Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Edward Jaeck
V.P. of Operations
Lowell Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
June 14, 2017
Data Driven Design for Manufacturability –
From ...
3
#1 Technical
#2 Commercial
#3 Regulatory
This presentation will focus on three key aspects of
Design for Manufacturing (...
Executive Business Team
Program Management Office
Regulatory Affairs
Reimbursement
Legal
Operations
Post Market Quality
4
...
Strategic Sourcing
Technical Sourcing
Commodity Specialists
Purchasing
Buyers
Planners
5
The Commercial Team consists of t...
R&D
Clinical
Design
Manufacturing
Quality
Supplier Quality
6
The Technical Team consists of the following:
Quick and easy napkin
sketches to show basic idea
Rev 1 Drawings to work
through functional
relationships of features
Post...
The amount of work to go from concept sketches
to final drawings is not linear
8
Metrology Planning Review
Manufacturing Review
Post Processing Review
9
There are three focus areas for the Technical Team
10
Success: A complete and accurate CAD model and drawing set
using ASME or ISO Standard for Geometric Dimensioning and
To...
Apply GD&T prior to metrology planning review
11
Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find
the red flags in a project and fix them early
Feature
Type Count Feature ...
Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find
the red flags in a project and fix them early
Feature
Type Count Feature ...
Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find
the red flags in a project and fix them early
Feature
Type Count Feature ...
Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find
the red flags in a project and fix them early
Feature
Type Count Feature ...
Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find
the red flags in a project and fix them early
Feature
Type Count Feature ...
Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find
the red flags in a project and fix them early
Feature
Type Count Feature ...
Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find
the red flags in a project and fix them early
Feature
Type Count Feature ...
The metrology planning review led to three key
concerns
1. The .003” radii need
profile tolerancing
2. 15 minute measureme...
Metrology Planning Review
Manufacturing Review
Post Processing Review
20
There are three focus areas for the Technical Team
If manufacturers have flagged a client’s critical
features, the project is in trouble
Each supplier defines their own key ...
The manufacturing review led to two key concerns
1. The intricate features in
Detail B need to be
grouped and toleranced
w...
Metrology Planning Review
Manufacturing Review
Post Processing Review
(Color Anodizing)
23
There are three focus areas for...
Some “interference” colors are challenging to make
• Color choice drives cost. Purple and Seafoam have ~ +/- 1V range and ...
Surface cleanliness is important in color anodizing
Remove oils & contamination on surfaces & in deep nooks
25
Chemical deburring is helpful before color anodizing
• Run cost model with and without deburring
• Adjust tolerances for c...
Masking parts is manual and adds cost
Parts requiring individual masking – whether they are single color or multi-color
in...
Color anodizing the entire component minimizes cost
Simplified design with no masking or blind holes
28
The post processing review led to two key concerns
29
1. A cleaning step needs to be added to the
process flow to ensure r...
Cost Modeling
30
There is one focus for the Commercial Team
31
Commercial Team:
It only takes one excitement feature to make a
commodity component a specialty component.
With specialty components, the commercial team
should focus on cost-modeling of the process
32
Build the simple should-cost model first…
33
Process Step Dist Type
Mean Time Per
Unit in Mins Lower Upper Stdev $/hour $/...
Build the simple should-cost model first…
Should-Cost model ~ Process Flow + Activity-Based Costing
Step 1: Build basic de...
In step 3, run the simulation and check the mean
value assumptions
Output for cost appears normal which should be assumed
...
In step 3, run the simulation and check the range
assumptions
If you were the supplier, which cost would you
provide to th...
In step 4, run the sensitivity analysis to find the key
cost drivers
Inspection costs are the key cost drivers at this poi...
Fix root causes of the variation in inspection steps
Start with conservative distribution assumptions and tighten them bas...
Seek to combine processing steps if ideal
Warning: Combining process steps is not always ideal.
Base the decision on data....
Review what features are created with milling
40
Balloon #
Feature
Description
Machine
Axis/Axes used
to create feature
No...
41
The right graph in the right software is crucial
Combining milling and EDM steps increases
mean cost by ~ $8.30
The commercial review led to two key concerns
1. Inspections costs are the
key cost drivers
42
2. Combining milling and
ED...
Minimize complexity
43
There is one focus for the Regulatory Team
Commercial Team
at Impasse HereTechnical Team
Lost Here
Regulatory Team driving
from the center
or
Technical, Commercial a...
Always think about the validation complexity
Note: Drawings stay preliminary until post validation
45
46
When it comes to validation planning, define the
ends of the goalpost first, then work in from there
All features
are c...
47
Proactively define the feature risk classifications
Minimize A/B where:
A= the number of critical features
B = the numb...
48
To establish the validation cost baseline, assume no
features are critical
No features
are critical
Total OQ Costs $15,...
49
To see how complex the validation can get, next
assume all features are critical
All features
are critical
Total OQ Costs $17,485
Total PQ Costs $17,485
Total Validation Costs $34,970
Driving design to two critical features saves...
The regulatory review led to four concerns
1. Feature risk classification
modulates sample size and
cost
2. Use of profile...
52
#1 Technical
Metrology Review
Manufacturing Review
Post Processing Review
#2 Commercial
Process Mapping
Should-Cost Mod...
53
There are three key DFM teams, all must execute to
enable project success.
Questions?
54
Acknowledgements
Assertion-Evidence Template:
• http://writing.engr.psu.edu
Graphics Support:
• Edward Britz
• www.edwa...
Appendix
Lowell’s Newly Completed Quality Lab
Temperature:
20 degrees C +/- 0.5 degrees C
Humidity:
45% RH +/- 5% RH
New Equipment:...
Customer DFMECA Risk Assessment for the component Major Notes
Confidence/Reliability Tolerance Intervals 95/90
Attribute S...
Customer DFMECA Risk Assessment for the component Major Notes
Confidence/Reliability Tolerance Intervals 95/90
Attribute S...
Validation Calculations for Two Critical Features
Customer DFMECA Risk Assessment for the component Major Notes
Confidence...
Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017
Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

