manufacturing Practices
“CRITICAL PATH TEMPLATESFOR
TRANSITION FROM DEVELOPMENT TO PRODUCTION”
(SEE APPENDIX E)
DESIGN
PRODUCT
FUNDING
MONEY PHASING
TEST PRODUCTION FACILITIES LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT
DESIGN REF MISSION PROFILE
TRADE STUDIES
DESIGN PROCESS
PARTS & MATERIALS SELECTION
COMPUTER - AIDED DESIGN
BUILT-IN TEST
DESIGN REVIEWS
DESIGN REQUIREMENT
DESIGN POLICY
DESIGN ANALYSIS
SOFTWARE
DESIGN FOR TESTING
CONFIGURATION CONTROL
DESIGN RELEASE
INTEGRATED TEST
FAILURE REPORTING
SYSTEM
UNIFORM TEST
REPORT
SOFTWARE TEST
DESIGN LIMIT
LIFE
TEST, ANALYZE & FIX (TAAF)
FIELD FEEDBACK
MANUFACTURING PLAN
QUALIFY MFG. PROCESS
PIECE PART CONTROL
SUBCONTRACTOR CONTROL
DEFECT CONTROL
TOOL PLANNING
SPECIAL TEST EQUIPMENT (STE)
COMPUTER-AIDED MFG. (CAM)
MANUFACTURING SCREENING
MODERNIZATION
FACTORY IMPROVEMNTS
PRODUCTIVITY CENTER
LOGISTICS SUPPORT ANALYSIS
MANPOWER & PERSONNEL
SUPPORT & TEST
EQUIPMENT
TRAINING MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT
SPARES
TECHNICAL MANUALS
MANUFACTURING STRATEGY
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
DATA REQUIREMENTS
PRODUCTION BREAKS
TECHNICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT
TRANSITION PLAN
BREADBOARD DEVELOPMENT
BRASSBOARD DEVELOPMENT
PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT &
REVIEW
CONCEPT STUDIES & ANALYSIS
SPECIFICATION DEV./ALLOCA./
VALID.
DESIGN FOR ASSEMBLY
TEMP DEVELOPMENT/
EXECUTION
SOFTWARE SIMULATOR
PRODUCTION FABRICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
FIELD VISITS/ SITE SURVEYS
COST ASSESSMENT
LOGISTICS ANALYSIS
DOCUMENTATION
DETERMINING DEFINING NEED
FOR SYSTEM
PREPARE REQUIREMENT DOCUMENTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE
DESIGN/ MILESTONE
REVIEW PLANNING
NEW PMWS TEMPLATES
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 11.2 BEST PRACTICES ......................................................................................... 11.3 INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 41.4 ACTIVITY POINT OF CONTACT ....................................................................4
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 SCOPE ............................................................................................................ 52.2 SURVEY PROCESS ....................................................................................... 52.3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................5
3. BEST PRACTICES
3.1 DESIGNDESIGN POLICY
Design to Cost Information....................................................................7Manufacturing Technology Insertion .....................................................8
DESIGN PROCESSConcurrent Engineering ........................................................................8
DESIGN REVIEWDesign Review for Producibility .............................................................9
DESIGN FOR ASSEMBLYDesign for Manufacturability ..................................................................9
3.2 TESTINTEGRATED TEST
Board Test .......................................................................................... 10FAILURE REPORTING SYSTEM
Automated Data Collection .................................................................10
3.3 PRODUCTIONMANUFACTURING PLAN
Continuous Flow Manufacturing ..........................................................11QUALIFY MANUFACTURING PROCESS
Process Analysis for Manufacturability ...............................................11PIECE PART CONTROL
Source Inspection Laptop Kit ..............................................................12Supplier Point-of-Use ..........................................................................12
C O N T E N T S
i
(SEE APPENDIX E)
ii
SUBCONTRACTOR CONTROLCertified Supplier Program ..................................................................13
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUESEnvironmental Program ......................................................................13
3.4 LOGISTICSTRAINING EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
Inventory and Asset Management ......................................................14Process Control Strategy ....................................................................14
3.5 MANAGEMENTMANUFACTURING STRATEGY
Management Strategy Process ...........................................................14Customer Satisfaction .........................................................................15External Involvement for Manufacturing
Research and Development ..........................................................16Benchmarking Process .......................................................................16Finance Office Kaizen .........................................................................17Continuous Improvement ....................................................................17
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTSWork Environment...............................................................................18All Salary Workforce............................................................................19Communication Process .....................................................................19
DATA REQUIREMENTSMetric Alignment/Flowdown ................................................................20
4. INFORMATION
4.1 DESIGNDESIGN POLICY
Design for Environment.......................................................................23
4.2 PRODUCTIONSUBCONTROCTOR CONTROL
Laser Marking System ........................................................................23MANUFACTURING SCREENING
Environmental Stress Screening Testing ............................................23
4.3 FACILITIESFACTORY IMPROVEMENTS
Factory Improvements ........................................................................24
C O N T E N T S (Continued)
4.4 LOGISTICSMANPOWER AND PERSONNEL
Health and Safety................................................................................24
4.5 MANAGEMENTPERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
Training ............................................................................................... 25Recognition and Involvement Programs .............................................25
DATA REQUIREMENTSLabor Reporting ..................................................................................26
5. PROBLEM AREAS
5.1 DESIGNProduct Development Cycle Compression ........................................ 27Extended Product Life Cycle ...............................................................27Requirement Conflicts .........................................................................27MIL-SPEC Component Availability ......................................................27
5.2 PRODUCTIONCustomer Scheduling Perturbations ...................................................27Accounting Systems............................................................................27Part Marking Removal with New Cleaning Process ........................... 27
APPENDIX A - TABLE OF ACRONYMS .................................................................. A-1APPENDIX B - BMP SURVEY TEAM ....................................................................... B-1APPENDIX C - PROGRAM MANAGER’S WORKSTATION ....................................C-1APPENDIX D - NAVY CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE ...............................................D-1APPENDIX E - NEW BEST MANUFACTURING PRACTICES
PROGRAM TEMPLATES ........................................................... E-1APPENDIX F - PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED SURVEYS ......................................... F-1
C O N T E N T S (Continued)
iii
F I G U R E S & T A B L E S
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
3-1 Design to Cost Project Team Implementation Process ................................................ 73-2 Manufacturing Strategy Timing/Speed ...................................................................... 153-3 External Involvement ................................................................................................. 173-4 Work Environment ..................................................................................................... 183-5 Metric Alignment/Flowdown – Hoshin Planing Process ........................................... 203-6 Continuous Improvement Key Performance Metrics ................................................. 21
3-1 Test Time Savings Estimate ....................................................................................... 103-2 Hamilton Standard Principles of Communication Excellence ................................... 19
iv
1
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Navy’s Best Manufacturing Practices (BMP) pro-gram team conducted a survey at the Hamilton StandardElectronic Manufacturing Center (HSEMC) located inFarmington, Connecticut the week of 4-8 October 1993.The purpose of the HSEMC survey was to review anddocument its best practices and investigate any potentialindustry-wide problems. The BMP program will use thisdocumentation as an initial step in a voluntary technologysharing process among industry, government, andacademia.
The Electronic Manufacturing Center in Farmington,Connecticut is a functional unit of the Hamilton Standarddivision of United Technologies Corporation. This facilitycovers over 160,000 square feet and supports almost 400employees. Operations include production of electronicsystems for flight controls for the Black Hawk helicopter,CH53/MH53 helicopter and Seahawk helicopter. In addi-tion, HSEMC produces electronics for the data systems forthe F/A-18, C-17, and F-15 aircraft, as well as the Apacheand Commanche helicopters. Electronic systems are alsoincluded in the missile engine controls for the Harpoonmissile. HSEMC also produces precision sensors for mili-tary aircraft, helicopters, and missiles.
The HSEMC presented the BMP program survey team anoutstanding example of a successful business comeback.This facility rebounded from an unfavorable situation tobecome a high-quality producer of electronics for flightcontrols and data management systems for several keymilitary aircraft and missile platforms. In the late 1980s,adverse conditions prompted HSEMC to re-evaluate itsway of doing business and the quality of its product.Internal and external feedback highlighted the need forwidespread changes in what the company was producing aswell as its means of production. This introspective analysisat HSEMC resulted in basic shifts of management philoso-phy as well as far reaching trends on the production floor.
There are two critical elements in the turnaround fromreactionary to solution-oriented operations at the Farmington,Connecticut facility that were evident in all presentationsduring the BMP survey. Those elements include communi-cation and the unique application of common practices toHSEMC's specific operation.
Good communication in any company has become abasic ingredient for success; however, at HSEMC, commu-nication is not just basic but a key reason for its present
situation. Management and associates maintain an active,free-flowing association using common tools such as TotalQuality Management or less common ones such as theestablishment of an all salary workforce. Each associate isaware of his or her individual place in the overall companyprocess. Complex data is visually presented in simple formssuch as in HSEMC’s singular use of arachnoid charts.
HSEMC also individualizes many common practices toachieve maximum results. These practices include areassuch as continuous improvement efforts and metric align-ment/flowdown. By internalizing the precepts of processessuch as agile manufacturing and specializing them toHSEMC’s operation, the company has established itself asa forerunner in several production areas. Specifically, theBMP survey team considered HSEMC to have one of thebest continuous flow manufacturing operations ever docu-mented.
The Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Centerprovides any company with a roadmap for applying goodmanagement techniques and sound business practices – andensuring its successful application by strong support fromhighly motivated and trained personnel. This effort is provid-ing HSEMC with an environment of opportunity to expandits share of the global marketplace. The company is well onthe road to world class manufacturing through strong com-munication procedures and individualized application ofcommon practices.
1.2 BEST PRACTICES
The best practices documented at HSEMC are detailed inthis report. These topics include:
Item Page
Design to Cost 7
The design to cost initiative at the HSEMC is amajor element of the overall product design anddevelopment life cycle management process initi-ated in the proposal stage.
Manufacturing Technology Insertion 8
The HSEMC instituted several process changes toensure the timely introduction of ManufacfacturingTechnology Insertion to address advanced pack-aging, environmental, and cost competitive tech-nologies needs for future electronics business.
S E C T I O N 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
Item Page
Concurrent Engineering 8
Concurrent engineering at HSEMC is appliedthrough an integrated product development pro-cess to connect initial product concept, design, andrelated processes to manufacturing and support.
Design Review for Producibility 9
The HSEMC has developed a design review pro-gram in support of its producibility efforts andintegrated product development cycle. These re-views are conducted by experts from the design,test, and production departments.
Design for Manufacturability 9
Producibility and manufacturability are inter-changeable terms at HSEMC, and are primarilyfocused on the design and development of printedwiring board assemblies, chassis, and complexICs. A producibility assurance group co-locatedwith engineering is a keystone to the developmentof producibility guidelines resulting in substantialcycle time reductions, and reduction in scrap,rework, and repair.
Board Test 10
HSEMC conducted informal industrial surveys onboard testing and as a result, realized significantcost and time savings by replacing functionalboard testing with in-circuit testing.
Automatic Data Collection 10
The HSEMC has implemented an automatic datacollection system that makes test results and fail-ure data available for factory-wide review.
Continuous Flow Manufacturing 11
When HSEMC introduced continuous flow manu-facturing into its production line, it eliminatedmany problems such as a push system versus pullsystem.
Process Analysis for Manufacturability 11
Hamilton Standard applies the Process Analysisfor Manufacturability technique at its facility inFarmington, CT to characterize and optimize manu-facturing processes.
Item Page
Source Inspection Laptop Kit 12
The Source Inspection Laptop Kit at HSEMC is acomputerized system designed to eliminate in-specting incoming components for items such asconformity and verification of correct engineeringconfiguration.
Supplier Point-of-Use 12
The Supplier Point-of-Use technique provides forthe supplier delivering quality parts directly to thepoint of usage on the factory floor.
