One of the best ways to stay on top of the product development industry is read through trade magazines that support it. I think I may just hold the record in the number of them I have read over the years of my career - nearly all of which I managed to get for free.
So here goes - the big list - some of which are still in publication and some not. Terribly fun to find parts, new designs, product announcements, information about companies, and to learn about specifications and applications. (Not in any particular order)
Advanced Imaging
Assembly Engineering
NASA Tech Briefs
Communications Products & Systems
Computer Design
Computer Graphics World
Computer Products
Computer Reseller News
Connection Technology
Control Engineering
DesignFax
Design News
Electrical Manufacturing
Electronic Business
Electronic Buyer's News
ECN - Electronic Component News
EDN, EDN News
EE Product News
Electronic Design
Electronic Display News
Electronic Engineering Times
Electronic Manufacturing
Electronic News
Electronic Products
Electronics Purchasing
ESD - The Electronic System Design Magazine
Engineer's Digest
Engineering Tools
Evaluation Engineering
IEN - Industrial Equipment News
Industrial Product Bulletin
InfoWorld
IC & S - Instrumentation & Control News
Laser & Optronics
Laser Focus
Managing Automation
Manufacturing Systems
Material Handling Product News
Metlfax
Metalworking Digest
Metalworking News
Mini-Microsystems
Office Systems
PC World
PC Magazine
Photonics
Product Design & Development
Purchasing Management
Service News - for computer electronics professionals
Surface Mount Technology
VLSI Systems Design
Semiconductor International
IEEE Spectrum
Electronics
Electronic Test
LAN - The Local Area Network Magazine
Microelectronic Manufacturing & Testing
PC Computing
PC Resource
Data Based Advisor
Circuits Manufacturing
DBMS
Byte
Instrument & Apparatus News
Personal Computing
ASIC & EDA
AV Video
Avionics
Cellular & Mobile International
Circuits Assembly
Computed Aided Engineering
Computer Technology Review
Control Engineering
Electronic Publishing & Typeworld
Embedded Systems Programming
Fiberoptic Product News
High Color - PC Graphics & Video
IAN
IC Card Systems & Design
KeySolutions
Laser Focus World
Lightwave
Machine Design
Microwaves & RF
Mobile Office
Modern Plastics
Network Computing
PC Presentations & Productions
Photonics Spectra
Quality
Printed Circuit Design
Sensors
SMT
Scientific Computing & Automation
Solid State Technology
Telephony
Test & Measurement World
The Computer Applications Journal
Unix World
Wireless Design & Development
Datamation
InterNetwork
And seriously....it's just fun getting these in the mail. I love tech mags and journals.
Writing Descriptions of Parts
You've started thinking that it's time to organize all these parts you have in bins or you have them in a MRP, ERP or PLM software...but it's a mess....seems no decent order or agreements on structure. And the number of duplicated parts in your system is pushing 30% and growing. You know the headaches and the costs. So what I am going to do here is give you some tips about writing part descriptions. And I'm going to give you a ton of examples.
1....Baseline structure is 'TYPE, next family category, and so on'....and including a few key specs.
Whatever you do....don't just type in the manufacturer's part number, programming number, drawing number, WIP number....basically, don't make the part description vague....when you do...that's how duplication in your system grows. Be brief, but specific. And remember...as your company grows others have to learn the design you've created....so be sure to take some notes on how you created it.
2....Select one person (or very few) to write the descriptions and keep the structure in place. Too many people given blocks of part numbers to build part descriptions and you end up with a mess.
3. Remember....your MRP, ERP and PLM or other part management software will have a limited number of characters to use. And if your software allows unlimited characters....pick a length max and stick to it. About 60 to 80 characters will work for describing most parts. If you have less...it's harder if not near impossible. And if more...it's harder to regulate consistency over time especially the sequence of descriptors separated by commas.