of

Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 1 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 2 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 3 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 4 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 5 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 6 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 7 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 8 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 9 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 10 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 11 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 12 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 13 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 14 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 15 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 16 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 17 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 18 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 19 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 20 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 21 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 22 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 23 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 24 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 25 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 26 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 27 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 28 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 29 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 30 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 31 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 32 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 33 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 34 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 35 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 36 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 37 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 38 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 39 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 40 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 41 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 42 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 43 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 44 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 45 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 46 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 47 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 48 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 49 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 50 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 51 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 52 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 53 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 54 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 55 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 56 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 57 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 58 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 59 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017 Slide 60
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

0 Likes

Share

Download to read offline

Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017

Download to read offline

The use of data-driven design for manufacturability is a proven method to speed time to market using GD&T and data as a common language. By reducing the number of features called out as critical, inspection times are dramatically reduced and validation is simplified—not only during the development stage, but for the lifetime of the product. Mr. Jaeck demonstrates this process from the OEM and contract manufacturer perspectives.

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP - OMTEC 2017

  1. 1. Edward Jaeck V.P. of Operations Lowell Inc. Minneapolis, MN June 14, 2017 Data Driven Design for Manufacturability – From Validation to PPAP
  2. 2. 3 #1 Technical #2 Commercial #3 Regulatory This presentation will focus on three key aspects of Design for Manufacturing (DFM)
  3. 3. Executive Business Team Program Management Office Regulatory Affairs Reimbursement Legal Operations Post Market Quality 4 The Regulatory Team consists of the following:
  4. 4. Strategic Sourcing Technical Sourcing Commodity Specialists Purchasing Buyers Planners 5 The Commercial Team consists of the following:
  5. 5. R&D Clinical Design Manufacturing Quality Supplier Quality 6 The Technical Team consists of the following:
  6. 6. Quick and easy napkin sketches to show basic idea Rev 1 Drawings to work through functional relationships of features Post validation formally released drawings Technical Team: There is more to design than concept sketches 7
  7. 7. The amount of work to go from concept sketches to final drawings is not linear 8
  8. 8. Metrology Planning Review Manufacturing Review Post Processing Review 9 There are three focus areas for the Technical Team
  9. 9. 10 Success: A complete and accurate CAD model and drawing set using ASME or ISO Standard for Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) A detailed metrology planning session to review the preliminary design drawings and CAD is a must
  10. 10. Apply GD&T prior to metrology planning review 11
  11. 11. Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find the red flags in a project and fix them early Feature Type Count Feature Type Nominal Dimension Total Tolerance Resolution Required Gage Operation Gage Used - Current Gage Accuracy Resolution Check P/T Ratio Time (min) Inspection Cost Per feature 1 Diameter 0.3900 0.0050 0.00050 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 10% 2 $3.33 2 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated S-T Optical Comparitor 50x 0.0001 Pass 15% 4 $6.67 1 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 2 Radius 0.0790 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 1 Linear 0.3500 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 35% 0.5 2 Linear 0.6800 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 36% 0.5 3 Linear 0.2560 0.0020 0.00020 Manual Starret Optical Comparitor 0.0001 Pass 37% 3 $5.00 Negligible 1 Linear 0.0950 0.0002 0.00002 Manual 0-1" Micrometer 0.00005 Fail 20% 2 $3.33 $0.83 Minor Major Critical Red Flag #1: Radii as critical and major, check for Profile 12
  12. 12. Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find the red flags in a project and fix them early Feature Type Count Feature Type Nominal Dimension Total Tolerance Resolution Required Gage Operation Gage Used - Current Gage Accuracy Resolution Check P/T Ratio Time (min) Inspection Cost Per feature 1 Diameter 0.3900 0.0050 0.00050 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 10% 2 $3.33 2 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated S-T Optical Comparitor 50x 0.0001 Pass 15% 4 $6.67 1 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 2 Radius 0.0790 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 1 Linear 0.3500 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 35% 0.5 2 Linear 0.6800 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 36% 0.5 3 Linear 0.2560 0.0020 0.00020 Manual Starret Optical Comparitor 0.0001 Pass 37% 3 $5.00 Negligible 1 Linear 0.0950 0.0002 0.00002 Manual 0-1" Micrometer 0.00005 Fail 20% 2 $3.33 $0.83 Minor Major Critical Red Flag #2: .0002” tolerance with manual metrology 13
  13. 13. Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find the red flags in a project and fix them early Feature Type Count Feature Type Nominal Dimension Total Tolerance Resolution Required Gage Operation Gage Used - Current Gage Accuracy Resolution Check P/T Ratio Time (min) Inspection Cost Per feature 1 Diameter 0.3900 0.0050 0.00050 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 10% 2 $3.33 2 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated S-T Optical Comparitor 50x 0.0001 Pass 15% 4 $6.67 1 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 2 Radius 0.0790 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 1 Linear 0.3500 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 35% 0.5 2 Linear 0.6800 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 36% 0.5 3 Linear 0.2560 0.0020 0.00020 Manual Starret Optical Comparitor 0.0001 Pass 37% 3 $5.00 Negligible 1 Linear 0.0950 0.0002 0.00002 Manual 0-1" Micrometer 0.00005 Fail 20% 2 $3.33 $0.83 Minor Major Critical Red Flag #3: 3 Minors with manual metrology 14
  14. 14. Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find the red flags in a project and fix them early Feature Type Count Feature Type Nominal Dimension Total Tolerance Resolution Required Gage Operation Gage Used - Current Gage Accuracy Resolution Check P/T Ratio Time (min) Inspection Cost Per feature 1 Diameter 0.3900 0.0050 0.00050 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 10% 2 $3.33 2 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated S-T Optical Comparitor 50x 0.0001 Pass 15% 4 $6.67 1 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 2 Radius 0.0790 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 1 Linear 0.3500 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 35% 0.5 2 Linear 0.6800 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 36% 0.5 3 Linear 0.2560 0.0020 0.00020 Manual Starret Optical Comparitor 0.0001 Pass 37% 3 $5.00 Negligible 1 Linear 0.0950 0.0002 0.00002 Manual 0-1" Micrometer 0.00005 Fail 20% 2 $3.33 $0.83 Minor Major Critical Red Flag #4: 3 features failing 10:1 ratio 15