Certified Supplier Program 13
The Hamilton Standard Manufacturing Centerimplemented its Supplier Certification Program inApril of 1993 with objectives to identify supplierswith excellent performance and process controlsand assist suppliers in getting their processes un-der control through training and process reviews.
Environmental Program 13
The HSEMC has developed an environmentalprogram designed to keep it ahead of quicklychanging regulations and to promote the properuse of hazardous materials for the benefit of thecommunity.
Inventory and Asset Management 14
Hamilton Standard EMC has pursued an aggres-sive inventory reduction program since 1991, andinventory and asset management has become thejob of every HSEMC associate.
Process Control Strategy 14
A unique video delivery training method has beenimplemented at HSEMC to teach process control.
Manufacturing Strategy Process 14
The HSEMC manufacturing strategy incorporateselements of Agile Manufacturing, the Air Force’sLean Manufacturing initiative, and other best busi-ness practices.
Customer Satisfaction 15
The HSEMC employs a well-developed and imple-mented process for satisfying customer expecta-tions and requirements. Its goal is to consistentlymeet or exceed customer – both internal and exter-nal – expectations and requirements.
3
Item Page
External Involvement for ManufacturingResearch and Development 16
Hamilton Standard has found that there are manybenefits to collaborative research and develop-ment efforts with other industrial and governmentpartners in solving industry-prevalent problems.
Benchmarking Process 16
Benchmarking other best industry practices isconsidered by the Hamilton Standard ElectronicManufacturing Center to provide the basis for itsjourney in continuous improvement.
Finance Office Kaizen 17
At Hamilton Standard, continuous improvementhas been integrated not only on the factory floor,but also in offices – the finance section used theKaizen method to revamp its office area.
Continuous Improvement 17
The need for a fundamental change in 1987 atHamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Cen-ter in how business was conducted – and ulti-mately the survival of the company as a corporateentity – prompted it to embark on a new manage-ment philosophy.
Work Environment 18
In the 1990s, the HSEMC focuses on people,values, and their continued development as themost important force in the company.
All Salary Workforce 19
HSEMC decided to eliminate the traditional com-pensation system and implement a single compen-sation system for all associates to unify theworkforce, break down invisible barriers to com-munication, simplify systems, reduce administra-tion costs, and enhance organizational agility.
Communication Process 19
Associates at HSEMC understand that to enhancethe atmosphere of the work place, individuals needto improve communication skills. To accomplishthis goal, Hamilton Standard developed a commu-nication process to facilitate consistency of under-standing.
Item Page
Metric Alignment/Flowdown 20
Each Hamilton Standard business unit, includingthe Farmington, CT Electronic ManufacturingCenter, has developed annual objectives and imple-mentation plans that focus on achieving divisionallevel objectives and satisfying individual cus-tomer needs.
1.3 INFORMATION
The BMP survey team documented the following infor-mation items at HSEMC:
Item Page
Design for Environment 23
To comply with the environmental requirementsimposed by federal, state, and local governments,the HSEMC has instituted a policy for hazardousmaterials reduction to meet or exceed regulationsor suggested federal Environmental ProtectionAgency goals.
Laser Marking System 23
Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Center’sprevious method of creating nameplates was a manual,expensive, unreliable, and time-consuming process.Therefore, a cross-functional team selected by HS se-lected a laser marking system to replace the old system.
Environmental Stress Screening Testing 23
Hamilton Standard has addressed reducing un-needed processes in the environmental stressscreening structure to gain cost savings and opti-mize unit field life.
Factory Improvements 24
In an effort to reduce cycle time and improveresponsiveness to its customers, HSEMC initiateda strategy to improve its factory. At the heart of thisstrategy is a Continuous Flow Manufacturing tech-nique and a multi-faceted approach that has changedHSEMC’s entire organization.
Health and Safety 24
HSEMC uses many techniques to maintain a suc-cessful health and safety program. These effortshave had favorable results in reducing lost timeand other accidents.
4
Item Page
Training 25
The Hamilton Standard Electronic ManufacturingCenter’s philosophy of continuous improvementis strongly supported by a comprehensive,broad-based associate training program.
Recognition and Involvement Program 25
The Hamilton Standard Electronic ManufacturingCenter has a number of programs for recognizingindividual and team performance, and many pro-grams that provide an opportunity for associates toget involved and represent the company in thelocal community.
Labor Reporting 26
The labor reporting structure at Hamilton Stan-dard has become a labor-intensive, non-value addedtask targeted for elimination. HSEMC will be-come the pilot site to test the idea that efficiencyand productivity can be enhanced by trackingcycle time and rework hours.
1.4 PROBLEM AREAS
The Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Cen-ter identified the following areas in Design and Productionas potential industry-wide problems that should be ad-dressed by industry and government for possible avenues ofsolution.
Item Page
Product Development Cycle Compression 27
New problems are emerging due to activitiesthroughout the product development processesbeing compressed and executed in parallel.
Extended Product Life Cycle 27
The changes in DOD to extend current defenseequipment life will increase parts obsolescence.Suppliers are faced with the choices of maintain-ing a life-of-type stock of obsolete parts, procuringthe parts through after-market vendors at highprices, or redesigning and requalifying the newpart at extremely high costs.
Item Page
Requirement Conflicts 27
Environmental Protection Agency versusMIL-SPECs conflicts are becoming more nu-merous.
MIL-SPEC Component Availability 27
The lack of readily available MIL-SPEC partsartificially increases product costs and lengthensdevelopment and manufacturing cycle times.
Customer Scheduling Perturbations 27
As companies reduce inventory, they face prob-lems delivering products to the customer that hadnot been scheduled because of the long lead timesrequired for certain components.
Accounting Systems 27
Accounting practices by many U.S. firms are stillapplied that result in excessive inventory as aresult of the way overhead is accounted to directhours charged on the factory floor.
Part Marking Removal with NewCleaning Processes 27
As new cleaning processes are implemented toeliminate the use of ozone depleting chemicals, aproblem has arisen with the new processes remov-ing the part markings.
1.5 ACTIVITY POINT OF CONTACT
For more information on the best practices, informationitems, or problem areas identified in this report, contact:
Mr. Steve PavlechManager, Technology Planning and DevelopmentUnited Technologies Hamilton StandardElectronic Manufacturing CenterOne Hamilton RoadWindsor Locks, Connecticut 06096Phone: (203) 654-2491
5
2.1 SCOPE
The purpose of the Best Manufacturing Practices(BMP) survey conducted at the Hamilton StandardElectronic Manufacturing Center (HSEMC) inFarmington, Connecticut was to identify best prac-tices, review problems, and document the results.The intent is to extend the use of progressive manage-ment techniques as well as high technology equip-ment and processes throughout industry and govern-ment facilities. The ultimate goal of the BMP pro-gram is to strengthen the U.S. industrial base andreduce the cost of defense systems by solving manu-facturing problems and improving quality and reli-ability.
A team of engineers accepted an invitation from theHSEMC to review the processes and techniques used at thehotel located in Farmington, CT. Potential industry-wideproblems were also reviewed and documented. The reviewwas conducted in Farmington, CT on 4 October through 8October 1993 by the team identified in Appendix B of thisreport.
The results of BMP surveys are entered into a database fordissemination through a central computer network (seeAppendix C). The actual exchange of detailed data will bebetween companies at their discretion. The results of thissurvey should not be used to rate the Hamilton StandardElectronic Manufacturing Center with other commercialcompanies, government activities, or defense contractors.The survey results have no bearing on one facility’s perfor-mance over another’s. The documentation in BMP reportsis not intended to be all inclusive of the activity’s bestpractices. Only selected non-proprietary practices are re-viewed and documented by the BMP survey team.
2.2 SURVEY PROCESS
This survey was performed under the general surveyguidelines established by the Department of the Navy. Thesurvey concentrated on the functional areas of design, test,production, facilities, logistics, and management. The teamevaluated the Hamilton Standard Electronic ManufacturingCenter’s policies, practices, and strategies in these areas.
Furthermore, individual practices reviewed were catego-rized as they relate to the critical path templates of DOD4245.7-M, “Transition from Development to Production.”The HSEMC identified potential best practices andindustry-wide problems. These practices and other areas ofinterest were discussed, reviewed, and documented fordistribution throughout the U.S. industrial base.
The format for this survey consisted of formal briefingsand discussions on best practices and problems. Time wasspent at the Hamilton Standard Electronic ManufacturingCenter reviewing practices, processes, and equipment.In-depth discussions were conducted to better understandand document the identified practices and problems.
Demonstrated industry-wide problems identified duringthe Best Manufacturing Practices surveys may be referredto one of the Navy Manufacturing Technology Centers ofExcellence. They are identified in Appendix D.
2.3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks are due to all the people at the HamiltonStandard Electronic Manufacturing Center whose partici-pation made this survey possible. In particular, the BMPprogram acknowledges the special efforts of Mr. StevePavlech and Mr. Tony Rice for enabling this survey tooccur.
S E C T I O N 2INTRODUCTION
6
7
3.1 DESIGN
DESIGN POLICY
Design to Cost Information
The design to cost (DTC) initiative at the HSEMC is amajor element of the overall product design and develop-ment life cycle management process initiated in the pro-posal stage. This DTC process results in the establishmentof product target cost goals that meet customer expectations
and is broken down into sub-system, sub-assembly, andpiece part labor and material goals.
DTC is an iterative process that steps through a cadre oflegacy data, design criteria, producibility guidelines, reli-ability information, and other elements to establish targets.The process (Figure 3-1) encompasses the setting of indi-vidual cost targets; defining a process that will achieve thetargets; implementing and modifying the defined process;analyzing data collected; and modifying the analyses.
Functional responsibilities are categorized for the DTCproject team an include cost tradeoff initiator, design,
S E C T I O N 3
BEST PRACTICES
FIGURE 3-1. DESIGN TO COST PROJECT TEAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Cool Target
Cost Status
Cost Data & Costed Parts List
Cost Requests
Labor Est.Cost
Engineering
DTC Project Team
Labor/Tooling Requests/EstimatesProducibility
Assessment
Process Dev.
Labor/Tooling
Labor Hours
Request for Quote
Vendor Quote
Purchasing
Vendor quote
Quote Package
Price Quotes
Vendor Base
ApprovalMfg
Process Technology
Design Iteration Cost Impact
Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Producibility Assurance
Mfg. Engineering
Industrial Engineering
New Process Reqts.
Design Iteration Cost Impact
Customer IPD Team
Team Charter Cost Goals Cost Status
8
electrical components engineering, cost engineering, pur-chasing, Integrated Product Development (IPD) team,producibility assurance, manufacturing engineering, sys-tems design, and development engineering. Thiswell-defined process and assigned responsibilities collec-tively result in customer satisfaction and a cost-effectivedesign. The DTC cost over target average for 19 majorprograms at HSEMC is only .04%.
Manufacturing Technology Insertion
The Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Cen-ter (HSEMC) instituted several process changes for Manu-facturing Technology Insertion to address advanced pack-aging, environmental, and cost competitive technologiesneeds for future electronics business.
Several factors necessitated improvement in the previousprocess. Technology selection was primarily an engineer-ing process, and a manufacturing department buy-in did notalways occur because of conflicting goals. There was alsono manufacturing group dedicated to new technology pro-cess development. Delays resulted from unplanned anddifficult to approve manufacturing resources and capital.Manufacturing capability was consequently seldom avail-able in time to initiate new product development. Produc-tion implementation was often unsuccessful due to insuffi-cient understanding of the risks and inadequate allocation ofresources.
Hamilton Standard’s Manufacturing Technology Inser-tion process improvements included formation of a dedi-cated manufacturing technology group and documentedmanufacturing technology insertion process, facilitated byuse of detailed flowcharts for benchmarking and continu-ous improvement. These new process steps included:
- Establishing manufacturing development projects toprovide estimated development costs, estimated capi-tal costs, project schedules, and risk levels.
- Demonstrating process feasibility and identifying toproduce equipment requirements, equipment costs,and risk levels.
