Cluso First Article Inspection meets all of Itron’s expectations

In the printed circuit board assembly space, a new breed of first article inspection system is saving substantial time and money, so claims production engineering specialist Cluso and, its Americas Distributor, Brock Electronics. We put this to the test by asking a valued and long standing user, Itron, for their views on the whole First Article Inspection (FAI) space, as it applies to PCB Assembly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Itron provides advanced resource and business process management and data collection software and hardware for utilities companies worldwide. 

Itron’s production facility in Waseca, Minneapolis, produces high volumes of a limited variety of printed circuit boards. Typically, the circuits are single-sided, approximately 40mm x 90mm, containing between 100 and 150 components, though there are some smaller batches of physically larger products, with higher part counts. Components may range anywhere from 0402 chips and 0.5mm pitch QFNs, to 25mm tall electrolytic capacitors.

First Article Inspection at the Itron facility was traditionally carried out by qualified inspectors who would simply visually inspect the first populated board, and then compare this first-off to an assembly template. Techniques such as this have been used since the advent of PCB assembly but there were a number of potentially serious challenges with this practice. For example, quality personnel were conscious of a 20 minute window before an "inspection delay" brought the line to a grinding halt! Batches of new products (NPI), or higher part count assemblies, placed still greater emphasis on the First Article Inspection process, resulting in significantly more demanding, yet lengthier, inspection routines. Inspectors were occasionally missing defects, such as polarity marks on electrolytic caps, as the inspection routines became longer, more challenging and more pressured. Some old inspection favorites, including missing or extra parts, occasionally cropped up too. The added work and attention required to guarantee quality to Itron's high standards was becoming more expensive and ever more demanding. Maintaining accuracy of inspection records was also difficult and time-consuming, adding still more workload to the already heavy burden on the engineering & support resources.

Having researched the market for a more advanced and reliable solution, Itron decided to purchase a Cluso Vision System, having seen it demonstrated at a local SMTA event. Following a demonstration, Cluso was happy to accommodate Itron’s specific requirements for a large format scanner and clearance for tall parts, and the first system was delivered in 2006. While the Cluso Vision System certainly delivered first article inspection value for Itron over time, the engineering team subsequently reviewed how AOI might improve the whole inspection process, also comparing AOI solutions to the later version of the Cluso system and its newer software platform that had evolved still further over the years. The early system was subsequently upgraded to the current Cluso model, with Itron having sufficient expertise to set it up with no more than cursory remote assistance from Cluso’s Americas distributor, Brock Electronics. The new system is now in daily use at Itron, and continues to ease the FAI burden in this high technology facility.

The primary use of the Cluso system is for first-off inspection of prototypes, new product innovations and major revisions. From the outset, the system was found to be easy and intuitive to use. Unlike AOI systems, the Cluso does not require any program generation, only data import. Itron now incorporates the generation of the necessary files, for input to the Cluso system, into its standard placement program creation procedures. One of the key advantages of Cluso in the FAI space is its capability to run inspection routines, without any requirements for programming, with the corresponding time savings that are so critical for first article inspection and improved SMT line utilization. This FAI system is designed to improve the capabilities & effectiveness of the visual inspection process & not to replace the human element in that critical phase.

The updated system, installed in 2009, incorporates the new and improved software, which has made Cluso, not only more capable, but also more user friendly than the original. This has proven to be of particular value for prototype builds, for when multiple models are built on the same multi-up panel, and for those assemblies with part counts that are more challenging for visual inspection. Interestingly, Itron also uses automated optical inspection on its line, complementing the Cluso first article inspection, by comparing production items with the approved golden board. This is very much in line with the Cluso philosophy, where FAI is seen as a complimentary rather than a competitive or replacement process to AOI.

To Mark Rasmussen, Principal Engineer, at Itron Manufacturing, the key benefits are clear: reduction in the time taken for first article inspection and accurate inspection of prototypes. 