  15. 15. Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find the red flags in a project and fix them early Feature Type Count Feature Type Nominal Dimension Total Tolerance Resolution Required Gage Operation Gage Used - Current Gage Accuracy Resolution Check P/T Ratio Time (min) Inspection Cost Per feature 1 Diameter 0.3900 0.0050 0.00050 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 10% 2 $3.33 2 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated S-T Optical Comparitor 50x 0.0001 Pass 15% 4 $6.67 1 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 2 Radius 0.0790 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 1 Linear 0.3500 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 35% 0.5 2 Linear 0.6800 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 36% 0.5 3 Linear 0.2560 0.0020 0.00020 Manual Starret Optical Comparitor 0.0001 Pass 37% 3 $5.00 Negligible 1 Linear 0.0950 0.0002 0.00002 Manual 0-1" Micrometer 0.00005 Fail 20% 2 $3.33 $0.83 Minor Major Critical Red Flag #5: 3 features failing % P/T req. for a basic Type 1 Rpt. study 16
  16. 16. Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find the red flags in a project and fix them early Feature Type Count Feature Type Nominal Dimension Total Tolerance Resolution Required Gage Operation Gage Used - Current Gage Accuracy Resolution Check P/T Ratio Time (min) Inspection Cost Per feature 1 Diameter 0.3900 0.0050 0.00050 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 10% 2 $3.33 2 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated S-T Optical Comparitor 50x 0.0001 Pass 15% 4 $6.67 1 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 2 Radius 0.0790 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 1 Linear 0.3500 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 35% 0.5 2 Linear 0.6800 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 36% 0.5 3 Linear 0.2560 0.0020 0.00020 Manual Starret Optical Comparitor 0.0001 Pass 37% 3 $5.00 Negligible 1 Linear 0.0950 0.0002 0.00002 Manual 0-1" Micrometer 0.00005 Fail 20% 2 $3.33 $0.83 Minor Major Critical Red Flag # 6: Time 15 min and cost around $20 17
  17. 17. Good metrology planning reviews allow us to find the red flags in a project and fix them early Feature Type Count Feature Type Nominal Dimension Total Tolerance Resolution Required Gage Operation Gage Used - Current Gage Accuracy Resolution Check P/T Ratio Time (min) Inspection Cost Per feature 1 Diameter 0.3900 0.0050 0.00050 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 10% 2 $3.33 2 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated S-T Optical Comparitor 50x 0.0001 Pass 15% 4 $6.67 1 Radius 0.0030 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 2 Radius 0.0790 0.0010 0.00010 Automated Quest 450 OGP 0.00001 Pass 24% 0.25 $0.42 1 Linear 0.3500 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 35% 0.5 2 Linear 0.6800 0.0020 0.00020 Manual 8" Caliper 0.001 Fail 36% 0.5 3 Linear 0.2560 0.0020 0.00020 Manual Starret Optical Comparitor 0.0001 Pass 37% 3 $5.00 Negligible 1 Linear 0.0950 0.0002 0.00002 Manual 0-1" Micrometer 0.00005 Fail 20% 2 $3.33 $0.83 Minor Major Critical Red Flag #1: Radii as critical and major, check for Profile Red Flag #2: .0002” tolerance with manual metrology Red Flag #3: 3 Minors with manual metrology Red Flag #4: 3 features failing 10:1 ratio Red Flag #5: 3 features failing % P/T req. for a basic Type 1 Rpt. study Red Flag # 6: Time 15 min and cost around $20 18
  18. 18. The metrology planning review led to three key concerns 1. The .003” radii need profile tolerancing 2. 15 minute measurement time will drive cost later 3. Initial Type 1 Repeatability studies not promising 19
  19. 19. Metrology Planning Review Manufacturing Review Post Processing Review 20 There are three focus areas for the Technical Team