Here is a long list of examples from inventories and BOMs I've worked on and from some I have created:
ALUMINUM, FLT BAR, 1/8x2, 12' LONG
BEARING, SEALED, 3/4 IDX1-5/8 ODX7/16W
BLOCK, BEARING, LINE CLOCK MTG
BOLT, J, MACHINE THRD, 2-5/8X1/4
BULLET, RCPT, F-INS, 22-16
BUSHING, TAPER LOCK, 1-7/16"
CONN, CRD EDG, 10-P SIP, S TAIL
CONN, CRIMP PIN, 20/24-AWG, 66103-4
CONN, DSUB, 25P, MALE, SOLDER TYPE
EXTRUSION, 19" ALUM, FOR 3" 6-D DISP
FUSE, 1A-250V, DTIME DELAY, BUSS MDL-1
IC, 4-BIT BINARY COUNTER, 74LS93
IC, BCD TO 7-SEG DECDR/DRV, OC, 74LS48
IC, HI-VOLTAGE DARLINGTON ISLTR, H1162
NUT, PLATED, NYLOCK, 3/8-16
PCB, THUMBWHEEL SWITCH MOTHERBOARD
PLATE, ON-OFF FOR STND TOGGLE DPDT SWT
POWER SUPPLY, TRIPLE, +5 -12 +12, 40W
RES NTWK, SIP 10-P, LP, B, CON, 470-OHM
RES, MTL FLM, .25W 226KOHM 1%
SCREW, ALUM EXT LID, M4X18X.7
SECOND OPR, ANOD, LINE CLK HOUS ASY
SECOND OPR, SILK, PSHW SW MTRX MTL PNL
SOCKET, DIP, 14-P, GOLD I, LP, S TAIL
SOLDER, SN63, .025 282 F 66C, WL
STRUT, T-SLOT, W/BRASS INSERTS, 6-32
SWITCH, TINY PSHB, VERT.-R.A., SPST
TRNSISTR, BIPO PWR, TO-213AA, 2N3584
VARISTOR, METAL OXIDE, 130/170, 10AMPS
X-TAL, 3.6864 MHZ, HC18, FOX0368S
POWER MODULE, DC-DC CONV, EIGHTH BRICK, 48V IN, 3.3VDC OUT, 20A OUT, NEG REM ON/OFF, LEAD FREE
RES, 100, +/-5%, 0603, LEAD FREE
CAP, 270PF, 50V, NPO/COG, +/-15, 0603, SMT, LEAD FREE
CAP, ALUM ELEC, CONDUCTIVE POLYMER, 470UF, 6.3V, +/-20%, F8, SMT, LEAD FREE
BEAD, FERRITE, MONO, SINGLE CIRCUIT, 30 OHM @ 100MHZ, .015 OHM DCR, 3A-MAX, 0805 SMT, LEAD FREE
OSC, CLOCK, HCMOS, 2.048MHZ, +/-50PPM, 0C TO +70C, 3.3VDC PWR, 5-PIN 5X7MM SMC, LEAD FREE
STANDOFF, HES, MF, #4-40, SS, 3/16 X 3/16, PASS, ROHS
IC, TRANSISTOR, NPN, GEN PURP, 40VDC CEO, 600MADC, IC, 225MW, SOT-23 SMT, LEAD FREE
IC, BUFFER, BUS QUAD, GATE, 3-STATE OUTPUTS, 14-PIN, TSSOP, SMT, LEAD FREE
IC, OPTOCOUPLER, TRANS OUTPUT, W/INFRARED DIODE, 200 MAX COL OUTPUT CURRENT, SOIC-8, SMT, LEAD FREE
CONN, JACK, RJ45, RA, LP, 1X4, 8-POS, 2 BI COLOR GRN/GRN LED PER POS, SHLD, PC-MT, LEAD FREE
POWER MOD, AUSTIN MICROLYNX II, NONISO, FLEX OUT, 2.4-5.5VDC IN, .75-3.63VDC OUT, 6A, SMT, LEAD FREE
SW, CRIC-X, FOR CYPRESS CY22393FXCT, JEDEC FILE, CHECKSUM=HEXA41, LEAD FREE
RESNET, CHIP ARRAY, 8 PADS X 4 RES, ISO, 10K, +/-5%, 0603, 3.21X1.6MM, LEAD FREE
CAP, 330PF, 50V, X7R, +/-10%, 0603, SMT, LEAD FREE
OSC, VXCO, CMOS, 50.000MHZ, +/-20PPM, -20C TO +70C, 3.3VDC, 6-PIN 5X7MM SMD, LEAD FREE
FUSEHOLDER, MOLDED, W/2A NANO SMF SLO BLO FUSE, SMT, LEAD FREE
HEATSINK, 40.6X40.6X13.13MM, BLK ANOD, FITS 40MM BGA, W/T1E ADHESIVE, LEAD FREE
DIODE, TRANS VOLT SUPPR, GLASS PASSV, 60VRWM, 1.0A, SMA SMT, LEAD FREE
IC, SWITCH, STRATASWITCH II, MULTILAYER, 24+2 ETHERNET PORTS, BCM5646, 600-PIN PBGA, SMT, LEAD FREE
IC, TRANSCEIVER, RS-232, 3 DRV, 5 REC, 3.0V TO 5.5V, 1UA, 250KBPS, +/-15KV ESD, 28-PIN WIDE SO, SMT, LEAD FREE
CONN, JACK, RJ45, RA, 1X4 8-P 1:1, 10/100BASE-T, MAG QUAD 726 CIRC, A-MDIX, GRN/GRN LEDS, SHLD, G-TAB, TH, LEAD FREE
PGM, 42-005, UIPIM, 4DF2, 041B (THIS WAS FOR A PROGRAMMED CHIP)
//////////////////////////////////////