On a day-to-day basis, while Rasmussen finds the speedy set-up time (that gives him a really short FAI time from start to finish at around 15 minutes) to be of paramount importance, it's the dramatic improvement in the quality of visual inspection results that really makes for a really good winning combination. The reliable and detailed reports, along with the capability to store images for later review, and the ability to use either drawings or known good boards as the golden sample for comparison, are all of great benefit. Additional supporting advances introduced on the more recent Cluso system also bring some positive elements to the equation for Itron, such as the ability to handle pdf files and to manipulate scanned images for improved detection.

Rasmussen comments: “I believe that the Cluso system does a great job of documenting the placement machine output, is easy to program and use and is very applicable to a variety of production situations such as NPI, low-volume, high-value circuit inspection, first article inspection and archival documentation of the product. It has certainly met all of our expectations.”

Our thanks to Mark for his insight & comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Cluso claims that First Article Inspection saves time and money while providing a far higher level of confidence that production defects, due to placement errors, are virtually eliminated. It would appear that some users might agree!

Six of the top ten CEMS globally are Cluso customers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information visit Cluso web site www.cluso.com.au 

Or contact Paul F. Walsh email Paul@BrockElectronics.com 

Innovative Behaviour

I was reading an article on Evertiq (www.evertiq.com) a while ago and it was commenting that there was an incredible lack of innovation in the USA and that was the reason that the US electronics industry in particular was not doing well in recent times. After years of selling Automated First Article Inspection Systems (FAI) I tend to agree that the article was fairly accurate in its assessment. The more I speak to people the less I think they are aware of what goes on in their own factories.

In particular a lot of companies believe that FAI is something that is simply done but does not hold a high importance to the outcome of their SMT operation. I guess I hold a vested interest in this opinion but I also have run a CEM in Australia for the past 25 years so I have knowledge pertaining to this subject from a users aspect as well. We originally designed the Automated FAI for our own use in our facility. We recognised that there were 2 distinct problems due to FAI that we needed to tackle. One was a QA issue in that we had at random times loaded incorrect parts on PCB's. The 2nd issue was the time it took to perform the manual FAI and the disruption to the production flow being the SMT loaders were idle during this process.

The QA issue was attempted to be tackled by increasing inspection of the manual process of conversion of data by having someone checking the data. This had limited effect and reduced the problems but they still occurred at random times due to human error. The other QA issue was attempted to be resolved by again, more inspection. A 2nd person double checked the feeder setup. This seemed to work but after time the problem was that the personnel in the SMT area were double checking their friends work and could not be 100% effective. We thought of barcoding but came to the conclusion that this would only push the problem upstream to the people placing the barcodes on the reels, they can still make the same mistake as anyone. Everyone knows that you cannot inspect quality into a product, they must be designed in.

The 2nd issue of time was a substantial one which seemed more difficult. Every time the lines were changed over there was several hours during which the manual FAI was done that the lines were idle. Because we had 4 SMT lines being changed a minimum of 2-3 times a week it seemed as if half of our lines were down waiting for FAI permanently. Like all CEM's we are under ever increasing pressure to keep costs down and machines laying idle did not fit this mode. 

We designed our first Automated FAI machine to fulfil this purpose for our own use and then later on started to sell the system worldwide. In my discussions with other CEM's around the world the most accepting and innovative companies seem to be from Eastern Europe and China in particular. This fact actually bucks the so-called perception that in China they simply copy things and do not innovate their processes. Companies in China have a real handle on the problem and are actively seeking solutions to those problems. In the USA there is a distinct attitude that if they did not think of it then it is not useful or it is not what they want. A lot of companies do not believe there is a problem, it is either being hidden, or not highlighted by staff. There are even some who think it is not even necessary to check the the first PCB assembled  and it is a waste of time!

