The project aimed to reduce the cycle time of introducing a new semiconductor product from 39 weeks to less than 12 weeks by forming a cross-functional team to streamline the process. Using tools like Microsoft Project, DFMEA, PFMEA, and SolidWorks, the team optimized the design, manufacturing process, and equipment. This reduced the introduction time by over 70% to 9 weeks while improving communication and shifting the organization's culture. The new process provided a repeatable way to efficiently develop and launch new products.

1. New ProductIntroduction(NPI) Case Study
Project Scope:
The strategic goal of the project was to reduce the cycle time of the New Product Introduction
(NPI) process on a wet process tool for the semiconductor industry. This was a very complex
product with significant untried technologies. In the past, these types of products have taken
the company up to 39-weeks to complete. This exorbitant amount of time caused the
company to lose sales, affecting their bottom line. Our goal was to reduce this time to less
than 12-weeks, a 67% improvement in cycle time, while creating a repeatable NPI process.
This same process can be applied over a variety of industries. A side benefit of this
transformation was a tremendous shift in the culture of the business and the opportunity to
establish teamwork.
Boundaries:
The boundaries of the project began with the product development phase and went through
the integration of the new product into the mainstream of manufacturing and full production.
TeamMembers:
 Demand Planning Representative
 Engineering Representative
 Manufacturing Engineering Representative
 Manufacturing Management Representative
 Marketing Representative
 Materials Representative
 Production Scheduling Representative
 Project Champion
 Project Manager
 Quality Representative
 Safety Representative
Tools Deployed
Software:
 Microsoft Project® – Project management tool used as the master schedule
 SolidWorks® - 3D modeling tool used to layout the manufacturing cell
Quality Analysis:
 Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) – Reliability used tool to evaluate the
product design
 Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (PFMEA) – Reliability tool used to evaluate the
manufacturing process
 Process Mapping – Tool utilized to define the process flow within the manufacturing process
 Spaghetti Diagram – A Tool utilized to identify any redundancies within the workflow and
opportunities to expedite process flow.
 Gage R&R – Analysis tool used to define the capability of the test and measurement
equipment
Safety Analysis:
 Equipment Safety Assessment Forms – Safety assessment of the manufacturing equipment
 Process and Materials Safety Assessment – Safety assessment of the process and
materials specified within the new product design

2. New ProductIntroduction Case Study (con’t)
Project Review:
The project started by commissioning a cross-functional team (engineering, manufacturing,
marketing, materials, production, scheduling and quality) to streamline the New Product
Introduction process. By forming a cross-functional team, we began removing the silos within the
organization, giving project ownership to the supporting departments. This improved the lines of
communication between the departments and gave them a contact within the other departments.
This was a significant cultural event for the organization as well, one of the side benefits of the
project.
The project team developed a master schedule using Microsoft Project®. The supporting
departments identified the tasks required to complete their segment of the project. From the
departments’ input, the Project Manager (PM) compiled these tasks into the Master Project
Schedule (MPS). Employing the MPS enabled the PM to effectively direct and monitor the
progression of the project. The MPS was stored on the company drive and accessible to all team
members and management team. This action also started to break down some of the silos and
walls within the organization.
The PM scheduled weekly meetings to review the progress of the project, providing an avenue for
the team members to voice their concerns (apparent or potential) with either the MPS or product
design. As team members encountered problems, the members discussed resolutions to the
problems within the framework of the weekly meeting. If a problem required additional follow-up,
the PM assigned a task, with an expected completion date, to member(s) of the team then
followed up on the assignment during the ensuing meetings. Though the duration of these
meetings were short, less than 1-hour, the interaction between team members was crucial to the
success of the project. The meetings ensured timely transfer of information between the
department representatives, enabling the individual departments to manager their portions of the
project and the ability to respond faster as changes arise. This changed the organizations focus to
more of a communicative one.
At key points within the MPS, the PM deployed certain Lean Six Sigma quality tools. The tools
applied assessed the product design, the manufacturing process and equipment. The timely
deployment of these quality tools and the information acquired were vital to the successful
completion of this project.
Early in the design phase, the team conducted a Design Failure Mode Effect Analysis (DFMEA) of
the new product. From this analysis, the project team identified potential failure points within
product design. The early deployment of the DFMEA provided the necessary time for the project
team to design these failures points out of the product without affecting the scheduled release
date of the new product.
Upon finalizing the product design, the team entered the new items (raw materials and final
assemblies) and engineering BOMs into the business system. From this information, along with
the demand planning information, the team was able to communicate the demand requirements
with the suppliers. By communicating these requirements with the supplier, the team was able to
secure all materials needed in time for the product launch.
After the completion of the DFMEA, the project team began developing the manufacturing
process. Using a process-mapping tool, the project team constructed the manufacturing process
then evaluated the process using the Process Failure Mode Effect Analysis (PFMEA) tool. The

3. New ProductIntroduction Case Study (con’t)
outcome of the process mapping and PFMEA process, the project team developed the
manufacturing process and identified the supporting manufacturing equipment.
While developing the manufacturing process, the project team conducted the safety assessment
of the manufacturing process and materials. From the safety assessment, the team identified
several manufacturing materials were hazardous to the health of the assembler. Since team could
not eliminate these materials, the manufacturing team designed special handling equipment into
the process to remove the assemblers’ risk of exposure to the hazardous materials.
Using SolidWorks® (3D modeling software), the project team designed the layout of the
manufacturing cell. From this layout, the project team identified redundancies within the workflow
and expedited the process flow using a Spaghetti Diagram. Information obtained from the
development of the Spaghetti Diagram, the team optimized the workflow within the manufacturing
cell prior to moving in the manufacturing equipment.
As the new production equipment arrived, the project team validated the equipment’s
performance to the process requirement and conducted the new equipment safety assessment
prior to releasing the equipment to the manufacturing group. By evaluating the equipment at the
time of arrival, provided the project group the time required to make any modifications to the
equipment without effecting the release date of the new product.
Prior to releasing the test and measurement equipment, the project team calibrated and
conducted a Gage R&R analysis. From the information obtained from the Gage R&R analysis, the
project team implemented the Statistical Process Control (SPC) parameters used to monitor
performance of the manufacturing process.
Conclusion:
With the introduction of the New Product Introduction (NPI) process improvements, the project
team was able to reduce the introduction time of a new product by over 70% by reducing the
cycle time of the process from 39-weeks to 9-weeks. In addition, the team established a process
to capture the costs (labor hours and expenditures) associated with a new product development.
This new process developed an interactive system between the departments, allowing timely
transfer of information between the department representatives, enabled the individual
departments to manager their portions of the project and the ability to react faster as changes
arise. The team was able to update the project status while getting buy in through all stakeholders
by sharing the status on a company drive where all had read access and could monitor project
leaving very little time for static on follow up with the management team. An additional benefit,
which was not part of the original mission, was the culture shift in the organization. Sometime the
cultural shift in an organization, the desire to manage the right way is sometimes obscured by the
desire to successfully launch a new product, this helped tear down those walls and unify the
team.
The process is then used for all of the development projects coming out of engineering
substantially reducing lead time and managing cost expectations as well as delivering quality
prototypes into the customers hands far earlier than expected.