| 1. Work Instructions | |
| 1.1 | Is there a revision controlled Operator Work Instruction which contains loading information for the specific product being built? (Score 0 if any unsigned/undated handwritten instructions or any handwritten instructions more than 48 hrs old) |
| 1.2 | Are Work Instructions readily available to the operator and are they followed at Component Placement? |
| 1.3 | Are component part numbers and descriptions included on the Work Instructions? |
| 1.4 | Are component descriptions sufficiently detailed to check at first-article that the correct components are being used? |
| 1.5 | Is the machine head/slot number for component loading specified for each part number on Work Instructions? |
| 1.6 | Are the reference designators and the quantity per part number specified on Work Instructions? |
| 1.7 | Is the component feeder type/size specified on Work Instructions or otherwise for each component package type? |
| 1.8 | Is the machine Program Name specified on the Work Instruction or line set-up instructions? |
| 2. Component Loading and Verification | |
| 2.1 | Is there an automated bar coded component loading verification aid in order to reduce the probability of incorrect loading? Note* |
| 2.2 | Are the component loading verification aids hard linked to the placement program so that loading is verified against program data? |
| 2.3 | Can traceability of component lot codes be demonstrated for critical devices? |
| 2.4 | Is component loading/changes verified and cross checked by an individual other than the set-up operator at product changeover? Note* |
| 2.5 | Is a component loading/changes verification log signed by the set-up operator and countersigned by the cross checker before start up? Note* |
| 2.6 | Is the correct feeder loading base used to facilitate real to feeder loading? |
| 2.7 | Are first-built boards verified against documentation for missing/misplaced components and for correct component polarity? |
| 2.8 | Are first-articles conducted using AOI methods and complemented with description verification and value metering? |
| 2.9 | Are all Resistors & Capacitors measured for a value within the tolerance (one per part number) at first-article & at reel change? |
| 2.10 | Is a first-article log signed to verify acceptance before start up? |
| 2.11 | Is the orientation of Tantalum SMT capacitors, Diodes, etc in tape format, standardized and documented for polarity orientation? |
| 2.12 | Is the IC tray loading polarity standardized for each type of polarity indicator that can be used for each component? |
| 2.13 | Is loading polarity referenced both from the tray and the component so as to ensure retrayed components are correctly loaded? |
| 3. Nozzles, Feeders, and Tooling | |
| 3.1 | Is there a document which details the standardized nozzle diameter set-up selected for each type of placement equipment? |
| 3.2 | Are these standardized nozzle diameter set-up documents readily available for when nozzles need to be replaced or changed? |
| 3.3 | Is there a document which details the range of component XYZ body sizes that each selected nozzle type can successfully place? |
| 3.4 | Is there a documented requirement to conduct daily nozzle centering and is there evidence that this is done? |
| 3.5 | Is each feeder identified with its own unique serial number? |
| 3.6 | Is there a documented and effective Feeder Maintenance Program? Records (s/w or otherwise) must be by Feeder Serial Number. |
| 3.7 | Are database records maintained for each feeder serial number for the purpose of tracking its maintenance history and performance? |
| 3.8 | Is feeder maintenance history used to monitor feeder life so that problematic feeders can be removed from the process? |
| 3.9 | Can it be demonstrated that the number of feeder indexes is counted & monitored for each unique feeder using software or otherwise? |
| 3.10 | Is this information used to flag that feeder preventative maintenance is required after x number of indexes? |
| 3.11 | Is there a documented requirement to indicate that Blocks or Support Pins are needed for specific products? |
| 3.12 | Is the No, location, type and height of Support Blocks/Pins identified on a product by product basis? Score NA if in 3.11 there are not needed. |
| 3.13 | Are the Support Pin locations identified for each product using templates/tooling or some other effective solution? Comment as above. |
| 4. Moisture Sensitive Devices | |
| 4.1 | Are components stored before loading and after unloading in a manner which prevents damage? |
| 4.2 | Are the Moisture Sensitive Devices (MSDs) and their sensitivity level readily known to the operator? |
| 4.3 | Are MSDs time stamped at opening and their exposure time monitored against pre determined limits? |
| 4.4 | Is there a flag to indicate that the exposure time has been exceed for any given device in a dry box? |
| 4.5 | Is there a flag to indicate the MSD exposure has expired for any MSD device currently loaded in the placement machines? |
| 4.6 | Have MSD procedures been updated to reflect the JEDEC standard for MSD control? (J-STD-033A MSD released in July 2002) |