Hope this helps you to create rules for describing your parts. If you have a tough part to describe....you can write me and I'll see what to do to describe it best for you.
Stop Taking the Rack Apart to Fit in Another Component
So you've found that a rack that uses threaded rods has space to fit in a shelf to hold another piece of equipment on it, but to get a shelf to fit that spot....you'd have to take the whole shelf apart, thread on bolts and put it all together again. An applications engineer contacted me to find a solution....and I did. It's called a "slip-on lock nut"(http://sliponlocknut.com/). It's actually two nuts...one on top of the other.
It works like this:
You'd line up the slots in both nuts by turning them, then fit to rod and turn them to close on the threaded rod. This way you don't have to take the rack apart. Just put four of these on to the four threaded rods, if that's what the rack uses, and put your shelf down on it to put your equipment on it. It's that simple...well, except for making sure all the nuts are in the right place so the shelf will be level.
It works like this:
You'd line up the slots in both nuts by turning them, then fit to rod and turn them to close on the threaded rod. This way you don't have to take the rack apart. Just put four of these on to the four threaded rods, if that's what the rack uses, and put your shelf down on it to put your equipment on it. It's that simple...well, except for making sure all the nuts are in the right place so the shelf will be level.
A Grounding Option for Removable Boards From Fixed Housings
Let's say you have a housing fixed to a process control or network communications rail that you can slide in different PCBs pending needed functions....and you want to be sure the board inserted will ground to the housing with no more work then to simply slide it into the housing. You might consider coating the housing with conductive paint that will make contact with a spring-loaded contact mounted on the PCB. I initiated this option in a network design at a telecommunications company. Testing proved this option was able to eliminate ESD damage up to 16KV. I was able to locate an off-the-shelf contact thereby knocking out costly NRE charges had we gone the custom part route.
Consider Help from Members of Agency Standards Organizations to Get That Competitive Edge
If you are involved in the design of a new product and agency standards are in the way of getting to what you would like your design to do.....find out if the part manufacturers you are dealing with are on those committees of the agency standard causing your headache and see if they will initiate the change you want.
For example....I worked for a company who wanted to be able to have three wires inserted into a terminal connector, but UL restricted input to only two wires. So....I worked with the connector company and found out a member of their team was on the UL committee who could make the modification to the standard to allow for a three wire input. And that person made it happen. By working with the manufacturer I was able to get, for my company's engineering team, the competitive edge they needed and knock out added cost to the BOM.