- Equipment acquisition for quality equipment and com-mitted suppliers.
- Developing the manufacturing procedures to provide arobust process (C
pk > 1.3) and design guidelines. This
step transitions the process to production with fulldocumentation details and process owner transfer.
Process improvement teams engineers and manufactur-ing associates to establish each business unit’s technologyinsertion schedule used as a tool for resource, capital, andfacility planning to improve time to market. An improved
planning and development process facilitates risk manage-ment and allows manufacturing capability to be in place intime for new product development. Cross functional in-volvement in the entire process results in buy-in and com-mitment throughout the organization.
DESIGN PROCESS
Concurrent Engineering
Concurrent engineering at HSEMC is applied through anIPD process to connect initial product concept, design, andrelated processes to manufacturing and support. IPD repre-sents a teaming arrangement that includes team membersfrom all disciplines participating in influencing productsthroughout the development cycle to production and sup-port. It is implemented through detailed procedures andguidelines that provide a structured methodology for theformation, function, and operation of the process as a wholeas well as for each IPD team.
IPD objectives include achieving customer satisfactionand improved product quality and yield; minimizing totalcycle time, cost of design, development and manufacture,and total cost of ownership; and improving transition fromengineering to manufacture. These objectives are achievedthrough four phases of IPD including:
- Phase 1 (pre-proposal phase) in which an analysis ofcustomer requirements versus HSEMC capability isperformed and during which identified deficiencies arecorrected.
- Phase 2 (proposal preparation phase) in which a designconcept is finalized and the program plan is preparedfor the conduct of the design, development, manufac-turing, and support of the product and processes.
- Phase 3 (product/process design and developmentphase) in which program implementation begins andefforts initiated to ensure the design, processes, anddocumentation are completed to the customer’s satis-faction.
- Phase 4 (product manufacture and deployment) whichcenters on full scale manufacture, producibility, andyield.
Teaming is a vital element in the IPD methodology at HS.Team organization consists of a Program System Integra-tion Team of manager-level personnel whose key responsi-bilities are interfacing with the customer, communicatingwith upper management, chartering and disbanding IPDteams, specifying team leaders, providing IPD team direc-tion, establishing goals, monitoring performance, and pro-viding resources. Under the Program System Integration
9
Team, an Integrated Product Development Team is respon-sible for communication and planning, customer interface,detail design and development, manufacturing definition,design to cost, program asset management, procurementstrategy, and the charter and dissolution of project teams.Project teams are multi-disciplined teams who are respon-sible to the Integrated Product Development Team; aredesigned to address a specific issue, task, or project phase;define the required resources; and define the task scheduleand milestones.
The institution of Integrated Product Development at theHSEMC is providing a concurrent engineering methodol-ogy for improving the quality of engineering, transition toproduction, and manufacturing processes. The Total Qual-ity Management philosophy is evident as the teams interactthroughout all phases of the product’s life cycle.
DESIGN REVIEW
Design Review for Producibility
The HSEMC has developed a design review program insupport of its producibility efforts and IPD cycle. Thesereviews are conducted by experts from the design, test, andproduction departments. Producibility design rules are imple-mented in HSEMC’s design for test practice and includeslessons learned. These mandatory producibility design rulesare implemented for testing ease, diagnostics, reliability,and statistical process control (SPC) compatibility. Designfor test subjects included in the producibility design ruleencompass test access, test control, test observation, diag-nostics, test equipment design, test equipment software,reliability, fault coverage, fault isolation, documentation,and SPC compatibility.
One set of design rules are followed to reduce the numberof design books required for adequate design. The six sigmadesign process target increases test yields and improvesdesign of performance by identifying tolerance variationsfrom parts failure data. Analysis tools are available thatallow designers to simulate component parameter distribu-tions with multiple patterns. Automated factory feedback isavailable to confirm results or to aid new design decisions.Documentation on this process is required to include designreports, programmable array logic equations, engineeringunit conversions, connector definitions, software flow-charts, software listings, and input/output address tables.
The design review program is presented in a Guidelinesfor Electronics Design Review document which outlinesmandatory participants for each step. Team members mustbe experts in the area they are representing with a minimumof five years related experience. Lessons learned from theprocess are accessible to all associates with a VAX accountand are periodically incorporated into the design guide-
lines. The design guideline document is dynamic in natureand therefore is constantly updated to meet the need forimprovement.
Standard circuits are also used to reduce developmenttime and to prevent an engineer from reinventing the wheel.These circuits are mandated for use by the Hamilton Stan-dard Circuit document. Variations from the standards mustbe justified on the basis of performance, cost, or weight.
The use of design rules such as designing for testability,required documentation, and using pre-developed standardcircuits provides a very efficient IPD process. More infor-mation known early in the process enhances and improvesHSEMC’s IPD process. The design review program estab-lished by Hamilton Standard has improved the yields andlowered its IPD time by involving all phases of the IPDcycle in the design phase.
DESIGN FOR ASSEMBLY
Design for Manufacturability
The HSEMC maintains that producibility andmanufacturability are interchangeable terms primarily fo-cused on the design and development of printed wiringboard assemblies, chassis, and complex ICs. Managementpolicy at the Center to form a producibility assurance groupco-located with engineering is a keystone to the develop-ment of producibility guidelines resulting in substantialcycle time reductions and reductions in scrap, rework, andrepair.
The HSEMC producibility assurance strategy is to assigna full-time manufacturing engineer to the program; createand follow established factory specific design rules forproducibility; review total design activities and participatein all trade studies; expand design mechanization and use acommon database to expedite preparation of process sheetsand tool designs; appraise engineering of new manufactur-ing process capabilities; and provide lessons learned feed-back from operations to design. This strategy is in supportof producibility assurance goals of reducing parts count;maximizing use of standard components; maximizing useof rules-based design; maximizing use of standard manu-facturing processes and tooling; using 100% surface mounttechnology (SMT) components on SMT boards; eliminat-ing post wave solder second assembly; expediting engi-neering to manufacturing transition; and improving test-ability.
In addition to teaming, a principal means for implement-ing the producibility strategy and for achieving the goals isHSEMC's Integrated Product Design System (IPDS).Multiple design and manufacturing disciplines are broughttogether through ECAD VALID application software fromCADENCE and MCAD IDEAS application software from
10
SDRC. IPDS provides the vehicle for executing nearreal-time, integrated product design data and information.Cycle time reductions of nearly 50% have resulted becausethe various activities can be performed concurrently ratherthan sequentially.
3.2 TEST
INTEGRATED TEST
Board Test
The Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Cen-ter (HSEMC) conducted informal industrial surveys onboard testing and as a result, realized significant cost andtime savings by replacing functional board testing within-circuit testing, as applicable. In-circuit or bed-of-nailtesting was determined to be the best method for testingproduction unit circuit board at Hamilton Standard.
Function verification is now accomplished at the designlevel and end item level of board development wherein-circuit testing verifies component level functionality andmanufacturing flaws that may be present. Test develop-ment costs have been reduced 300% to 400% (depending onboard complexity), and test development cycle times havebeen reduced 350% to 600% of functional test developmenttimes. End item functional testing has shown yields fromthese in-circuit tests to be 93% to 100%. In-circuit boardlevel test development costs are to three times less costly,depending on the complexity of the board. This develop-ment cost savings, coupled with cycle time reduction repre-sents a significant average development cost savings perboard. Test times have also been reduced to present addi-tional cost savings using in-circuit testing (Table 3-1).
Also, HSEMC’s method of fixture development includeddeveloping a fixture for each board being tested. Thismethod was expensive, time consuming, and contained noself test capability. Fixture failures caused many intermit-tent failures that were a burden to troubleshoot, and resultedin high maintenance and repair costs. After facing constantfixturing problems and high fixture design and develop-ment costs (with end item acceptance testing), HamiltonStandard teamed with an external supplier to develop acommon fixture to contain self test capabilities. HamiltonStandard and the external supplier maintained goals todecrease cycle time, increase reliability, increase redun-dancy (sharing), minimize change over time, minimizecalibration time, incorporate self-health check, and effec-tive use for engineering development.
Full documentation of the test fixtures were required tohave good correlation between identical fixtures. Program-ming time reductions of 50% to 70% were projected. Initialtest fixture development costs were 2% to 30% higher butdrove future development costs down 52% to 70%. Thiscost savings coupled with automatic fixture troubleshoot-ing (fixture self-test), reduced all-over test developmentand cycle times dramatically.
In-circuit production testing at HSEMC has been found toreduce both non- recurring and recurring costs, industry wide.Cycle time reductions of 80% have been accomplished byusing the in-circuit test methods versus functional board test-ing. Functional board testing at the production level has beendetermined to be redundant with yields of 93% to 100% usingin-circuit testing. By standardizing test fixtures, HamiltonStandard has eliminated many time-consuming failure local-ization problems that usually point to the fixture as noise andcontinuity failures inherent in many fixture designs. Fixturefailures are found during self test and not after exhaustivestudies of why the board is failing.
FAILURE REPORTING SYSTEM
Automatic Data Collection
The Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Cen-ter (HSEMC) has implemented an automatic data collectionsystem that makes engineering design, test results, andfailure data available for factory-wide review. This systemreadily provides important information to managers anddesign and test engineers. Failure reports and design dataare current and accessible for study.
Hamilton Standard has developed a UNIX-based datacollection system that is linked factory wide through Ethernetlines to PC/UNIX networks. Design engineers enter de-sign data and specifications that can be used by the testengineers when required. This effort represents a vast
TEST TIMESSavings
Part Test TimeNumber Per Board
A 98%
B 99%
C 99%
D 97%
E 97%
F 97%
G 97%
TALBE 3-1. TEST TIME SAVINGS ESTIMATES
11
improvement over the previous time-consuming, non-currentpaper trail consisting of failure report cards that were routedto personnel responsible for writing failure reports. Thenew method has eliminated the long lead times for failureinformation reporting to the appropriate level. The newsystem automatically generates test reports that are imme-diately inserted into the data collection database. At thattime, they are available for review by all levels of develop-ment including management and Defense Program Repre-sentative Office (DPRO) representatives.
When test engineers are troubleshooting failed boards,they have all design data and specifications available on lineand do not have to locate information manually in the designdepartment. This method works equally well for designengineers to view data being taken on their designs. Systemalarms – reporting information to the foreman, lead man,operators, and inspectors for immediate action – are pro-grammed into the database. This system generates real-timeSPC charts and allows for computerized scheduling ofpreventive maintenance and calibration of test equipment.The system is a graphical user interface that uses apoint-and-click, menu-driven operator. Overall, it allowsfor statistically in-control processes, management aware-ness of recurring problems, validation of proper correctiveactions, early address of customers concerns, and no de-layed shipments due to questionable test results.
3.3 PRODUCTION
MANUFACTURING PLAN
Continuous Flow Manufacturing
When HSEMC introduced continuous flow manufactur-ing (CFM) into its production line, it eliminated manyproblems such as a push system versus pull system. Produc-tion bottlenecks were also hidden by the large amount ofwork-in-process (WIP), and inventory levels far exceededcustomer demands. Substantial rework was performed;products traveled long distances in the process; manyprocesses were non-value added, and the cycle time throughthe process was excessive.
The most important step in Hamilton Standard’s CFMimprovement process was to obtain total involvement of allassociates from the director level to assembly associates.Three teams were organized with communication linkagesprovided by team leaders serving on the next level team.The Steering Committee was chaired by the General Man-ager, and the Sector Support Team Leader was a member ofthe Steering Committee. The Implementation Team Leaderwas a member of the Sector Support Team. Each team metweekly to discuss quality and product flow. They discussedproduction requirements and what the team needed to do to
meet them. The processes were flow-charted and non-valueadded functions eliminated or reduced. Setup time reduc-tions were made to the processes.