One leading CEM evaluated our system a long time ago and  wrote a glowing report that the system would save $70KUSD per week in the one factory premises only, which put the ROI on the system at 2.1 days, and then promptly sent the demo unit back to us. It took an unbelievable 3 months before they purchased it and the reason was that there was no other system of its kind at that time to compare it to and their rules were that there must be minimum 2-3 quotes to purchase. During those 3 months we sold 5 units to their other facilities(same company) in Hungary, Israel and China before they authorised the purchase for themselves. Based on the report they distributed internally their overseas counterparts felt they could not wait for the red tape to resolve and authorised and purchased the systems locally.

Innovative behaviour is what made the United States unique and strong, if innovation is lost then I cannot imagine what may happen to the manufacturing base, or for that matter, the country. As the USA comes out of the GFC it is time to re-evaluate innovative behaviour in every aspect of their business. Maybe it is time to reinvent themselves as their historical counterparts did, this will be the only way to survive. Complaining that the work is disappearing to China or wherever will not bring it back, innovation is the key. Customers recognise value added in their suppliers, they just have to be shown that it exists.

The problem in a lot of cases is that the innovation is just not there. 

Greg Ross

Cluso Vision Systems

Management - Introducing Automated First Article Inspection Series

Management have a difficult time in determining which equipment to invest in and which ones to stay away from. Each department usually comes with a seemingly sob story about why you should authorise some money to make his job easier and supposedly save the company enough money to make it worth it. Management have to weigh up the endless options from staff suggesting equipment and processes with technical reasons that sometimes are self motivated to the employees own agenda. These can sometimes be as simple as building an inspection dynasty for themselves and as devious as hiding some inability to perform a job and the equipment will hide this.

An Automated First Article Inspection System is a very easy system to justify financially except it is a difficult one to suggest because the department that will use it, and is providing the technical reason for the purchase, has to come clean that basically they cannot do their job properly without it. This will expose the fact that there is NO traceable system in place that 100% covers this function. They will have to admit that they do not perform a 100% FAI and/or are not exposing the time it takes to do it. They are afraid the obvious question will arise... "What the hell do I pay you for if this is the first I hear of this hole in our SMT Inspection area".

Somehow this impasse has to be broken if the FAI process can be fixed. The seemingly simple process of FAI is that prior to switching the machines to full speed building product in SMT after a changeover is that someone 100% checks the first PCB coming off the line to ensure it is built to the customers specification. When the SMT builds it wrong the management step to in ask the question, what went wrong. Usually there are a variety of excuses like, Someone did not check the feeders properly and management decide that a 2nd person should check and consider the problem solved and everyone pats themselves on the back, job well done. The other is to train the operators on inspecting the feeder setup, or simply fire someone, or both.

The problem will not go away, the fact is that in any manual process there will be human error. In the FAI process there are 2 places for error, in the conversion of the customer CAD/BOM data to Pick and Place file and placing the feeders in the right places. When checking these places at FAI the operator is left to check this without any help and the result of his inspection will load 100's of thousands of parts onto PCB's, potentially wrong. And he is being pressured to perform this task in a ever reducing length of time. In some factories I have looked at they are given 10 minutes to perform FAI for a PCB that contains 700 parts. This means the person performing this FAI must locate the part on the PCB and check if it is the right part in under 3/4 of a second average per part. That is the simple math. Since this is not possible they must NOT be inspecting the PCB 100%. Which parts are not being checked, does it matter, any part missed at FAI means that every PCB assembled will be wrong. Does this not worry you, it would scare the hell out of me.

At Cluso we have our own CEM facility here because we started as a CEM and designed the Cluso system for ourselves many years ago. We know the problems and we have solved them with the Cluso system. In the 7 years we have been using the Cluso system we have not loaded a single part in the wrong location... 

Can you say that??

The ROI on the system has been calculated in weeks not months. One of the largest CEM's calculated that the system would save them $70KUSD per week at the one facility when measured against 100% manual FAI methods. Needless to say we have sold many around the world to this company. Maybe you can wait until the next time you have to explain to your customer that you loaded 5000 PCB's with the wrong component and it was in a location that the test did not pick up...

Good Luck.

