1 / 25

DESIGN OF A RATING SYSTEM FOR SUPPLIERS OF PRINTED WIRING BOARDS AT HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND

DESIGN OF A RATING SYSTEM FOR SUPPLIERS OF PRINTED WIRING BOARDS AT HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND. By: Travis Bossidy, IE And Patrick Dabrowski, IE Industrial Advisor: Steve Webster Faculty Advisor: Dr. Abdul Kamal. Introduction.

terrence-quinones
Télécharger la présentation

DESIGN OF A RATING SYSTEM FOR SUPPLIERS OF PRINTED WIRING BOARDS AT HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DESIGN OF A RATING SYSTEM FOR SUPPLIERS OF PRINTED WIRING BOARDS AT HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND By: Travis Bossidy, IE And Patrick Dabrowski, IE Industrial Advisor: Steve Webster Faculty Advisor: Dr. Abdul Kamal

  2. Introduction • Needs to improve the way they rate supplier quality for printed wiring boards (PWB). • Current system uses PPM • Problem: system only takes into account number of defective parts • Other aspects of quality have to be considered

  3. Problem Statement A supplier quality rating system that rates all aspects of supplier quality in order to monitor and compare suppliers of PWB

  4. Components of Supplier Quality • PPM • Complexity • Criticality • PAIN

  5. PPM • Number of Parts Per Million defective • (Quantity Defective/Throughput)*106 = PPM • Only takes into account quantity of defective parts

  6. Complexity • All PWB differ • Simpler parts are easier to make according to specs • Suppliers need to be rewarded for making complex parts

  7. Criticality • Defects differ in how they affect the part • Some defects are not as serious as others

  8. PAIN • Where in the process the defect is located • Further along in the process, the more value added • Hamilton Sundstrand's “Rule of Ten”

  9. Rating System • All four components will be placed into an equation • The value will be in adjusted PPM (PPMNEW) • The PPMNEW can be higher or lower than the original PPM

  10. The Equation • The original PPM equation will be used • Each additional component will be represented by a factor • The output of the equation will be PPMNEW • Median values for each component will be needed

  11. Component Factors • Complexity • Scale of 1-4 • 4 being the most complex • Factor determined from sum of 11 different complexity characteristics • Median value is 2.5, linear relationship • Limits for this scale created by histogram method using Tyco's complexity data

  12. Component Factors (continued) • Complexity histogram • TYCO had their PWB summed and rated • Hamilton Sundstrand only wanted 11 of the 21 characteristics included. • Sum was recalculated, were redistributed in the scale attempting to mirror the same percentages

  13. Component Factors (continued)

  14. Component Factors (continued) • Criticality • Scale 1-10 • 10 being the most critical defect • If there is more than 1 defect, then the highest value is used • All possible defects were recorded and factor were given • Median value is 5.5, linear relationship

  15. Component Factors (continued) • PAIN • Each step in the process was assigned a value from 10-1000 • 10 being receiving inspection, 1000 being field failure • Steps had to be assigned numeric values

  16. Component Factors (continued) • PAIN (continued) • Graph was created with numeric steps and Pain • Then an equation was determined using a trend line w = 1.155e2.1692 X Where: w = PAIN associated with step x = Numeric value of step in the process

  17. Component Factors (continued) w = 1.155e2.1692 X Where: w = PAIN associated with step x = Numeric value of step in the process

  18. Component Factors (continued) • PAIN (continued) • Equation had to be normalized • Divided by a factor of 10 • This put it on a 1-10 scale • Except for field failure-100

  19. Component Factors (continued) • PAIN (continued) • Median value was found through integrating curve • From the area under the curve, the median PAIN and where it occurs in the process was found by locating the 50% point of the area • Median PAIN was 528 at numeric step number 2.67.

  20. Determining Equation D*(.0189 (.155e2.1692 X )*(0.4)y)*(0.182(z)) ____________________________________ *106 = PPMNEW T Where: D= # of parts found defective x= factor corresponding with step where defect is found y= factor corresponding with how complex each board is z= factor corresponding with how critical each defect is T=Throughput

  21. Final Equation D*( .0029e2.1692 X )*( 0.4 y )*( 0.182 z ) ___________________________________ *106 = PPMNEW T

  22. DATA cube • Once equation was finalized , will be put into a data cube • The data cube has all of TYCO’s quality information needed to produce PPMNEW. • The PPMNEW would be compared to PPM to determine overall impression of TYCO to validate equation

  23. Future of Project • Once the equation is ran through Data Cube, the equation can be validated • Then it can be applied to all of PWB suppliers • Moving Average will monitor suppliers • Corrective Action can be taken

  24. ABET Concerns • Economic Concerns • Ethical Concerns • Social Concerns • Political Concerns • Sustainability

  25. Any Questions ?

More Related