  20. 20. If manufacturers have flagged a client’s critical features, the project is in trouble Each supplier defines their own key MFG risk categories 21 Balloon # Feature Description Machine Axis/Axes used to create feature Nom Dim Plus Tolerance Minus Tolerance Total Tolerance Feature Type MFG Risk 1 MFG Risk 2 MFG Risk 3 Customer Risk Assessment 1 0.350 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.350 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear Low Low Low Minor 2 0.095 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.095 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear Low Low Low Negligible 3 0.680 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.680 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear Low Low Low Minor 4 0.256 EDM (X,Y,W) / Milling (X,Y,Z) 0.256 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear Medium Low Medium Minor 5 .001 A B (J-K) EDM (X,Y,W) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0010 Profile High Medium Medium Critical 6 .001 A B (F- G) EDM (X,Y,W) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0010 Profile High Low Medium Critical 7 0.362 Milling (X,Y,Z) 0.362 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Diametric Medium Medium Medium Negligible 8 4x R.005 Max EDM (X,Y,W) 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.0050 Radial Low Low Low Negligible 9 2X .108 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.108 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear Low Low Low Negligible 10 2x .066 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.066 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear Low Low Low Negligible 11 0.390 EDM (X,Y,W) / Milling (X,Y,Z) 0.390 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Diametric Medium Low Medium Critical
  21. 21. The manufacturing review led to two key concerns 1. The intricate features in Detail B need to be grouped and toleranced with profile 22 2. The small radii in Detail C can be grouped and toleranced with profile, possibly minimizing risk
  22. 22. Metrology Planning Review Manufacturing Review Post Processing Review (Color Anodizing) 23 There are three focus areas for the Technical Team
  23. 23. Some “interference” colors are challenging to make • Color choice drives cost. Purple and Seafoam have ~ +/- 1V range and thus higher cost • * Images used with permission from American Bright Works in Fridley, MN • http://americanbrightworks.com 24
  24. 24. Surface cleanliness is important in color anodizing Remove oils & contamination on surfaces & in deep nooks 25
  25. 25. Chemical deburring is helpful before color anodizing • Run cost model with and without deburring • Adjust tolerances for chemical deburring 26
  26. 26. Masking parts is manual and adds cost Parts requiring individual masking – whether they are single color or multi-color increases handling charges, time to process and therefore cost ~10-15% adder. 27
  27. 27. Color anodizing the entire component minimizes cost Simplified design with no masking or blind holes 28
  28. 28. The post processing review led to two key concerns 29 1. A cleaning step needs to be added to the process flow to ensure removal of surface oils 2. The part will remain one color to minimize cost
  29. 29. Cost Modeling 30 There is one focus for the Commercial Team
  30. 30. 31 Commercial Team: It only takes one excitement feature to make a commodity component a specialty component.
  31. 31. With specialty components, the commercial team should focus on cost-modeling of the process 32
  32. 32. Build the simple should-cost model first… 33 Process Step Dist Type Mean Time Per Unit in Mins Lower Upper Stdev $/hour $/min Price/unit with Milling Ti-6Al-4V ELI raw material cost Normal 5.00 5 0.5 N/A N/A 5.00$ Verify Incoming Raw Material Uniform 15.00 10 20 $ 75 1.25$ 18.75$ Saw Uniform 7.50 5 10 $ 75 1.25$ 9.38$ Mill Uniform 8.00 6 10 $ 100 1.67$ 13.33$ EDM normal 7.00 7 1 $ 100 1.67$ 11.67$ Dim Inspection Uniform 15.00 10 20 $ 100 1.67$ 25.00$ OSP Uniform 10.00 8 12 $ 75 1.25$ 12.50$ Final Inspection Uniform 14.00 8 20 $ 100 1.67$ 23.33$ 118.96$ $/Hour numbers are simple placeholders
  33. 33. Build the simple should-cost model first… Should-Cost model ~ Process Flow + Activity-Based Costing Step 1: Build basic deterministic model in Excel Step 2: Add variation to the model by replacing static point estimates with stochastic functions. Use historical data and process knowledge to pick distributions Step 3: Run the Monte Carlo simulation and check the mean and range assumptions Step 4: Run and review the sensitivity analysis to find key cost drivers34 Process Step Dist Type Mean Time Per Unit in Mins Lower Upper Stdev $/hour $/min Price/unit with Milling Ti-6Al-4V ELI raw material cost Normal 5.00 5 0.5 N/A N/A 5.00$ Verify Incoming Raw Material Uniform 15.00 10 20 $ 75 1.25$ 18.75$ Saw Uniform 7.50 5 10 $ 75 1.25$ 9.38$ Mill Uniform 8.00 6 10 $ 100 1.67$ 13.33$ EDM normal 7.00 7 1 $ 100 1.67$ 11.67$ Dim Inspection Uniform 15.00 10 20 $ 100 1.67$ 25.00$ OSP Uniform 10.00 8 12 $ 75 1.25$ 12.50$ Final Inspection Uniform 14.00 8 20 $ 100 1.67$ 23.33$ 118.96$ $/Hour numbers are simple placeholders