Training in CFM techniques was provided to everyone atthe Electronic Manufacturing Facility. True customer de-mand was identified and work was scheduled accordingly.Daily and weekly production scheduling – called TAKTBoards – were implemented in each of the work cells toprovide visibility to the production requirements. TheTAKT Boards showed the daily and weekly productionschedule, WIP, completed product, cycle time, and easilyidentified bottlenecks in the process.
A Kanban system was implemented for WIP so that onlythe amount necessary to meet delivery schedules was al-lowed on the floor. With the Kanban system, problems werenot masked by large quantities of WIP and the root cause ofproblems had to be addressed and corrected immediately.Operators were certified to inspect their own work withperiodic audits by quality to ensure that quality standardswere being maintained.
Point-of-use storage was implemented on the floor witha Kanban system. Only the necessary assets to support theproduction schedule were allowed, and components werestored in cabinets on the production floor. First-in/first-outinventory rotation was maintained using a two bin system.The active bag had components pulled from it until it wasdepleted. The bar code label on the bag was then scannedand a new label printed in the finished stores, triggering theissue of another bag of material to the floor. The nextimplemented step was the Supplier Point of Use (SPOU)where the vendor delivered parts as needed directly to themanufacturing area.
Problems are now identified as to the root cause andsolved rather than “band-aided.” Unnecessary processingand motion have been minimized, and the number of stepsto produce an analog driver card has been reduced from 84to 58. One product now travels 1.5 miles instead of the 12.5miles before CFM. Manufacturing is now based on a pullsystem, allowing associates to concentrate on building whatis needed rather than building inventory. The factory cycletime has been reduced from 8.6 months to 2.9 months andlot sizes are now one to five versus 15 to 20 before CFM.The pull time for a work order in finished stores is now 24hours compared to two weeks under the prior system.
QUALIFY MANUFACTURING PROCESS
Process Analysis for Manufacturability
Hamilton Standard applies the Process Analysis forManufacturability (PAFM) technique at its facility inFarmington, CT to characterize and optimize manufactur-ing processes. This methodology requires understanding
12
the technical process, collecting and analyzing usable data,developing a new or modified process, and integrating thenew manufacturing process into the design of new products.The strategy for improvements is to form smallmulti-disciplined teams that are focused on a particularproblem or process activity. By attending a five day trainingcourse tailored to the knowledge and skill of a given group,each HSEMC team is trained in statistical techniques, teamdynamics and process metrics. The PAFM methodology isused for all organized teams.
The wave solder process team provided an example of ateam focused on specific issues – solderability issues. Theteam developed a Pareto chart on the solderability ofvarious printed wiring board components. The chart re-flected that close to 62% of solder defects were attributedto two capacitors. Further investigation uncovered that57% of the solder problems for the two capacitors were dueto dewetting. Continued root cause analysis traced thedewetting back to a specific component manufacturer ofthe capacitors. It was determined that some other compa-nies were also having similar problems with these particu-lar components. The problem was created when the com-ponent leads were bent for board insertion. The bendingcaused nickel to be exposed at the bends, and solder wouldnot flow properly on nickel. The team then developed ashort, intermediate, and long term plan to address theproblem. \ The short term plan required removing thenickel and retinning of the leads to continue immediateproduction. The intermediate plan required the leads to bebent at a different height so the solder would flow on thestraight part of the leads rather than at the bends. The longterm plan required the supplier to remove the nickel andimprove its tinning process.
Without a regularly applied, sound methodology such asPAFM, simple problems could easily develop into longterm hit-and-miss ones. The solderability team has contin-ued to improve the process and has targeted .27% or belowfor solder defect rate. Once it has achieved this goal,sampling techniques can be used which will further reduceproduct costs.
PIECE PART CONTROL
Source Inspection Laptop Kit
Hamilton Standard has implemented a computerizedsystem to eliminate inspecting incoming components foritems such as conformity and verification of correct engi-neering level. The Source Inspection Laptop Kit (SILK)provides resources to HSEMC associates to assist its sup-pliers in changing emphasis from traditional inspection toprocess controls so source quality assurance enhances the
supplier's value-added position in the procurement pro-cess. This goal is accomplished by making required,real-time information available for the supplier to produceand ship parts that meet the customer’s specifications.Information such as purchase order requirements, specifi-cation and engineering change notification revision num-ber, and product alerts is contained in the system, andHamilton Standard source inspectors and suppliers haveaccess to this information.
The SILK system has greatly improved the percentageof field acceptable material. In 1990, only 38% of allmechanical product receipts were field accepted. By theend of 1991, that number had risen to 63%, resulting inshorter cycle times, as well as a product that meets speci-fication and is ready for immediate release to the produc-tion floor.
Supplier Point-of-Use
Hamilton Standard maintains that as the electronics in-dustry strives to become more efficient, non-value addedprocesses must be reduced or eliminated. The traditionalsystem of ordering all necessary components of an assem-bly when an order comes from a customer is extremelyinefficient. HSEMC has developed a system that not onlyremoves the inefficiency, but encourages a better relation-ship with suppliers.
The Supplier Point-of-Use (SPOU) is a technique thatreturns the responsibility for a quality product back to thesupplier. Hamilton Standard enters into Long TermAgreements (LTAs) of typically three to five years withsuppliers, providing them with production schedules toallow them to plan their production schedules. Also, buyissues under an LTA can be resolved up-front before therequirement for parts affects the manufacturing floor.The LTAs facilitate substantial streamlining of the pro-curement process to the point that when a point-of-usebin on the manufacturing floor needs to be refilled, anoperator simply wands a bar code on the bin to initiate thepurchase order. When the purchase order is initiated, thesupplier will typically refill the bin within nine calendardays. SPOU provides exact, up-to-date order informa-tion to the supplier that allows parts to bypass receivinginspection and finished stores upon receipt. To furtherenhance this system, Hamilton Standard has imple-mented the use of electronic data interchange to commu-nicate with suppliers.
Since the advent of SPOU, HSEMC has seen average leadtimes reduced from 47 weeks to 31 weeks, with an ultimategoal of eight weeks. Approximately 60% of all part num-bers will be on LTA by the end of 1993. The use of SPOUhas also resulted in a major reduction in inventory since
13
components are delivered directly to the manufacturingfloor immediately when they are needed.
SUBCONTRACTOR CONTROL
Certified Supplier Program
The Hamilton Standard Manufacturing Center imple-mented its Supplier Certification Program in April of 1993with objectives to identify suppliers with excellent perfor-mance and process controls and assist suppliers in gettingtheir processes under control through training and processreviews. The end result was anticipated to be that HamiltonStandard could eliminate the incoming inspection processfor the part numbers that were certified. As of October 1993,50 assessments of suppliers have been performed and 11suppliers have been certified.
A certified supplier must review and accept the HamiltonStandard Quality System. The key characteristics of theproduct must be identified, monitored, and controlled usingSPC methods, and the vendor must be committed to TotalQuality Management. Action plans are required to be devel-oped for historical concerns, and the supplier's processcapability must be demonstrated at an on-site review. Asupplier must establish a Long Term Agreement withHamilton Standard with an implementation plan in place forElectronic Data Interchange (EDI). A Supplier Point of Useplan must also be developed. The certification can be for anindividual part number, a family/commodity of parts, or atthe facility level for all parts.
The implementation review covers work instructions,configuration control, manufacturing procedures, produc-ibility, critical processes, SPC, manufacturing tools, spe-cial test equipment status and control, material handlingmethods and procedures, discrepant material processingmethods, HSM 9 introduction and review, Source Inspec-tion Laptop Kit introduction and review, purchase orderadministration and documentation review, EDI, businessperformance review, Long Term Agreement,certification(s) applicability, training methods and effec-tiveness, safety, and EPA initiatives. Any action items aredocumented and responses are required. Action items arealso given to Hamilton Standard to correct discrepanciesor ambiguities.
The certified supplier benefits from the process by theestablishment of the Long Term Agreements. The productis released without customer intervention, increased busi-ness opportunities exist, and the product yield is enhancedthrough adoption of the Hamilton Standard Advanced Qual-ity System. Hamilton Standard benefits from reduced pro-curement cycle times, enhanced product availability, moreexpedient and effective corrective actions, and superiorproduct quality.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Environmental Program
The Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Cen-ter has developed an environmental program that will helpit remain competitive in an increasing environmentallyconscious marketplace. This program is designed to keepHSEMC ahead of quickly changing regulations and topromote the proper use and reduction of hazardous materi-als for the benefit of the community.
The Farmington facility has its own environmental de-partment (that is supported by a central department at theWindsor Locks facility) to address the environmental needsof the site. The department, consisting of four associates, isresponsible for reviewing and approving environmentalplans, policies, and programs for the facility, and it mustapprove the necessary human and financial resources toadminister these programs. The department provides direc-tion to the environmental teams and creates and sustainsinterest and communication in environmental awarenessthroughout the building. The department must also checkthe progress and ensure the appropriate procedures andactivities are in place to achieve and maintain compliancewith current environmental regulations.
The department associates also provide guidance to theEnvironmental, Health, and Safety Team which consists ofup to twelve members who are representative of the facility’spopulation. There are also sub-teams that handle specialtasks within the facility. These teams help to make associ-ates conscious of environmental concerns.
The environmental department has established certaingoals that extend beyond the necessary levels to achieveenvironmental compliance. For example, it is taking stepsto reduce and prevent pollution including elimination, sub-stitution, or optimization of hazardous materials. It is also avoluntary member of the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)’s program to reduce 17 hazardous chemicals by 33%from 1988 levels by 1992 and by 50% by 1995. Thedepartment is attempting to eliminate all ozone-depletingsubstances from the facility but has been hindered by oldspecifications which require the use of Freon. Freon usagehas dropped from 116,000 pounds in 1990 to 50,900 in 1992at HSEMC, and remains low in 1993, particularly after theinstallation of an alcohol-based, semi-aqueous cleaner.
HSEMC’s team approach has made environmental com-pliance every associate’s responsibility. Associates are ableto suggest design changes that eliminate or reduce hazard-ous materials, and the designers are able to use manufactur-ing inputs early in the design process.
Hamilton Standard has carefully considered the increasingneed for environmentally conscious manufacturing. It hasdeveloped a program that reaches from upper management
14
to every associate. This program considers the future andwhat is best for the company and the community.
3.4 LOGISTICS
TRAINING EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
Inventory and Asset Management
Hamilton Standard EMC has pursued an aggressive in-ventory reduction program since 1991. Inventory and assetmanagement has become the job of every HSEMC associ-ate. In many companies, the administration of inventory andassets is the responsibility of management, often with anincomplete view of where improvements can be made.Many times, the associate on the manufacturing floor canbest see where improvements would be effective. Oftenthese improvements involve the reduction of inventory andother assets to free capital for expenditures on such items asresearch and development, employee training, and newequipment.
This inventory and asset management program was aconscious step in Hamilton Standard’s pursuit of excel-lence. The program began with training for all associatesto increase awareness of asset and inventory management.Training included topics such as what inventory is, associ-ated costs of excess inventory, what the company is doingabout it, and what the associates can do to help. These topicswere presented in terms that were understandable to associ-ates at every level, and comparisons were made to manag-ing assets – such as homes or cars – in an individual’s life.Benefits of reduced inventory were explained, as well as theadvantages of increased capital. Training also explainedways to manufacture economically. Training provided allassociates the skills and knowledge to be inventory andasset managers.
One way associates were able to reduce inventory was toreduce cycle times, thereby reducing the amount of timeinventory in the facility. Ideas for reducing inventory andmanaging other assets were presented to managementthrough gainsharing program meetings and team meetings.Rewards were presented to individuals and teams for meet-ing goals and for contributing good ideas. These rewardsranged from pizza lunches and getaway weekends for theteams to yearly bonuses of six percent last year. Theserewards help to ensure that the flow of good ideas would becontinuous.
Hamilton Standard has successfully implemented aninventory and asset management program. A primary rea-son for the program’s success was the empowerment andtraining of associates to do the job. Associates have takenpersonal responsibility for change and were aware of howthat change could affect the business. This increased aware-
ness helped guarantee continuous improvement in terms ofinventory reduction and asset management from good ideasat all levels.