Greg Ross

Cluso Vision Systems

Surface Mount Department - Introducing Automated First Article Inspection Series

In the SMT department they are really at the coalface of the issue in that they are under crushing pressure to keep the machines running at maximum speed with no downtime. Production Management are increasingly pressuring them to provide more output and coming down heavier when things go wrong. The SMT department is left with being responsible for the quality of its own output like all workcells in manufacturing but the tools to ensure this are not keeping up with the technology of P&P machines. These machines are getting faster and more expensive than ever and downtime is not acceptable in financial terms. Anything that can be done to get them up and running faster is being experimented with. The problem is until automated FAI came around there was nothing to help except throwing manpower at the FAI or reducing the level of FAI. These methods are either costly, risky or both.

One of the key processes in SMT that has downtime is at changeover time when a new product or batch is put onto the SMT lines. The time it takes to get the Pick and Place machines back up to speed is being monitored and criticised the most. The main problem here is that SMT has not been provided with any automated processes to allow them to reduce these times, in some cases it is only the loud voice of management driving them to reduce these times, OR ELSE. Left with the ominous choice of, either reduce the times or someone else will, then the only option is to cut corners and do not tell anyone thereby running the risk of the wrath of management.

Using an Automated First Article Inspection System these changeover times CAN be reduced without cutting corners, using these systems properly actually increases inspection coverage, simplifies the process and adds a level of traceability unheard until now. As well the times are brought down to a manageable level. For manufacturers dealing with the assembly of highly traceable products like medical or military products these system can easily provide them with the results required to satisfy the scrutiny of any ISO13485 system requirements.

With an automated FAI on board in SMT the personnel can actually concentrate the business of producing PCB's and not performing FAI's under extreme time pressure wondering when the wrath of management is going to crush their future employment due to the length of time the FAI has taken or worse still because a mistake was made during their normal reduced manual inspection and 10,000 PCB's are loaded with an incorrect part and the customer is screaming for heads to roll.

Greg Ross

Cluso Vision Systems

Quality Control - Introducing Automated First Article Inspection Series

The Quality Control department is left to perform the duties spelled out by the QA people in their procedures and practices. When the QA department says they must perform a 100% First Article Inspection on all product coming out of SMT they are supposedly bound to do so however at times left with no time to do it. The pressure from production to get the lines moving again is incredible, as long as the lines are not producing, the company is not making money and their massive investment in high speed assembly equipment is laying idle. There is negotiating over the length of time it takes to perform FAI and guess who loses, management think that 1 hour is excessive for FAI and most believe it should only take 10-20 minutes tops.

The simple math is that a PCB that 500 parts on it and manually inspected can be broken down like this:

- 15  seconds to locate each part on the PCB by reference designator using the customers BOM

- 5 seconds to inspect part

- 500 parts X 20 seconds (above) = 10000 secs = 2.77 hrs.

This means that at a minimum using a manual FAI method this inspection will take almost 3 hours not including time to document and file results for traceability. A lot of management are not aware fo this and actually believe that it is a quicker process but these are the simple facts. I machines are run during this process an incredible risk ensues. The manual method checks for 2 things, that the PCB actually contains the parts that the customer requested by checking against the customer BOM and that the Pick and Place file has been converted from the BOM and CAD data properly at the same time.

Using the Cluso Automated FAI the time for the inspection exampled above is reduced to approx. 20 minutes. This is because the Automated FAI uses the P&P file and the customers BOM which has all of the coordinates and part descriptions in them so there is no time required to locate the parts and the full details of what the parts are is on the screen streamlining the whole process. The operator simply starts at the beginning of the dataset and steps through the parts passing or failing as they go. When they get to the end of the parts there is 100% confidence that all parts have been inspected. Also once complete the inspection can produce a report that details the parts inspected as well as failures encountered. The system can also store this inspection as a golden sample for subsequent inspections of the same assembly and the system can even archive the entire process including the scanned image, report and the dataset for full traceability. This wraps up this FAI process into a manageable, simple and fully traceable process that is 100% repeatable and foolproof.