  34. 34. In step 3, run the simulation and check the mean value assumptions Output for cost appears normal which should be assumed based on central limit theorem, with a mean value ~$119 35
  35. 35. In step 3, run the simulation and check the range assumptions If you were the supplier, which cost would you provide to the customer without any historical data? 36
  36. 36. In step 4, run the sensitivity analysis to find the key cost drivers Inspection costs are the key cost drivers at this point, work with the technical team to learn more about ways to drive costs down. 37
  37. 37. Fix root causes of the variation in inspection steps Start with conservative distribution assumptions and tighten them based on data 38
  38. 38. Seek to combine processing steps if ideal Warning: Combining process steps is not always ideal. Base the decision on data. 39
  39. 39. Review what features are created with milling 40 Balloon # Feature Description Machine Axis/Axes used to create feature Nom Dim Plus Tolerance Minus Tolerance Total Tolerance Feature Type 1 0.350 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.350 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear 2 0.095 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.095 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear 3 0.680 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.680 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear 4 0.256 EDM (X,Y,W) / Milling (X,Y,Z) 0.256 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear 5 .001 A B (J-K) EDM (X,Y,W) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0010 Profile 6 .001 A B (F- G) EDM (X,Y,W) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0010 Profile 7 0.362 Milling (X,Y,Z) 0.362 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Diametric 8 4x R.005 Max EDM (X,Y,W) 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.0050 Radial 9 2X .108 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.108 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear 10 2x .066 EDM (X,Y,W) 0.066 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Linear 11 0.390 EDM (X,Y,W) / Milling (X,Y,Z) 0.390 0.001 0.001 0.0020 Diametric
  40. 40. 41 The right graph in the right software is crucial Combining milling and EDM steps increases mean cost by ~ $8.30
  41. 41. The commercial review led to two key concerns 1. Inspections costs are the key cost drivers 42 2. Combining milling and EDM is not cost effective
  42. 42. Minimize complexity 43 There is one focus for the Regulatory Team
  43. 43. Commercial Team at Impasse HereTechnical Team Lost Here Regulatory Team driving from the center or Technical, Commercial and Regulatory Teams moving efficiently through the maze together 44 Regulatory Team: The regulatory agencies give the requirements but the complexity is controlled by the regulatory team
  44. 44. Always think about the validation complexity Note: Drawings stay preliminary until post validation 45
  45. 45. 46 When it comes to validation planning, define the ends of the goalpost first, then work in from there All features are critical No features are critical
  46. 46. 47 Proactively define the feature risk classifications Minimize A/B where: A= the number of critical features B = the number of negligible features
  47. 47. 48 To establish the validation cost baseline, assume no features are critical No features are critical Total OQ Costs $15,485 Total PQ Costs $15,485 Total Validation Costs $30,970
  48. 48. 49 To see how complex the validation can get, next assume all features are critical All features are critical
  49. 49. Total OQ Costs $17,485 Total PQ Costs $17,485 Total Validation Costs $34,970 Driving design to two critical features saves money while balancing validation risk 50
  50. 50. The regulatory review led to four concerns 1. Feature risk classification modulates sample size and cost 2. Use of profile on feature 6 moves it from critical to negligible 3. Using 2 critical features balanced risk and validation cost 4. Feature risk classification ratio = 2/6 or 33% not ideal 51 Balloon # Feature Description Feature Risk 1 0.350 Minor 2 0.095 Negligible 3 0.680 Minor 4 0.256 Minor 5 .001 A B (J-K) Critical 6 .001 A B (F-G) Negligible 7 0.362 Negligible 8 4x R.005 Max Negligible 9 2X .108 Negligible 10 2x .066 Negligible 11 0.390 Critical
  51. 51. 52 #1 Technical Metrology Review Manufacturing Review Post Processing Review #2 Commercial Process Mapping Should-Cost Modeling Monte-Carlo Simulation #3 Regulatory Product/Component Strategic Planning Product/Component Validation Planning This presentation focused on three key aspects of Design for Manufacturing (DFM)