Process Control Strategy
A unique video delivery training method has been imple-mented at HSEMC to teach process control. This methodallows training to be conducted in a timely and cost effec-tive manner, and is flexible as to the type and amount oftraining for each associate.
Hamilton Standard has developed a process control strat-egy that is based on training associates to enable them toimplement better process control. This training consists ofthree parts – CFM, which consists of cycle time reductionand reduction in lead time and rework; SPC applied to keyprocesses; and process management training that containseveral unique and beneficial factors.
Training is conducted using a just-in-time application ofvideo modules. Because training often precedes implemen-tation, many important points are forgotten. Video moduletraining allows the material to be viewed just prior toimplementation. Also, the videos can be used as a refreshercourse to help solidify key points after they have beenapplied. These videos are specific to the Farmington facility’sproducts and processes, manufactured by local associates.Workbooks that accompany the videos give associates ahard copy of the presentation to which they can refer in thefuture.
A valuable tool in the video delivery training method isthe resource list – a list of associates trained in certain areaswho can give other associates help if needed. These videosare arranged in modules to allow an associate to view onlythose videos required to instruct in the necessary skills. Thevideos can be viewed individually or by a group, therebyproviding flexibility in the training schedule with no obli-gation for the trainer to handle multiple sessions. HamiltonStandard’s program of process control implementation hasbeen successful partly because of the video presentationmodules and the resource list – important tools in teachingSPC and process management.
3.5 MANAGEMENT
MANUFACTURING STRATEGY
Manufacturing Strategy Process
In the 1980s, Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufactur-ing Center viewed itself as an inwardly focused companywith a short range outlook. Its strategic planning relied oncapital as the primary means and emphasized pushingproduct out the door. Manufacturing strategy was isolated
15
from the business strategy of bid to win on any program thatcame along. This approach resulted in several years of sub-par performance characterized by large operating losses,low quality, and dissatisfied customers.
HSEMC’s new manufacturing strategy was developedafter benchmarking numerous strategic planning processes.It was also based on a National Center for ManufacturingSciences global benchmarking study that documented bestdemonstrated practices in strategic planning processes.The HSEMC manufacturing strategy incorporates elementsof Agile Manufacturing and the Air Force’s Lean Manufac-turing initiative.
Manufacturing strategy was linked to the business unitstrategy. Customer needs, the divisional vision, competi-tive environment, and environmental issues were addressedand translated into action plans that were aligned with thecompany’s strategic goals. Benchmarking was used toidentify best business practices and metrics that togetherwith the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria are used to measuremanufacturing performance against the best in class and setgoals. A three to five year plan was developed and framedin terms of a portfolio of actions to coordinate, integrate,and facilitate implementation. The portfolio was floweddown through the organization and serves as a plan of actionfor continuous improvement teams.
A key element of the manufacturing strategy was thetiming and speed of implementing best business and manu-
facturing practices. Figure 3-2 illustrates an “S” shapedcurve that represents the value over time of adopting bestpractices. In order to maintain a competitive advantage,HSEMC strives to identify best practices and be one of the“early adopters.” The figure also illustrates that the environ-ment is changing and processes and practices are develop-ing so rapidly that a company must be an early adopter ona continual series of “S” curves to stay competitive.
The new manufacturing strategy has helped transformHSEMC of the 1990s into a outward focused, long rangethinking company that anticipates changes in processes andtechnology. The process emphasizes human resources andnew process development over capital. Communicationand linkage are also key elements. This strategy has helpedto make the company profitable over the past several yearsand has contributed to improving first time yields by 70%,reducing scrap and rework by 30%, decreasing cycle times70%, reducing hazardous waste by 50%, improving againstthe Baldrige criteria by 249%, and improving on-timedeliveries by 46%.
Customer Satisfaction
The Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Cen-ter employs a well-developed and implemented process forsatisfying customer expectations and requirements. Its goalis to consistently meet or exceed customer – both internal
DIFFUSION OF BMP'S
FIGURE 3-2. MANUFACTURING STRATEGY TIMING/SPEED
Time
IPD
Cycle Time
Supplier Quality
Focus Factory
EH&S
6-Sigma
SPC
Continue Learning
Laggards
Late Minority
Vast Majority
Early Adopters
Innovators
(-) Minus
(=) Neutral
(+) Plus
Time
Value“S” Curve
16
and external – expectations and requirements. The methodis a simple, five step process based on the Deming PLAN,DO, CHECK, ACT cycle.
STEP 1 Identify who the customer is.
STEP 2 Determine what the customer wants.
STEP 3 Satisfy the customer.
STEP 4 Determine whether the customer’s ex-pectations and requirements were met.
STEP 5 Identify ways to do it better the next time-improve the process.
Associates and DPRO personnel receive formal trainingand practice in this process. The process has become inte-gral to all team activities and is an important factor inassociate performance evaluations. The process providesHamilton Standard associates the tools and knowledge todetermine customer requirements (even when the customeris unsure) and measure how well the requirements weremet.
Benefits have included improved communications withinthe plant and a vastly improved working relationship withDPRO – now a true partnership. It has improved relation-ships with external customers and helped eliminate the needfor customer representatives on site.
External Involvement for ManufacturingResearch and Development
HSEMC has found that there are many benefits, whensolving industry-prevalent problems, to collaborating withother industrial and government partners on research anddevelopment (R&D) efforts. These collaborative effortsserve to minimize the risk of the singular company invest-ment while leveraging the strengths within the electronicsmanufacturing industry.
In the 1980s, HSEMC funded R&D efforts internally,isolating its ideas, experiences and findings. Forces ofchange in the late 1980s such as new electronic packagingtechnologies increased competitiveness and a heightenedawareness of environmentally conscious manufacturing,brought soaring development costs and long lead times.While having the need, Hamilton Standard lacked theresources such as adequate funding and experience incertain critical technologies to develop the new technolo-gies needed to remain competitive. HSEMC decided toopenly communicate with other external entities therebyleveraging its internal resources for future developmentefforts. This strategy has enabled HSEMC to enhance itsexisting manufacturing process capabilities beyond what it
could have with its limited internally available resources.HSEMC now teams with the national Center for Manu-
facturing Sciences, Department of Commerce, AdvancedResearch Project Agency, Department of Defense, internalUnited Technologies division, and other consortia. It hasdeveloped a discrete process plan flow chart delineating thesteps involved to implement a technology insertion plan.Today there are 11 external projects with benefits such asthose illustrated in Figure 3-3.
Two examples of these successful external projects in-clude the Chloroflourocarbon (CFC) Elimination Programand the Lead Free Solder Project. In 1989, HSEMC emitted325,000 pounds of CFCs. Through its collaboration withindustry partners, HSEMC now plans to have completed theelimination of CFCs from its manufacturing processes bythe end of 1994, two years ahead of the required legislation.The Lead Free Solder Project is pro-actively evaluatingenvironmentally safe alternatives to lead-based solder al-loys used in electrical/electronic interconnections. This 30-month program is based on developing a comprehensivematrix of solderability and properties, assessing these prop-erties and evaluating their ability to be used in today’smanufacturing environment. The finding are scheduled tobe complete in the second quarter of 1995.
Benchmarking Process
Benchmarking other best industry practices is considered bythe Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Center toprovide the basis for its journey in continuous improvement. Apilot benchmarking database on over 40 visits to other sites hasbeen established to facilitate the coordination and deploymentof benchmarking information within the facility.
When HSEMC undertook its initial benchmarking ef-forts, it found that there were redundant and unfocusedefforts such as trip findings not readily available. Improve-ment in company benchmarking was needed to realize thefull return on investment for existing efforts and to coordi-nate internal efforts to ensure conformance with the ethicsof benchmarking. HSEMC benchmarked two MalcolmBaldrige award winners and one large commercial electron-ics manufacturer to assess common best practices. UsingXerox’s Seven Steps Toward Benchmarking Maturity, itachieved the fifth level of establishing an organization-widedata base containing summaries from over 40 trips. Tocommunicate this information, a Benchmarking Coordina-tion Team was established to prepare those who will travelto coordinate and focus multiple efforts, submit newsletterarticles, train database users, and serve as the benchmarkingchampion to a business unit. Access to the database wasreached through a VAX terminal, UNIX workstation, or aPC. Benchmark confidentiality is maintained.
17
Leverage Expertise
Shorter Development
Cycle
Manufacturing Technology
Development
External Funding Leverage
Leverage Resources To Fund Full Lists Of Mfg. Developments Needs
Access To Additional Equipment/Resources
Technology Leadership
Sanity Check
Benchmark
GoodwillSet Industry
Best-In-Class Recognition
Networking
FIGURE 3-3. EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENTHSEMC has learned that a dedicated focal point is
needed; that the database must be easy to use and maintain;and that benchmarking personnel are to provide a service,not act as auditors. The benefits include eliminating redun-dant efforts, providing a quick review of previous efforts,and providing secondary assistance in-house from the asso-ciates who conducted the benchmarking effort.
Finance Office Kaizen
At Hamilton Standard, continuous improvement has beenintegrated not only on the factory floor, but also in the officearea. The finance section used the Kaizen method to revampits office area in two phases. The first phase was initiated inJuly 1993 and the second followed in September 1993. Thismodernization process included the collective efforts andideas of each associate in the work unit. Results of thechanges included a cycle time decrease of 83% ; a walkingdistance decrease of 98%; elimination of 12 tons of paper;and improved ergonomics. Benefits derived include en-
hanced visual control, improved communication, stream-lined process flow, and the obvious sense of increasedself-esteem and teamwork among associates.
Continuous Improvement
The need for a fundamental change in 1987 at HamiltonStandard Electronic Manufacturing Center in how businesswas conducted – and ultimately the survival of the unit as acorporate entity – prompted it to embark on a new manage-ment philosophy. HSEMC has maintained a vision be aglobal leader in providing high quality aerospace systems,components and services. It was – and remains – committedto a process of continuous improvement to meet customerexpectations, to create associate opportunities, and to achievesuperior business results.
The change implemented at HSEMC included changingfrom management control to leadership, from individualperformance to team effort, from fire-fighting to forwardthinking, from correction to prevention, and from check to
18
trust. The company invested time and money in focusing thecollective efforts of both management and the work forceinto a single direction, a direction in which each associateunderstood his/her part of the process.
The Continuous Improvement Cost Competitiveness Pro-cess (CICCP) has become Hamilton Standard EMC’s ac-cepted mode of conducting business. CICCP focuses onprocesses not problems and includes all the collectiveresources of each department. Its requirements includeclearly identified measures of performance, performancetargets for the year, and benchmarking of goals.
This commitment to readily known processes such asHoshin planning, Kanban, arachnoid charts, teaming, andbest-in-class benchmarking has become the foundation of abusiness philosophy focused on satisfying the needs ofvalue-conscious customers into the coming century. In1991, HSEMC equaled or exceeded 4 of 6 corporate goalsresulting in an associate gain-sharing bonus of approxi-mately 4% per associate. In 1992, it equaled or exceeded 5of 6 goals with a payout of 5% per associate. In 1993, apayout of 5% to 7% is expected. Hamilton Standard wasselected as the sole winner of the 1993 Connecticut QualityImprovement Award that uses the same criteria as theMalcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. This award isin recognition of the five years of systematic approach tocontinuous improvement and cultural change.
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
Work Environment
In the 1990s, the Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufac-turing Center (HSEMC) focuses on people, values, andtheir continued development as the most important force inthe company. Key factors for the HSEMC in developing anenvironment for associates to develop their capabilitiesinclude knowing that 75% of the work force needed in theyear 2000 is already in place, leveraging unique humancapabilities, changing the role of the associate, and parlay-ing all of these things to reduce cost and price to thecustomer.
