OEM SCR Expectations in a Zero Defects Environment

1
OEM SCR Expectations in a Zero Defects Environment
Perspectives from you Supply Base

• Leading Edge
• Ceramic and Tantalum Capacitors

May 22-24, 2007
Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
2
Agenda Outline

• Zero Defects Defined
• Impact of PPAP 4th Edition
• Current State Process Maps
• Global Process Map
• Considerations
• Recommendations

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
3
Zero Defects Defined

• Scope of AEC-Q004 31Aug06 Draft
• tools and processes for suppliers and users to
  use to approach or achieve the goal of zero
  defects.
• By definition change.
• AEC-Q004 31Aug06 Draft Section 7.2, Process /
  Product Improvements
• 7.2.3 Change in material or process, either to
  address a root cause issue or as an evolution of
  a process or design, to improve device function,
  yield and / or reliability.
• Reference to JESD-46, Customer Notification of
  Product / Process Changes by Semiconductor
  Suppliers.
• Requires change notification for major changes
• JESD-46, Section 3.2.1, Classify change(s)
• "...Customers must be notified of major changes,
  whereas notification of minor changes may or may
  not occur depending on customer requirements.
• IC major change definitions included and also
  repeated in Q004 draft

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
4
Impact of PPAP 4th Edition

• PPAP 4th Edition
• Extends well beyond these requirements
• IQC Webinar Presentation
• Customer notification is required for ALL
  proposed changes.
• Any change from the original PPAP requires
  re-PPAP.
• At least notification to the appropriate customer
  PPAP representative.

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
5
Impact of PPAP 4th Edition

• Customer Notification is misleading
• Implies one-way communication.
• In reality, two-way communication is required.
• Must not implement prior to customer written
  approval
• Significant implementation delays occur.
• SCR approval cycle duration problematic
• Agreement on this fact by multiple EIA / ECA
  participating suppliers
• KEMET, AVX, Vishay, TDK, KOA Speer, others.
• KEMET LEAN project
• Process impact sufficient to have been assigned a
  project reviewed by Executive Leadership and
  Board of Directors.
• LEAN process maps pinpoint significant issues.

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
6
Current State Process Map - Customer

• Automotive Approval Process Issues
• Customers describe their process as
• Not well-defined, Non-existent, Dysfunctional
• 100 of customers asked for their approval
  procedure provided the supplier submission
  procedure
• Automotive SCR Volume
• 300 500 change requests received per month
• 1000 2500 in the system at any given time
• Processing them is at least 6 months behind
• Capacitors typically apply to every program,
  adding to the confusion
• Some customers customers deny any mid-year
  changes
• Eliminates immediate realization of improvement
  effects.

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
7
Current State Process Map - Supplier

• Supply Base Change Approval Process Issues
• Nearly 40 extend beyond 1 year
• Done in succession, equivalent to 8.5 years
• All 2006 notifications would equal 68 years
• At least 50 of the process not visible to
  Suppliers
• Purchasing, Quality, Component Engineering,
  Material Planning, and all Program Managers
  always involved
• Actual process differs for each customer
• 1 Change grows exponentially between notification
  and approval
• 13 automotive accounts
• grows to 90 total Locations and
• Involves 29 total account Managers.
• Multiple hand offs on both customer and supplier
  side.
• Results in negative impact to suppliers revenue
  stream
• Decreases sales time
• Prolongs realizing manufacturing cost reductions
  or quality improvements
• Reduces focus on new product development or
  process improvement

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
8
Global Process Map Customer Supplier

• Process Current State
• 2300 Steps
• assumes 1 affected program per location
• 170 steps could have up to 5 iterations per
  customer
• step count based on average of 3 iterations per
  customer
• 5 months estimated Value Added Time
• 11 months estimated Waste
• You are already familiar with a very similar
  process

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
9
Global Process Map Customer Supplier
Customer Supplier Current State Maps The
Titanic Factor

• Increasing customer expectations for level of
  communication outpace
• our ability to comply
• their ability to manage
• Complicated approval process, extending supplier
  implementation
• lost revenue from cost improvements
• takes technical resources away from product
  development or process improvements
• missed opportunities for sales
• No infrastructure exists to support multiple
  approval cycles in tandem

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
10
Considerations

• Each Zero Defects Tool includes Estimated Cost
  vs. Benefit
• Are improved quality effects or costs savings
  diluted by the overall process?
• Actives in double-digit better position on
  business margin than passives

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
11
Considerations

• If nothing changes, the tidal wave is coming.
• Where are all of us relative to supporting this
  change?
• Customers need additional support and streamlined
  systems.
• Suppliers need to understand their customers
  processes and alignment to facilitate faster
  approvals.
• Is Q-200 effective?
• 1000 hour testing extends qualification time.
• Questionable relationship between tests and
  actual field performance.
• Does not support zero defects in the long run.
• 12 Month advance notice of changes is not
  practical
• Delays process improvements and / or cost savings
  by up to 2 years.

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee
12
Recommendations

• Take a pragmatic, no-nonsense approach to define
  requirements.
• Improve business processes to support shorter
  approval cycles.
• Educate suppliers on customer processes so they
  can better align their change strategies.
• Use cost benefit analysis vs. risk to determine
  what changes really require this level of
  scrutiny.
• Partner with suppliers to find more effective
  testing than current Q-200 test protocol.
• We all need strategies to improve the bottom line
  while maintaining or improving customer
  satisfaction relative to performance and
  reliability.

Automotive Electronics Council Component
Technical Committee