  52. 52. 53 There are three key DFM teams, all must execute to enable project success. Questions?
  53. 53. 54 Acknowledgements Assertion-Evidence Template: • http://writing.engr.psu.edu Graphics Support: • Edward Britz • www.edwardbritz.com Presentation Support: • Christine Haas • http://christinehaasconsulting.com Monte Carlo Software: • @RISK by Palisade Corporation • http://www.palisade.com/risk Lowell Dimensional Lab Built by: • Precision Environments • http://precisionenvironmentsinc.com Automated OQ/PQ Minitab Macro Creation: • Mercer Quality Consulting, LLC • http://MercerQualityConsulting.com
  54. 54. Appendix
  55. 55. Lowell’s Newly Completed Quality Lab Temperature: 20 degrees C +/- 0.5 degrees C Humidity: 45% RH +/- 5% RH New Equipment: Based on customer needs
  56. 56. Customer DFMECA Risk Assessment for the component Major Notes Confidence/Reliability Tolerance Intervals 95/90 Attribute Sampling Level 29 Continuous can be less # Features from DWG 11 From DWG Cost Estimate from Cost Model $155 Use upper limit because there is no historical data yet Number of OQ Lots 3 1 min if you can argue it makes sense Number of Parts Per OQ lot 29 standard sample size for 95/90 in industry Total number of OQ parts 87 3*29 Total Cost for OQ Parts $13,485 3*29*$155 OQ Data Analysis Cost $500 5 hrs * $100/hr OQ Report $1,500 15 hrs * $100/hr Number of PQ Lots 3 3 lots minimum Number of Parts Per OQ lot 29 standard sample size for 95/90 in industry Total number of PQ parts 87 3*29 Total Cost for PQ Parts $13,485 3*29*$155 PQ Dara Analysis Cost $500 5 hrs * $100/hr PQ Report $1,500 15 hrs * $100/hr Total OQ Costs $15,485 Total PQ Costs $15,485 PQ parts are sellable parts if they passed, so $$ can subtract out Total Validation Costs $30,970 $31,485 in validation NRE charges Validation Calculations for No Critical Features
  57. 57. Customer DFMECA Risk Assessment for the component Major Notes Confidence/Reliability Tolerance Intervals 95/90 Attribute Sampling Level 29 Continuous can be less # Features from DWG 11 From DWG Cost Estimate from Cost Model $155 Use upper limit because there is no historical data yet Number of OQ Lots 3 1 min if you can argue it makes sense Number of Parts Per OQ lot 29 standard sample size for 95/90 in industry Total number of OQ parts 87 3*29 Total Cost for OQ Parts $13,485 3*29*$155 OQ Dara Analysis Cost $6,000 30 hrs * $200/hr OQ Report $3,000 30 hrs * $100/hr Number of PQ Lots 3 3 lots minimum Number of Parts Per OQ lot 29 standard sample size for 95/90 in industry Total number of PQ parts 87 3*29 Total Cost for PQ Parts $13,485 3*29*$155 PQ Dara Analysis Cost $6,000 30 hrs * $200/hr PQ Report $3,000 30 hrs * $100/hr Total OQ Costs $22,485 Total PQ Costs $22,485 PQ parts are sellable parts if they passed, so $$ can subtract out Total Validation Costs $44,970 $31,485 in validation NRE charges Validation Calculations for All Features Critical
  58. 58. Validation Calculations for Two Critical Features Customer DFMECA Risk Assessment for the component Major Notes Confidence/Reliability Tolerance Intervals 95/90 Attribute Sampling Level 29 Continuous can be less # Features from DWG 11 From DWG Cost Estimate from Cost Model $155 Use upper limit because there is no historical data yet Number of OQ Lots 3 1 min if you can argue it makes sense Number of Parts Per OQ lot 29 standard sample size for 95/90 in industry Total number of OQ parts 87 3*29 Total Cost for OQ Parts $13,485 3*29*$155 OQ Data Analysis Cost $2,000 10 hrs * $200/hr OQ Report $2,000 20 hrs * $100/hr Number of PQ Lots 3 3 lots minimum Number of Parts Per OQ lot 29 standard sample size for 95/90 in industry Total number of PQ parts 87 3*29 Total Cost for PQ Parts $13,485 3*29*$155 PQ Dara Analysis Cost $2,000 10 hrs * $200/hr PQ Report $2,000 20 hrs * $100/hr Total OQ Costs $17,485 Total PQ Costs $17,485 PQ parts are sellable parts if they passed, so $$ can subtract out Total Validation Costs $34,970 $31,485 in validation NRE charges

The use of data-driven design for manufacturability is a proven method to speed time to market using GD&T and data as a common language. By reducing the number of features called out as critical, inspection times are dramatically reduced and validation is simplified—not only during the development stage, but for the lifetime of the product. Mr. Jaeck demonstrates this process from the OEM and contract manufacturer perspectives.

Views

Total views

2,172

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

1,650

Actions

Downloads

40

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×