HSEMC’s drive to enhance the culture and value systemencompasses 10 major focal points (Figure 3-4). Theseprinciples include customer satisfaction (everyone is a share-holder); environmental (more can always be done); trainingto continually upgrade associate skills; diversity (every per-son is valued); career development to provide incentive,assistance, and support to facilitate individual development;ethics (winning with integrity intact); health and safety (thewell being of the associates enhance the well-being of thebusiness); open and participative communication; empower-ment (responsibility and authority to determine how a task isto be done is delegated to the associates performing the task);
FIGURE 3-4. WORK ENVIRONMENT
Empowerment
Training
Diversity
Community Involvement
Environmental
Career Development
Customer Satisfaction
Health &
Safety
Ethics
Communication
Culture &
Values
19
and community involvement (each associate is a viable,contributing member of society).
This is a system of processes. Hamilton Standard realizesthat communicating change is difficult – implementingchange is more difficult – and that all walls must comedown. Supportive management and ethics application arealso critical factors. They cultivate change agents, andassume a solid and fundamental consistency of purpose.The company understands that to survive in the value-drivenmarket of the 1990s, change is essential.
All Salary Workforce
Until recently, the Hamilton Standard Electronic Manu-facturing Center had a two-tiered compensation system ofhourly and salaried associates similar to that found in othermanufacturing sites. HSEMC decided to eliminate thistraditional system and implement a single compensationsystem for all employees. This change was motivated by aneed to unify the workforce, break down invisible barriersto communication, simplify systems, reduce administrationcosts, and enhance organizational agility.
Effective January 1, 1993, HSEMC transitioned to an allsalary workforce following a July 1992 announcement bythe Business Unit Director. Progress updates were given inperiodic meetings through the remainder of 1992. HumanResources held small group meetings with all hourly asso-ciates to explain transition improvements. A FinancialServices Seminar was conducted to assist associates withbudgeting and other concerns.
Under the salary system, associates receive greater vaca-tion and sick leave eligibility, enhanced short and long termdisability benefits, and more excused absences with paythan under the hourly system. Other changes includeddiscontinuing cost of living allowances, vacation incentiveaccrual, and automatic increases. Payroll checks are nowissued semi-monthly rather than weekly.
Benefits to the process have included an overall simpli-fication of administering and using the system. Invisiblebarriers to communication have been eliminated resultingin a more unified and focused workforce. Costs haveessentially remained unchanged; however, there was anunexpected decrease in the cost of sick pay which had beenexpected to increase. The response to going with an allsalary workforce at HSEMC has been that this is a win-winsituation for everyone. The next steps in implementing thetransition involve redefining job descriptions andre-engineering the compensation/merit system.
Communication Process
Associates at HSEMC understand that to enhance theatmosphere of the work place, individuals need to improve
communication skills. To accomplish this goal, HamiltonStandard has developed a communication process to facili-tate consistency of understanding. This process model hasdefined key elements such as enduring consistency throughunderstanding of the message; reviewing the model andprinciples; determining applicable needs and responsibili-ties; applying the model to the message to be communi-cated; communicating; soliciting feedback, and improvingskills. Individual responsibilities are also a part of thismodel. (Table 3-2).
Associate training in the use of this process is an ongoingeffort to bridge communication gaps with the customer,through goal setting and interpersonal exchanges. Informa-tion is taught to be conveyed consistently, clearly, interac-tively, and rapidly. To verify that the message has beenclearly sent, verification, clarification, re-statement, para-phrasing, and summarization skills are used. Requirementsand responsibilities of all parties are also clearly delineatedand understood.
TABLE 3-2. HAMILTON STANDARD PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNICATION EXCELLENCE
• Be committed to becoming an excellentcommunicator through the process of continuousimprovement.
• Know my communication strengths and weaknesses.
• Ensure information is communicated consistently andin a timely manner.
• Maintain ethical standards and respect confldentiality.
• Set the example for communications within my teamand take responsibility for my team’s overall communication effectiveness.
• Practice open, two-way communications.
• Tailor mv communications to the needs, values andheliefs of my audience.
• Respect the time of others – get to the point andcommunicate only essential information.
• Ensure my actions are consistent with my words toenhance my credibility and establish trust.
• Practice active listening to increase my ability tounderstand others.
• Solicit feedback on how I communicate, to measure ifmy message is getting across.
KNOW MY COMMUNICATION NEEDS& RESPONSIBILITIES
20
Hamilton Standard has already realized many benefits ofan open and interactive communication process includingsaving valuable personnel time; decreasing rumors; improv-ing productivity; teaming; reducing confusion and mistakes;and presenting a consistent message to all employees. In alltop-down communication, associates want to hear the truth,and Hamilton Standard believes this is a long-term effort,requiring associates to take personal responsibility for thiscommunication process to be fully effective.
DATA REQUIREMENTS
Metric Alignment/Flowdown
Each Hamilton Standard business unit, including theFarmington, CT Electronic Manufacturing Center, devel-ops annual objectives and implementation plans that focuson achieving divisional level objectives and satisfyingindividual customer needs. The HSEMC revamped itsmanagement approach by thinking long-term versusshort-term, multiple lines of organizational communication
versus isolation, and a visionary process of focus andmulti-functional alignment.
Key elements of the Hoshin planning process were de-ployed at HSEMC to facilitate alignment of the divisionlevel vision with functional unit metrics. Division leveldirection was summarized in the company vision cardwhich establishes a long term and 3 to 5 year objective(Figure 3-5). The vision is systematically broken down intoa 3-5 year plan, one year objectives, objective deployment,implementation, and regular and annual reviews feedingback to the initial plan.
A key visual aid used by Hamilton Standard is thearachnoid chart (Figure 3-6). At a glance, it quantifiesthe unit’s goals and the cascading of these goals down theorganization. Arachnoid metrics are reviewed to ensurebusiness segment plans are aligned with the divisionalgoals and available resources. Results have contributedto a first time yield increase of 70%; scrap/rework downby 30%; cycle time down by 70%; use of volatile organiccompounds down by 85%; and on-time delivery up by46%.
FIGURE 3-5 METRIC ALIGNMENT/FLOWDOWN – HOSHIN PLANNING PROCESS
Vision
Goals
Vision
3-5 Year Plan
Deployment Of Objectives
Implementation
Regular Reviews
Annual Reviews
Business Unit Arachnoid
Business Unit Arachnoid
Cascade Down Organization
Portfolio Of Actions
NMT Reviews
CICCP Annual Review
One Year Objectives
21
HSEMC has determined that the following are criti-cal elements in the metric alignment/flowdown phi-losophy:
- Keep the data visual
- Keep it simple
- Learn to listen
- Delegating authority and empowerment
- Communication, communication, communication.
Measured value metrics include presenteeism (not absen-teeism), associate recognition, associate development, com-munity involvement, on-time delivery, quality, lead time,cycle time, safety, scrap and more.
CFM 100%
FINANCIAL 100%
100% EH&S
1ST QTR MARCH 93 2ND QTRJUNE 93 3RD QTR SEPT. 93 4TH QTR DEC. 93
100% CRITICAL
SUCCESS FACTORS
100% HUMAN
RESOURCES
100% CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION
PLAN BY QTR
FIGURE 3-6 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS
22
23
4.1 DESIGN
DESIGN POLICY
Design for Environment
To comply with the environmental requirements im-posed by federal, state, and local governments, the Hamil-ton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Center (HSEMC)has instituted a policy for hazardous materials reduction tomeet or exceed regulations or suggested federal EPA goals.To implement this policy, Hamilton Standard developedTechnical Standards and Work Instructions to providetechnical data and recommendations to reduce hazardousmaterials in present and future designs.
An IPD team works with Central Environmental Healthand Safety (EH&S) to assess the manufacturing environ-mental requirements and costs. Manufacturing Engineeringand the Central EH&S approve and provide operationsheets that consider environmental and cost factors in allin-process operations. In addition, Hamilton Standard hasestablished a Green Team to implement a process in elec-tronics engineering designed to incorporate environmen-tally compliant materials in electronic products.
Hamilton Standard instituted modifications such as chang-ing aircraft propeller counterweight material from lead totungsten; using high density connector with compliant pinsolder bus connections in selected applications; and chang-ing primers for loctite, paints, and epoxies. The implemen-tation of these changes resulted in the elimination of ozonedepleting substances and chrome/chromate processes wherepossible. Hamilton Standard has eliminated CFC emis-sions in cleaning electronic printed circuit board assembliesby using a semi-aqueous cleaning system.
4.2 PRODUCTION
SUBCONTRACTOR CONTROL
Laser Marking System
Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Center’sprevious method of creating nameplates was a manual,expensive, unreliable, and time-consuming process. There-fore, a cross-functional team selected by HS selected a lasermarking system to replace the old system. After the equip-
ment was purchased, the team worked to develop theprocess in which the machine would be used. Currently, theteam is working to change documentation including speci-fications, blue prints, and manufacturing instructions. Whenthese steps are completed, the machine can be implementedinto production.
The laser machine takes data from a central database andcreates a nameplate from a variety of materials that can thenbe easily attached to the product. It can mark on steel byeither a surface anneal marking or a laser etch. It can alsomark on aluminum by paint or anodizing removal. How-ever, the most common method of creating nameplates isthe use of a two layer acrylic. Two layers of acrylate film ofdifferent colors are bonded together and the laser usesablation to remove the top coating to reveal the colorunderneath. The labels have an adhesive back and areresistant to solvents, abrasion, and tampering. The materialfrom which these labels are constructed is available insheets, rolls, and ready cut forms. The labels can also be cutto any desired size by increasing the laser power.
The laser can also create bar coding not possible with theprevious system. The marking system has also found use ina variety of other areas. Small, legible labels can be custommade to identify components or boards replacing inks ordyes which can be difficult to read.
Hamilton Standard implemented a new tool that will helpto reduce costs. This system has helped reduce the standardhours to produce a nameplate by 51%. HS has reduced thecycle time by 70% and has reduced material costs by 90%.The new system is fast, flexible, modern, reliable, andcapable of marking bar codes. Most important, the newsystem is cost-effective, which allows HSEMC to reduceproduct cycle-times and costs.
MANUFACTURING SCREENING
Environmental Stress Screening Testing
Hamilton Standard has addressed reducing unneededprocesses in the environmental stress screening (ESS) struc-ture to gain cost savings and optimize unit field life. Thespecific objectives are focusing on restructuring ESS togain enhanced benefits from the process. Presently, 50% ofthe factory’s energy costs result from ESS testing. Eachproduct has an application-specific stand/interface – thereis no self test available for test stands. Automated data
S E C T I O N 4
INFORMATION
24
collection is not available on all stands and is impossible toimplement on some. This results in a recurring problem ofunconfirmed failures.
Hamilton Standard plans to use ESS testing for identify-ing assembly defects, infant component mortality, andexposed weak areas that would reduce the mean timebetween failures. Improving customer satisfaction is anobjective that will be met by optimizing unit field life, costbenefits, and hardware quality/reliability improvement.The cost benefits can be achieved by reducing ESS costsby a 50% minimum, reducing ESS non-recurring costs50% minimum, reducing ESS design cycle time 50%minimum, and reducing ESS recurring cycle time 50%minimum.
These goals can only be met if ESS requirements aretailored. Hamilton Standard indicated that only two axes ofvibration were required to maintain maximum benefitssince random vibration along the board edge was an ineffec-tive test along with sine wave vibration. This test deletionwould result in a significant savings in concurrent vibrationcapability and a 33% random vibration cycle time savings.Screens should be product specific in order to optimizethermal cycle profiles. Dwell elimination and bringing theunit under test to thermal stability would reduce energyusage.
Relevant data indicated no failures occurred during thetest described above. During thermal cycling, all failuresoccurred during ramp, not dwell. Analytical investigationverified this to be a design test. Energy reduction using thenew profiles proved to be 65%, with 66% cycle timereduction.
The test strategy used to reduce costs will combinesimilar products with similar profiles in order to reduce thenumber of ovens and save floor space. Eliminating uncon-firmed failures will be accomplished by improving testinterfaces to contain self test and to make test standstransparent to power line transients. The HSEMC proposedchanges to the current ESS structure will reduce energyconsumption, reduce test stand design cycle time, reduceESS cycle time, increase the test capacity, save floor space,and result in resource savings.