| 4.7 | Is there evidence of correct implementation of J-STD-0033A for all MSD devices? |
| 4.8 | Are there MSD procedures in place to ensure MSD shelf life is reduced based on measured Relative Humidity conditions? |
| 4.9 | Is there a method in place to address the time spent in dry storage and its effect on remaining life based on MS Level and RH Level? |
| 4.10 | Is it clearly understood that MSD ‘shelf life’ continues to degrade during dry cabinet storage of some MSD devices? |
| 4.11 | If MSDs are on both sides of a PCBA, is there an effective method to account for time between 1st and 2nd reflow? |
| 4.12 | Can MSD control be demonstrated for MSD devices that need internal/external pre-programming? |
| 4.13 | Can MSD control be demonstrated for rejected devices and devices used for rework? |
| 4.14 | Have MSD recovery methods been defined and adequate for all component types? |
| 4.15 | Does the control of Moisture Sensitive Components include those components on reels? |
| 4.16 | Is the baking or hot room storage time and temperature documented and controlled for component recovery? |
| 4.17 | Has this time and temp been determined based on the component supplier’s guidelines / J-STD-0033A? |
| 4.18 | Is there evidence to demonstrate that the control process for MSDs is in use and is effective? |
| 5. Machine Capability | |
| 5.1 | Are Component Placement Programs generated from CAD XY coordinate data? |
| 5.2 | Is there a standardized nomenclature for Shape Code definition? |
| 5.3 | Can this nomenclature be used to determine the most appropriate shape code to allocate to a given part of given dimensions? |
| 5.4 | Are localized fiducials used for fine pitch devices when localized component fiducials exist on the board? |
| 5.5 | Has manual component moving been eliminated given correct CAD, nozzle set-up, Shape Code allocation, local fiducials, Cam speed, etc? |
| 5.6 | Does the Fine Pitch placement machine have the capability to check lead Coplanarity in xyz? |
| 5.7 | Does the Fine Pitch placement machine use its coplanarity capability on all leads of 20 mil pitch or less, and all programmed parts? |
| 5.8 | Does the Fine Pitch placement machine have the capability to check ball arrays? If no such device, score NA. |
| 5.9 | Does the Fine Pitch placement machine use its ball array verification capability for all BGA devices? If no such device, score NA. |
| 5.10 | Is the machine Program Name revision controlled to show traceability of program changes? |
| 5.11 | Is the machine Program Name traceable to the PWB and PCBA part number? |
| 6. PCBA | |
| 6.1 | Are outputted boards at least sample inspected pre reflow for placement positional accuracy for machine control purposes? |
| 6.2 | Is the frequency for this verification defined and documented, and is there evidence to suggest it is followed? |
| 6.3 | Is there a visual aid available which identifies the populated locations with polarity, and also the no-pop locations? |
| 6.4 | Is there a placement standard pre reflow to validate placement accuracy for the shape code, nozzle allocation, etc. parameters used? |
| 6.5 | Is there evidence to demonstrate that action is taken to adjust the machines performance for when this standard is exceeded? |
| 7. Attrition Rates and Rejected Components | |
| 7.1 | Is attrition rate monitoring conducted systematically to ensure feeder and/or nozzle problems are captured at least hourly? |
| 7.2 | Is there documented evidence to ensure attrition rates are checked and actioned at least hourly to ensure process control? |
| 7.3 | Is there a specification defined for acceptable attrition rates for the individual feeders? |
| 7.4 | Is there a specification defined for the maximum allowable number of nozzle skips per machine before it is shut down for repair? |
| 7.5 | Are these specifications determined based on a percentage combined with the number of placements for a given time period? |
| 7.6 | Is there evidence to demonstrate that attrition rate monitoring is conducted, effective, and used to make process control decisions? |
| 7.7 | Is there a documented process for the disposition or reuse of machine rejected components? Rs and Cs must not be reused even for rework. |
| 7.8 | Are rejected components reviewed and repaired to ensure conformance before reuse, even if only used for rework? |
| 7.9 | Are there repair blocks available or a lead conditioner in use for repairing ‘real’ Coplanarity rejects? Score 0 if parts not repaired. |
| 7.10 | Does the re-traying process always ensure that component polarity wrt the tray and the component loading polarity is preserved? |
| 7.11 | Is there a documented Process Deviation procedure to manage machine skips for hand placement if hand placement is allowed? |
| 8. Process Capability | |
| 8.1 | Has a Process Capability Analyses (PCA) been conducted and the Cpk acceptable for the suite of shape codes in use? |
| 8.2 | Were shape code allocations, component nozzle allocations, cam speeds, etc. recorded for this PCA? |
| 8.3 | Are the recorded shape code allocations, component nozzle allocations, and cam speeds, the same as those used today? |
Write a Comment