THIS is one of the more important reasons to be closely tied to the manufacturers of each part so that something like this can be achieved to help your products do well in their intended market segment.
For example....I worked for a company who wanted to be able to have three wires inserted into a terminal connector, but UL restricted input to only two wires. So....I worked with the connector company and found out a member of their team was on the UL committee who could make the modification to the standard to allow for a three wire input. And that person made it happen. By working with the manufacturer I was able to get, for my company's engineering team, the competitive edge they needed and knock out added cost to the BOM.
THIS is one of the more important reasons to be closely tied to the manufacturers of each part so that something like this can be achieved to help your products do well in their intended market segment.
Consider a Universal Power Supply
If you are building system level electronic products that use AC-DC power supplies to ship worldwide....consider using a universal power supply 85-265VAC with multiple outputs in order to save on inventory, BOM, RMA and service costs. Better to carry just one supply in the dimensions that fits more of your products then to carry multiple VAC input supplies fitting for countries requiring certain ranges. Consider using universals that are high efficiency and have very low standby wattage available...preferably a fraction of total watt output and where there is no overheating.
Using such supplies will also mean you can use universal power entry input modules that include a end-user switch for a specific country VAC requirement. These modules include fuses for each setting. You'll carry less specific input modules since you are using universal power supplies.
Using such supplies will also mean you can use universal power entry input modules that include a end-user switch for a specific country VAC requirement. These modules include fuses for each setting. You'll carry less specific input modules since you are using universal power supplies.
Identifying Product Manufacturing Flow Problems
As part of developing a comprehensive plan to create a much improved component management system for a 600-employee $300 million semiconductor products manufacturing company....I ran a series of interviews with the department heads that revealed a wide number of problems in managing their product manufacturing flow from concept to shipment to customers. Here's what they said:
1. No defined responsibilities.
2. Too many details on terms used or specified in the processes used here.
3. Data flow packages (travelers) contain far more information to act on then is needed...bogging down the cycle times.
4. What is conveyed to customers is not recorded for reference or shared between affected departments.
5. Limited coordination with affected suppliers when there are product changes.
6. Too many revisions during the advancing flow of a product manufacture without any reason nor record till the product has completed the entire process...then, and maybe....a review might be done.
7. Our engineers design cycles are slowed due to too many administrative tasks. These tasks are causing interruptions to their focus on designing.
8. Incomplete, inappropriate and non-compliant material and supplier specifications.
9. Limited controls to manager PCB design guidelines, formats, process and documentation. Too much making it up as it goes from one design cycle to the next.
10. Unable to track down where some of the parts we get are actually coming from.
11. Engineers do not want to take the time to find out if a part they need already exists in inventory or if it is being used in a current design.
12. Too much disagreement on which specifications are important....causing delays in selecting best parts to use in a design from one team to the next.
13. Not a lot of thought into how specifications of one part will affect others. Too many assumptions that cause problems later in the design cycle.
14. Engineering and manufacturing not working together to determine, per part and per quality requirement, the important criteria.
15. Too many details from a datasheet on a part being supplied to team members who have no need for such details. This creates confusion as to how to apply their responsibilities to such data.
16. Engineering teams unable to assess changes they will need to make when moving from small quantity production to high volume. The thought is that building a quantity of one is just as valid with the same parts, design and process as it would be to build for millions, for example.
17. Different departments disagree on just how much of each design can use SMT devices over through-hole. Too many engineers too stubborn and just want to move all through-hole parts to SMT devices.
18. Drawing attributes, custom and semi-custom parts often prove unrealistic to purchasing to support for production....meaning engineers don't want to address purchasing/production realities.
19. The adlib, make it up along the way, unsupported documentation, unfinished ECNs, lack of proper signoffs, the massive amount of redlined drawings, the wild revisions thrown in at the time the parts are released to purchasing....this needs to stop and be better managed, documented and measured for consistency with department policies and procedures.
20. Both old and revised procedures are being used.
21. Engineers do not note what specification variables are acceptable....they just assume the specs they supply should be met without question.