4.3 FACILITIES
FACTORY IMPROVEMENTS
Factory Improvements
Until the late 1980s, HSEMC used an MRP-based manu-facturing strategy. However, in an effort to reduce cycletime and improve responsiveness to its customers, HSinitiated a strategy to improve its factory that is still in place.
At the heart of this strategy is a continuous flow manufac-turing technique and a multi-faceted approach that haschanged HS – entire organization.
To improve its overall manufacturing process, Hamil-ton Standard made various changes to the Farmington,CT factory. Teams were formed consisting of assem-blers, technicians, production control planners, engi-neers, and supervisors. These teams reviewed virtuallyevery process to determine what measures could be takento decrease cycle time and improve test yields, whileeliminating non-value added operations. Teams wereresponsible for other metrics such as reduction in reworkand repair, conformance to schedule, and linearity ofproduction. In addition, associates were cross trained fordepartment flexibility, and an operator certification pro-gram was developed to help reduce separate inspectionprocesses.
Equipment improvements were also made in areaswith major impact. Surface mount assembly was accom-plished faster with fewer errors by the addition of anautomated pick and place system that measured the valueof passive components prior to placement. A new dualwave soldering system reduced solder defects inthrough-hole assemblies. The introduction of watersoluble cleaning technologies reduced hazardous waste,eliminated the use of ozone depleting chemicals, im-proved cleanliness on assemblies, improved cycle timesand reduced conformal coat defects.
By refinement in communication and changes in the floorlayout, improvements have been realized in virtually everyarea of concentration at the HSEMC. For example, in thesurface mount area, cycle time was reduced from 19.1 daysin 1991 to 3.8 days in December 1992. Nineteen inspectionswere eliminated from the process flow of one product.Another product benefitted by elimination of two inspec-tion steps and the reduction of cycle time by 50% and thereduction of rework by 50%. Other products have hadsimilar success.
4.4 LOGISTICS
MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL
Health and Safety
HSEMC uses many techniques to maintain a successfulhealth and safety program. These efforts have favorableresults in reducing lost time and injuries.
HSEMC’s safety and health program includes a formal-ized Pass to Medical which helps ensure that associateswho are injured on the job receive prompt, early treat-ment. Supporting this endeavor is a part-time nurse and
25
the security staff, all trained as emergency medical tech-nicians. The active accident prevention program includesan accident investigation team that looks into the rootcause of any accident, posts OSHA status charts, anddepartment “days since last lost time accident” posters.Communication methods include weekly bulletins, areasafety representatives, “concern” forms, announcementson the facility radio station, and regular articles in thenewsletter. The facility also has a regular health andwellness program consisting of activities such as choles-terol screening, nutritional programs, and aerobics. Asso-ciates are also trained in ergonomics to help identify andcorrect problems.
This active program has resulted in substantial reductionsin lost time accidents. The OSHA recordable rate has beenreduced by over 40% from 1992 to 1993. The OSHAincident rate has been similarly reduced by 25% over thesame period, while the OSHA severity rate has been re-duced by 75%.
4.5 MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
Training
The Hamilton Standard Electronic ManufacturingCenter’s ability to achieve future goals and visions dependson the ability of the associates to expand their knowledgeand skill base. The company’s philosophy of continuousimprovement is strongly supported by a comprehensive,broad-based training program.
From 1989 to the present, the number of available courseshas increased from 52 to 114, with more courses scheduledto be added. The number of hours of training per associatehas tripled. A synopsis of categories and specific coursesinclude:
Qualification Training
- Assembly and soldering
- Rework and repair
- Wire wrap
- Crimping
Certification/Recertification
- NASA (NHB 5300.4)
- Weapons Specification (WS6536)
- MIL-STD-2000A
- Forklift and operator certifications
Environmental, Health & Safety
- RCRA/hazardous waste
- Accident prevention
- CFC reduction – environmental awareness
- Ergonomics
- Hearing protection
Manufacturing Process Improvement
- Statistical process control
- Continuous flow manufacturing
- Kaizen
- Continuous improvement
Associate Development Training
- Diversity
- Sexual harassment awareness
- Reading comprehension
- High school equivalency (GED)
- Satellite college courses
- Computer training
Supporting the training listed above is a training recordsdatabase of formal and skills enhancement training, on-siteand off-site classrooms, and state-of-the-art visual andaudio equipment.
Recognition and Involvement Programs
The Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Cen-ter has a number of programs for recognizing individualand team performance. Individual awards include Presi-dential Awards, Achievement Awards, Outstanding Ef-fort Awards, Merit Awards, and Patent Awards. These areall cash awards that are either a percentage of salary or a setdollar amount. There are also team awards that includecompany sponsorship of team celebration events andshared cash awards.
The company also has several programs that providean opportunity for associates to get involved and repre-sent the company in the local community. These activi-ties include partnerships and mentoring activities withlocal schools and businesses, participation in communityactivities, and internal fund raisers to support localcharities.
26
DATA REQUIREMENTS
Labor Reporting
Labor reporting supports the requirements ofMIL-STD-1567; however, the labor reporting structure atHamilton Standard has become a labor-intensive,non-value added task targeted for elimination at fourHamilton Standard sites. One specific building will be-come the pilot site to test the idea that efficiency andproductivity can be enhanced by tracking cycle time andrework hours.
Currently, time is charged out on time cards, and task hoursare compared to industrial engineering standards or over-head as agreed upon with the federal government. With theidea of eliminating labor reporting, a team of participants hasbeen assembled and is comprised of representatives fromIndustrial Engineering, Quality Assurance, Defense Plan
Representative Office, Finance, Defense Contract AuditAgency, Operations, and Management Information Sys-tems. The team – which has a target date of 1 January 1994for implementation – has the following mission:
“Establish a means for achieving cost savings, throughthe development and test of a pilot program which elimi-nates labor reporting. This program will permit universalapplication while maintaining compliance.” (with govern-ment standards and requirements)
There are outstanding issues and considerations for reso-lution as they relate to the Labor Rate Standard (CAS407),the Variance analysis (MIL-STD-1567A), Labor Perfor-mance Reporting (MIL-STD- 1567A), and the Costs ofQuality Data (MIL-Q-9858A, MOA). 5.
The Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Centeridentified the following areas in Design and Production aspotential industry-wide problems that should be addressedby industry and government for possible avenues of solution.
27
5.1 DESIGN
Product Development Cycle Compression
New problems are emerging due to activities throughoutthe product development processes being compressed andexecuted in parallel. Material availability from suppliersand internal documentation availability are becoming ma-jor constraints. In order to meet the ever shortening sched-ules, possible premature engineering releases are increas-ing financial risks.
Extended Product Life Cycle
The changes in DOD to extend current defense equip-ment life will increase parts obsolescence. Many of today’scurrent suppliers will either be out of business or will notmake the parts because of the expense required to maintainoutmoded processes. Many military suppliers, in support-ing equipment that is 20 to 25 years old, must choosemaintaining a life-of-type stock of obsolete parts, procuringthe parts through after-market vendors at high prices, orredesigning and requalifying the new part at extremely highcosts.
Requirement Conflicts
EPA versus MIL-SPEC conflicts are becoming morenumerous. For example, EPA requires reduction in volatileorganic compounds, such as those found in paints, and theMIL-SPEC calls out for these materials to be used. This typeof situation places suppliers in a lose-lose situation. Variousanomalies are being discussed at high levels within thegovernment. A recent Section 800 Panel may soon berelieving some of these conflicts. However, a time table isnot yet available.
S E C T I O N 5
PROBLEM AREAS
MIL-SPEC Component Availability
The lack of readily available of MIL-SPEC parts artifi-cially increase product costs and lengthen development andmanufacturing cycle times. Suppliers often do not wish tostay in this market because demands are for small lot quan-tities or for specialized parts. Because of the low or no profitmargin, DOD contractors have little leverage with compo-nent suppliers. Of particular interest is the area of compo-nents where commercial industry has accepted plastic com-ponents and the military requires ceramic components.
5.2 PRODUCTION
Customer Scheduling Perturbations
As companies reduce inventory, they face problems deliv-ering products to the customer that had not been scheduledbecause of the long lead times required for certain compo-nents. When customers cancel orders or change the deliverydate to a later date, it creates problems with excess inventorythat may not be usable on any other product.
Accounting Systems
Accounting practices by many U.S. firms are still appliedthat result in excessive inventory as a result of the wayoverhead is accounted to direct hours charged on the factoryfloor. Many government regulations also force companiesto segregate parts by contract which increases inventory.
Part Marking Removal with New CleaningProcesses
As new cleaning processes are implemented to eliminatethe use of ozone depleting chemicals, a problem has arisenwith the new processes removing the part markings.
28
29
ACRONYM DEFINITION
CFC ChloroflourocarbonCFM Continuous Flow ManufacturingCICCP Continuous Improvement Cost Competitiveness Process
DPRO Defense Program Representative OfficeDTC Design to Cost
EDI Electronic Data InterchangeEH&S Environmental Health and SafetyEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESS Environmental Stress Screening Testing
HSEMC Hamilton Standard Electronic Manufacturing Center
IPD Integrated Product DevelopmentIPDS Integrated Product Design System
LTA Long Term Agreement
PAFM Process Analysis for Manufacturability
R&D Research and Development
SILK Source Inspection Laptop KitSMT Surface Mount TechnologySPC Statistical Process ControlSPOU Supplier Point of Use
WIP Work in Progress
APPENDIX A
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
A-1
30
31
APPENDIX B
BMP SURVEY TEAM
NAME ACTIVITY FUNCTION
Larry Halbig Naval Air Warfare Center Team Chairman(317) 353-3838 Aircraft Division
Indianapolis, IN
Amy Scanlan BMP Representative Technical Writer(703) 271-9055 Washington, DC
DESIGN/TEST
Dave Kuchler Naval Air Warfare Center Team Leader(317) 353-7961 Aircraft Division
Indianapolis, IN
Ronald Cox Crane Division(812) 854-5251 Naval Surface Warfare Center
Crane, IN
John A. Miles Crane Division(812) 854-5335 Naval Surface Warfare Center
Crane, IN
PRODUCTION/FACILITIES
Rick James Electronics Manufacturing Team Leader(317) 226-5619 Productivity Facility
Indianapolis, IN
John Greaves Electronics Manufacturing(317) 226-5665 Productivity Facility
Indianapolis, IN
Larry Robertson Crane Division(812) 854-5336 Naval Surface Warfare Center
Crane, IN
MANAGEMENT/LOGISTICS
Rick Purcell BMP Representative Team Leader(703) 271-9055 Washington, DC
Kathryn Ingle Department of Energy(615) 574-9245 Oak Ridge Facilities
Oak Ridge, YN
John Olewnik Naval Industrial Resources(215) 897-6684 Support Activity
Philadelphia, PA
B-1
C-1
The Program Manager’s Workstation (PMWS) is a seriesof expert systems that provide the user with knowledge,insight, and experience on how to manage a program,address technical risk, and find solutions that industryleaders are using to reduce technical risk and improvequality and productivity. This system is divided into fourmain components: KNOW-HOW, Expert Insight and Im-provement (EI2), BMP Database, and Best ManufacturingPractices Network (BMP*NET).
KNOW-HOW is an intelligent, auto-mated method that turns “Handbooks”into expert systems, or digitized text. Itprovides rapid access to information us-ing the expert logic system or fuzzylogic text search. Topics include Non-Development Items, Value Engineer-ing, NAVSO P-6071 (Best PracticesManual), and the DoD 5000 series docu-ments.
EI 2 contains three current programs -ROLLUP for generating reports on multiple projects;TRASE for detailed software risk assessments based on anSEI model; and TRIMS to conduct a full range of riskassessments throughout the acquisition process so correc-tive action can be initiated before risks develop into prob-lems. EI2 programs track key project documentation fromconcept through completion including goals, responsiblepersonnel, and next action dates for future activities.
