3. Company introduction
• Founded in 1956
• One of the first in semicon equipment
• Equipment for semicon back-end processes
• Subsidiary of the Besi group
• Fico: headcount > 180 revenue > 60 M€
• Besi: headcount >1500 world-wide revenue >300 M€
www.besi.com
3
4. Why change?
Why Product Company project:
• Volatile market with extreme ramp up and down
• Cost and lead time pressure
• Technology excellence without sufficient profit
Main drivers:
• Shorter and reliable throughput time
• Higher customer order product quality
• Lower costs
4
5. Goals
Realise a modular product structure for the Fico Compact Line in order
to achieve that for each customer order:
• no customer specific engineering is required = NO ETO
• customer order specifications, matching the product requirements
specifications, are complete and 100% reliable specified by Sales
• lead time from purchase order to shipment < 8 weeks
Project supported by
5
6. Approach
Vision communicated continuously:
“We want to become a Product Company.”
•Monthly update of project status
•Involve all departments (key players from each department)
•Key performance indicators reviewed quarterly as part of the
Balanced Scorecard
• total inventory of standard modules
• inventory turnover of standard modules
• project lead times
• engineering cost as % of total cost of sales
6
7. Analysis primary process
ASSEMBLY
OFFER ORDER WORK AND
DESIGN
SELL DEFINITION PREPERATION DEBUGGING
PURCHASING
ORDER TOTAL ORDER STARTUP + DESIGN ASSEMBLY +
DEFINITION DEBUGGING
TPT HOURS TPT HOURS TPT HOURS TPT
“STANDARD” 18 w 40 u 2w 425 u 3w 500 u 5w
SYSTEEM
CONVERSION 15 w 30 u 2w 400 u 3w 425 u 2w
KIT
REPEAT 15 w 16 u 2w 60 u 1w 500 u 4w
TPT= Throughput Time in weeks 7
8. Product Company project: the concept
IST SOLL
P…1 P…2 P…3 P…4 P…5 P…1 P…2 P…3 P…4 P…5
BUIDING
BLOCKS
Copy from old order Selection out of a
Always different designs
Product Definition
Customer specific parts are Same reference for each
copied as well project
Errors are copied also Less redo work
No costs for maintaining the Better cost management
product definition base Increase of reuse
8
9. Level 3 Level 2
Category
CLxxx Module 1
CLxxx Module 2 plate
Stack-down
open bottom
CLxxx Module 3
CLxxx Module 4
CLxxx
Base
Module 5
CLxxx Module 6
CLxxx Moduel 7
CLxxx Module 8
closed
Stack-down
bottom plate
CLxxx Variant A
CLxxx Variant B
CLxxx Varinat C
Variant CLxxx Variant D
Execution: Compact Line structure
CLxxx Option A
CLxxx Option B
Slotted
offloader
CLxxx Option C
Option
CLxxx Option D
CLxxx PR A
PR
CLxxx PR B
Tube
offloader
CL025B Spares A
CL022B Spares B
Spares
11. What went wrong?
• Project Management had it’s ups and downs
• A lack of strong drivers / communicators in the project team
• Time was our biggest enemy, you need endurance:
• paradox: change requires stability - do not change your strategy
• change requires effort; market downturn resulted in pressure on
fte’s during the organizational embedding
11
12. What went right?
• Strong vision of initiator and also in hard times believers on several
organizational levels
• The product (Fico Compact Line) was fully prepared for the Product
Company approach (excellent System Architect !)
• The philosophy was (finally) embedded in 2005
• The benefits of the new approach are clearly visible
• 2006 Success ! 15% EBIT
• 2007 Success ! 9% EBIT in a semicon downturn
• 2008-2011 Continuous profit on FCL => Cash Cow!
12
13. Implementation & culture
Culture is the sum of all shared values and behavioral “standards” of
the majority within an organization.
It is a soft aspect and very hard to grab.
In change management the soft aspects are the hard ones.
13
15. Next project: Tooling; the hardest case
There are customer-related requirements: we try to solve this by
configuration: assembly-to-order = ATO.
There are also product-related requirements: we try to solve this by
standard models.
A project within a project
• Tool Modeling
• Six Sigma approach.
15
17. Next Project: configuration Molding System
Sales Production
capability config datasheet
----------- --------- ---------
----------- --------- ---------
---------
---------
lead time < 4 weeks
gross margin > ..%
released Project ProductConfig
modules / options
GOAL: 80% of orders – NO Engineering
R&D
SCOPE: AMS-W
17
18. Number of options
Options AMS-W
90
83
80
70
61 56
60
№ of options(1)
50
40
39
30
20
10
0
created overview first meeting for reduction P6 Basic Module 2nd meeting for reduction
2010 04 14 2010 05 10 2010 06 28 2010 07 07
action & date
18
19. Result ProductConfig
• Margin increase: 10%
• Beats competition
• Our new Cash Cow!
AMS-W Molding System
19
20. Final conclusions
1. Smart Customization is above all
a cultural change process.
2. Keep it simple: one unique number. = 1 number
3. Smart Customization saves resources,
time, money and leads to more profit.
20