As far as the QA aspects we are discussing using Automated FAI fulfils all requirements of the Quality control plans which are that the inspection is 100% and the traceability of the process is 100%. As well it performs this with a massive time reduction saving money at the same time. The ROI on this type of equipment is measure in months or even weeks in some cases after which it is money in the bank. The QC department finally have a way to perform the 100% inspections demanded from them in the time allocated by the their supreme commanders. 

What more could you ask for.

Greg Ross

Cluso Vision Systems

Quality Assurance - Introducing Automated First Article Inspection Series

I have intentionally kept Quality Assurance separate from Quality Control as they are generically different departments that look at production from a different viewpoint.

Quality Assurance institutes the procedures and practices in a global sense for the company ensuring that all aspects of Quality are covered procedurally as well as all aspects of traceability are covered. The will also ensure that ISO standards are adhered to. The Quality Control people ensure that the procedures, practices and inspections are performed using the correct papers and documenting this fact for traceability reasons.

The aspects of Automated First Article Inspection that affect Quality Assurance are discussed in this blog section of this series. For all processes within manufacturing the QA department must ensure that there are records detailing that the process, inspection or procedure has been performed as well as traceable documents exist relating to this fact. 

At First Article Inspection there normally would be a FAI sheet filled in by the operator signifying that the inspection has been performed. This document would then need to be filed appropriately complying with the traceability aspect of the quality plan for that product. With an Automated FAI such as Cluso this is documented automatically using the reporting and archiving functions contained in the system. The system would automatically document the operator, Batch numbers of inspection, Quantity of part inspected and list all failures noted in the FAI performed. This PDF report would be simply filed in a secure server location by batch number providing full traceability the inspection was performed to satisfaction.

In Engineering there is a little known hole in the QA process. The SMT Engineering department receive BOM's and CAD data from the customer and convert them into Pick and Place files. The CAD data contains the Reference Designators and X/Y coordinates and the Bill of Material details the parts. The SMT Engineering must manually merge the two datasets together to output the P&P file. This is a manual process that risk which is hidden and normally only found out if a 100% FAI is performed which verifies the assembled PCB sample against the customers BOM. With an automated FAI this process can be desk checked with the differences reported automatically. 

The ultimate effect on QA that an Automated FAI has is extremely positive and a very simple, effective solution for these manual processes. The automated solution streamlines, documents, and turns this incredibly important issue into a simple traceable process solving many problems in one easily implemented solution

Greg Ross

Cluso Vision Systems

Engineering - Introducing Automated First Article Inspection Series

 Engineering is the first area affected by the New Product Introduction of customers PCB's. The customer hands over to them the Bill of Material and PCB CAD files for the product being introduced. The Engineering department must perform a few tasks being entering the customers BOM into the CEM's ERP/MRP system. They then must create a Pick and Place(P&P) file used to populate the PCB in the SMT Area. They also may have to create a AOI Inspection file used by the AOI Equipment. The P&P file and AOI file is created essentially by either manually of semi-automatically combining the customers BOM which tells us what the parts are and the PCB CAD file which tells us where the parts go on the PCB. This process is at best semi-manual and at worst a completely manual process.

This manual process has no way except manually to double check whether or not a mistake has been made. If a mistake is made here then the FAI check against the P&P file will only tell you the PCB file is assembled as per the P&P file, potentially incorrectly. With the AOI program if a mistake is made then all the AOI machine is going to do is verify that all PCB's are assembled wrong but the same.

Using the Cluso First Article inspection System the engineer can desk check to P&P file against the BOM automatically. This will ensure that program contains all the components the customer designed to be placed on the PCB. Both the top and bottom side P&P files can be loaded into system and compared to BOM at the same time. This checked program can then stored stored as a Cluso file for use later at the FAI process. 

W using the Cluso system in Engineering these loopholes in the process are closed and ensure that the output of this Engineering process is 100% perfect.

Greg Ross

Cluso Vision Systems

greg@cluso.com.au