The BMP Database draws information from industry,government, and academic communities to include docu-mented and proven best practices in design, test, produc-tion, facilities, logistics, and management. Each practice inthe database has been observed and verified by a team ofexperienced government engineers. All information gath-
ered from BMP surveys is included in the BMP DATA-BASE, including this survey report.
BMP*NET provides communication between PMWSusers. Features include downloading all programs, E-mail,file transfer, help “lines,” Special Interest Groups (SIGs),electronic conference rooms and much more. ThroughBMP*NET, IBM or compatible PCs and Macintosh com-
puters can run PMWS programs.
To access BMP*NET efficiently,users need a special modem pro-gram. This program can be obtainedby calling the BMP*NET using aVT-100/200 terminal emulator setto 8,N,1. Dial (703) 538-7697 for2400 baud modems and (703) 538-7267 for 9600 baud and above. Whenasked for a user profile, type:DOWNPC or DOWNMAC <re-turn> as appropriate. This will auto-matically start a process leading to
an X-modem download of our special modem program.You can then call back using this program and access allBMP*NET functions. Any VT-100/200 type terminal emu-lator can access BMP*NET’s basic features by entering:VT-100 when asked for a user profile.
The General User account is:
USER PROFILE: BMPNETUSER I.D.: BMPPASSWORD: BMPNET
If you would like your own personal account to receive E-mail, E-mail a request including your name and phonenumber to either Ernie Renner (BMP Director) or BrianWilloughby (CSC Program Manager). If you encounterproblems, please call (703) 538-7253.
A P P E N D I X C
PROGRAM MANAGER’S WORKSTATION
Automated Manufacturing Research Facility(301) 975-3414
The Automated Manufacturing Research Facility (AMRF) –a National Center of Excellence – is a research test bed at theNational Institute of Standards and Technology located inGaithersburg, Maryland. The AMRF produces technicalresults and transfers them to the Navy and industry to solveproblems of automated manufacturing. The AMRF supportsthe technical work required for developing industry standardsfor automated manufacturing. It is a common ground whereindustry, academia, and government work together to addresspressing national needs for increased quality, greater flexibil-ity, reduced costs, and shorter manufacturing cycle times.These needs drive the adoption of new computer-integratedmanufacturing technology in both civilian and defense sec-tors. The AMRF is meeting the challenge of integrating thesetechnologies into practical, working manufacturing systems.
Electronics Manufacturing Productivity Facility(317) 226-5607
Located in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Electronics Manufac-turing Productivity Facility (EMPF) is a National Center ofExcellence established to advance state-of-the-art electronicsand to increase productivity in electronics manufacturing.The EMPF works with industry, academia, and governmentto identify, develop, transfer, and implement innovative elec-tronics manufacturing technologies, processes, and practices.The EMPF conducts applied research, development, andproof-of-concept electronics manufacturing and design tech-nologies, processes, and practices. It also seeks to improveeducation and training curricula, instruction, and necessarydelivery methods. In addition, the EMPF is striving toidentify, implement, and promote new electronics manufac-turing technologies, processes, materials, and practices thatwill eliminate or reduce damage to the environment.
National Center for Excellence in MetalworkingTechnology(814) 269-2420
The National Center for Excellence in MetalworkingTechnology (NCEMT) is located in Johnstown, Pennsyl-vania and is operated by Concurrent Technologies Corpo-ration (CTC), a subsidiary of the University of PittsburghTrust. In support of the NCEMT mission, CTC’s primaryfocus includes working with government and industry todevelop improved manufacturing technologies includingadvanced methods, materials, and processes, and transfer-
A P P E N D I X D
NAVY CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE
ring those technologies into industrial applications. CTCmaintains capabilities in discrete part design, computer-ized process analysis and modeling, environmentally com-pliant manufacturing processes, and the application ofadvanced information science technologies to product andprocess integration.
Center of Excellence for Composites ManufacturingTechnology(414) 947-8900
The Center of Excellence for Composites ManufacturingTechnology (CECMT), a national resource, is located inKenosha, Wisconsin. Established as a cooperative effortbetween government and industry to develop and dis-seminate this technology, CECMT ensures that robustprocesses and products using new composites are avail-able to manufacturers. CECMT is operated by the GreatLakes Composites Consortium. It represents a collabora-tive approach to provide effective advanced compositestechnology that can be introduced into industrial pro-cesses in a timely manner. Fostering manufacturingcapabilities for composites manufacturing will enable theU.S. to achieve worldwide prominence in this criticaltechnology.
Navy Joining Center(614) 486-9423
The Navy Joining Center (NJC) is a Center of Excellenceestablished to provide a national resource for the develop-ment of materials joining expertise, deployment of emerg-ing manufacturing technologies, and dissemination of in-formation to Navy contractors, subcontractors, Navy ac-tivities, and U.S. industry.
The NJC is located in Columbus, Ohio, and is operated byEdison Welding Institute (EWI), the nation’s largest indus-trial consortium dedicated to materials joining. The NJCcombines these resources with an assortment of facilitiesand demonstrated capabilities from a team of industrial andacademic partners. NJC technical activities are divided intothree categories - Technology Development, TechnologyDeployment, and Technology Transfer. Technology De-velopment maintains a goal to complete development quicklyto initiate deployment activities in a timely manner. Tech-nology Deployment includes projects for rapid deploymentteaming and commercialization of specific technologies.The Technology Transfer department works to disseminatepertinent information on past and current joining technolo-gies both at and above the shop floor.
D-1
E-1
A P P E N D I X E
NEW BEST MANUFACTURING PRACTICES PROGRAM TEMPLATES
Since 1985, the BMP Program has applied the templatesphilosophy with well-documented benefits. Aside from thevalue of the templates, the templates methodology hasproven successful in presenting and organizing technicalinformation. Therefore, the BMP program is continuingthis existing “knowledge” base by developing 17 newtemplates that complement the existing DoD 4245.7-M orTransition from Design to Production templates.
The development of these new templates was based inpart on Defense Science Board studies that have identifiednew technologies and processes that have proven success-ful in the last few years. Increased benefits could be realizedif these activities were made subsets of the existing, com-patible templates.
Also, the BMP Survey teams have become experiencedin classifying Best Practices and in technology transfer.
The Survey team members, experts in each of theirindividual fields, determined that data collected, whilerelated to one or more template areas, was not entirelyapplicable. Therefore, if additional categories were avail-able for Best Practices “mapping,” technology transferwould be enhanced.
Finally, users of the Technical Risk Identification andMitigation System (TRIMS) found that the program per-formed extremely well in tracking most key program docu-mentation. However, additional categories – or templates– would allow the system to track all key documentation.
Based on the above identified areas, a core group ofactivities was identified and added to the “templates base-line.” In addition, TRIMS was modified to allow individualusers to add an unlimited number of user-specific catego-ries, templates, and knowledge-based questions.
F-1
A P P E N D I X F
PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED SURVEYS
BMP surveys have been conducted at the companies listed below. Copies of older survey reports may be obtained throughDTIC or by accessing the BMPNET. Requests for copies of recent survey reports or inquiries regarding the BMPNET maybe directed to:
Best Manufacturing Practices Program2101 Crystal Plaza Arcade
Suite 271Arlington, VA 22217-5660
Attn: Mr. Ernie Renner, DirectorTelephone: (703) 696-8483
FAX: (703) 271-9059
COMPANIES SURVEYED
Litton Honeywell, IncorporatedGuidance & Control Systems Division Undersea Systems DivisionWoodland Hills, CA (Alliant Tech Systems, Inc.)October 1985 and February 1991 Hopkins, MN
January 1986
Texas Instruments General DynamicsDefense Systems & Electronics Group Pomona DivisionLewisville, TX Pomona, CAMay 1986 and November 1991 August 1986
Harris Corporation IBM CorporationGovernment Support Systems Division Federal Systems DivisionSyosset, NY Owego, NYSeptember 1986 October 1986
Control Data Corporation Hughes Aircraft CompanyGovernment Systems Division Radar Systems Group(Computing Devices International) Los Angeles, CAMinneapolis, MN January 1987December 1986 and October 1992
ITT Rockwell International CorporationAvionics Division Collins Defense CommunicationsClifton, NJ Cedar Rapids, IASeptember 1987 October 1987
UNISYS MotorolaComputer Systems Division Government Electronics Group(Paramax) Scottsdale, AZSt. Paul, MN March 1988November 1987
General Dynamics Texas InstrumentsFort Worth Division Defense Systems & Electronics GroupFort Worth, TX Dallas, TXMay 1988 June 1988
Hughes Aircraft Company Bell HelicopterMissile Systems Group Textron, Inc.Tucson, AZ Fort Worth, TXAugust 1988 October 1988
Litton GTEData Systems Division C3 Systems SectorVan Nuys, CA Needham Heights, MAOctober 1988 November 1988
McDonnell-Douglas Corporation Northrop CorporationMcDonnell Aircraft Company Aircraft DivisionSt. Louis, MO Hawthorne, CAJanuary 1989 March 1989
Litton LittonApplied Technology Division Amecom DivisionSan Jose, CA College Park, MDApril 1989 June 1989
Standard Industries Engineered Circuit Research, IncorporatedLaMirada, CA Milpitas, CAJune 1989 July 1989
Teledyne Industries Incorporated Lockheed Aeronautical Systems CompanyElectronics Division Marietta, GANewbury Park, CA August 1989July 1989
Lockheed Corporation WestinghouseMissile Systems Division Electronic Systems GroupSunnyvale, CA Baltimore, MDAugust 1989 September 1989
General Electric Rockwell International CorporationNaval & Drive Turbine Systems Autonetics Electronics SystemsFitchburg, MA Anaheim, CAOctober 1989 November 1989
TRICOR Systems, Incorporated Hughes Aircraft CompanyElgin, IL Ground Systems GroupNovember 1989 Fullerton, CA
January 1990
TRW MechTronics of Arizona, Inc.Military Electronics and Avionics Division Phoenix, AZSan Diego, CA April 1990March 1990
F-2
Boeing Aerospace & Electronics Technology Matrix ConsortiumCorinth, TX Traverse City, MIMay 1990 August 1990
Textron Lycoming Norden Systems, Inc.Stratford, CT Norwalk, CTNovember 1990 May 1991
Naval Avionics Center United Electric ControlsIndianapolis, IN Watertown, MAJune 1991 June 1991
Kurt Manufacturing Co. MagneTek Defense SystemsMinneapolis, MN Anaheim, CAJuly 1991 August 1991
Raytheon Missile Systems Division AT&T Federal Systems AdvancedAndover, MA Technologies and AT&T Bell LaboratoriesAugust 1991 Greensboro, NC and Whippany, NJ
September 1991
Tandem Computers Charleston Naval ShipyardCupertino, CA Charleston, SCJanuary 1992 April 1992
Conax Florida Corporation Texas InstrumentsSt. Petersburg, FL Semiconductor GroupMay 1992 Military Products
Midland, TXJune 1992
Hewlett-Packard Watervliet U.S. Army ArsenalPalo Alto Fabrication Center Watervliet, NYPalo Alto, CA July 1992June 1992
Digital Equipment Company Naval Aviation DepotEnclosures Business Naval Air StationWestfield, MA and Pensacola, FLMaynard, MA November 1992August 1992
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Naval Aviation DepotHuntsville, AL Naval Air StationJanuary 1993 Jacksonville, FL
March 1993
Department of Energy- McDonnell Douglas AerospaceOak Ridge Facilities Huntington Beach, CAOperated by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. April 1993Oak Ridge, TNMarch 1993
F-3
Crane Division Philadelphia Naval ShipyardNaval Surface Warefare Center Philadelphia, PACrane, IN and Louisville, KY June 1993May 1993
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Crystal Gateway Marriott HotelWinston-Salem, NC Arlington, VAJuly 1993 August 1993
F-4