Circuits Assembly - November 2007 - (Page 30)

Better Manufacturing Value for Money? Methods for dispassionately narrowing your supplier list. hat is value for money? Tricky question. It can mean so many different things to different people, and is often irrational, and the circumstances surrounding perceived value could also depend on personal or group philosophies. When she lived in the UK, my daughter used to buy cheap clothes for nightclubs or bars. She had a “use once and throw away” mentality, partly because the clothes were cheap enough to be of no concern if damaged by cigarettes or wine spills, but also because of her perceived market awareness. She was unlikely to go to any event and see the same outfit on someone else. She has now matured beyond regular clubbing and needs clothes with a bit more durability; hence, she is prepared to pay more. So, we have established that very low cost has its place in every market, but must never be the only controlling factor. Within companies, the cheapest solution may not provide enduring results, but a strategic cheap buy for a particular need may have some sense. Consequently, one cannot say, “always buy cheap” or “always buy expensive” because requirements may differ from time to time. One does, however, need a stable, qualitative method for determining the correct purchase for the current need. I have banged the drum of user requirement specifications often and loudly, and you probably do not need a repeat prescription – not just yet anyway. Suffice it to say that a good URS will put you in good stead when sorting out rival suppliers. There is, however, a complimentary method of assessing equipment, or indeed anything that may be purchased. Let’s assume you have done the job correctly from the outset and written a good URS. Now you have the problem of assessing the rivals who will all faithfully tell you their product is the best thing since sliced bread. It probably is the best thing for the correct circumstances, but you have to decide what those circumstances are. The first piece of advice I can offer is be dispassionate. Many a purchase has been made in which the heart ruled the head. Sometimes the heart was lucky and the result turned out OK. But, sadly, there have also been occasions when the head should have won, and a better solution would have been found. I won’t point fingers at anyone in particular, but it never ceases to amaze how easy it is W Peter Grundy is director of P G Engineering (Sussex) Ltd. and ITM Consulting (itmconsulting.org); peter.grundy2@ btinternet.com. His column appears bimonthly. to conduct a solid procedure and then waste all the good work with a bizarre decision. Back to cheap versus expensive. Clearly, all financial groups – be they internal to a company or outside advisors – will say to go for the lowest cost option to keep the balance sheets healthy. The more worldly ones will also be prepared to consider higher cost options if the justification is good. Even the most expensive solution to a problem can be the most effective when the total return on investment is measured over the expected life of the purchase. But, the tendency is to go for cheap options at present, mainly because there are so many available. (By the way, I am not employed by an equipment supplier!) The “use once and toss” philosophy beloved by my daughter does not really apply to industry, although the price reduction of many pieces of equipment might lead one to think otherwise. There is still a world of difference between spending $4 or $5 on a blouse and, say, $55,000 on a soldering machine. Do we run the soldering machine for a year and then discard it? I think not. It all comes back to perceived value for money for the project in hand. Let us have a quick look at the equipment selection methodology in its basic form. (Workshops have been presented on this subject and can last hours, so I do not propose to dwell on the details.) For any given project, there may be as many as 20 possible suppliers that could sell a solution. Depending on the scale and importance of the project to its owners, it could be handled by a single internal project manager or might be big enough to justify a team. The team, just like any other team for project work (such as NPI, see my May 2007 column), must be built from key members of the company operating structure. Figure 1 is a typical team approach, but it is not the only way. Members must be chosen for their relevance and competence. The core team leader is the project manager and will champion the cause of the project to its end. Whether a team or an individual is right will depend on the project size and scope, but there will be a steady and strong level of work required. For example, trawling through enormous amounts of Internet data just to find the likely suppliers can take a long time. Having found a set of possible 30 Circuits Assembly NOVEMBER 2007 circuitsassembly.com http://itmconsulting.org peter.grundy2@btinternet.com peter.grundy2@btinternet.com http://circuitsassembly.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Circuits Assembly - November 2007

Circuits Assembly - November 2007 Contents Caveat Lector Industry News Market Watch Talking Heads Focus on Business Global Sourcing On the Forefront Screen Printing Better Manufacturing Pb-Free Manufacturing from a Tier III EMS Perspective ‘Living Documents, Subject to Change’ Creating Ideal Solder Joints An Alternative Drying Process for MSDs ‘Customer Satisfaction is More than a Score’ Optoelectronic Substrates: Will They Happen? Tech Tips Wave Soldering Process Doctor Test and Inspection Getting Lean Materials World Equipment Advances Product Spotlight Assembly Insider Technical Abstracts Ad Index

Circuits Assembly - November 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.