22. Engineers assume, once they have selected parts, that suppliers should simply have them in stock. In their mind...if the part is listed by the manufacturer...then it's available.
23. Part request forms do not contain enough information needed for making decisions further down the pipeline.
24. Too many procedures duplicated in the flow.
25. Too many drawings with errors are being released to suppliers with the thinking, if found by them, can just be revised while the supplier attempts to make the part.
26. There are no supporting documentation that explains how to fill out forms nor the meaning of the nomenclature on them.
27. There are no prompts on forms to cause engineers to consider what to fill out. So ...those parts are usually skipped by them.
28. There is a lack of ongoing training to understand and follow procedures.
29. Use MRP, ERP and PLM software is slowed to a crawl due to lack of training to understand the terminology used in them. Much of the use is a guess along the way with no consistency and thus causing lack of or incorrect input.
30. Documentation is extremely informal....used in whatever manner a user deems fitting on any given day and at any given time.
31. Few want to use the management software as it is seen as bogging down an already highly impacted work flow.
32. BOMS that should have drawings....don't.
33. Use of management software lacks a structure of different participation levels.
34. Many processes and procedures cannot handle the needs of different departments, but there are no updates to do so.
35. We really need to start condensing the amount of specifications we are documenting.
36. Process guidelines and specifications we use have no central location where we can access them in an effort to be consistent.
37. There is a need to use industry and agency standards, but there is allocated time to examine them nor implement them into the flow. Everyone wants them, but nobody wants the responsibility. Everyone knows of their importance for use in design, PCB rules and part qualification, for example.
38. Present system is inadequate to support reliable and consistent materials planning and management of manufacturing.
39. Pressure to change procedures puts too much pressure on the whole list of affected systems in the flow. And so it's skipped.
40. Tremendous resistance to change throughout the company even tho everyone knows it would be good thing....boils down to time in the midst of such a heavy-laden process flow...so it seems that is.
41. Much of our custom and semi-custom part specifications could be better rather than 'this will do'.
42. We need newer and more efficient capital equipment.
43. Too many headaches created by too many deep-in-the-process-flow problems coming up too late in the game of things.
And all this boils down to zero risk management. I can't emphasize enough the need for regular review of process flow throughout a company. The cost of not doing so means higher costs down the line.
1. No defined responsibilities.
2. Too many details on terms used or specified in the processes used here.
3. Data flow packages (travelers) contain far more information to act on then is needed...bogging down the cycle times.
4. What is conveyed to customers is not recorded for reference or shared between affected departments.
5. Limited coordination with affected suppliers when there are product changes.
6. Too many revisions during the advancing flow of a product manufacture without any reason nor record till the product has completed the entire process...then, and maybe....a review might be done.
7. Our engineers design cycles are slowed due to too many administrative tasks. These tasks are causing interruptions to their focus on designing.
8. Incomplete, inappropriate and non-compliant material and supplier specifications.
9. Limited controls to manager PCB design guidelines, formats, process and documentation. Too much making it up as it goes from one design cycle to the next.
10. Unable to track down where some of the parts we get are actually coming from.
11. Engineers do not want to take the time to find out if a part they need already exists in inventory or if it is being used in a current design.
12. Too much disagreement on which specifications are important....causing delays in selecting best parts to use in a design from one team to the next.
13. Not a lot of thought into how specifications of one part will affect others. Too many assumptions that cause problems later in the design cycle.
14. Engineering and manufacturing not working together to determine, per part and per quality requirement, the important criteria.
15. Too many details from a datasheet on a part being supplied to team members who have no need for such details. This creates confusion as to how to apply their responsibilities to such data.
16. Engineering teams unable to assess changes they will need to make when moving from small quantity production to high volume. The thought is that building a quantity of one is just as valid with the same parts, design and process as it would be to build for millions, for example.
17. Different departments disagree on just how much of each design can use SMT devices over through-hole. Too many engineers too stubborn and just want to move all through-hole parts to SMT devices.
18. Drawing attributes, custom and semi-custom parts often prove unrealistic to purchasing to support for production....meaning engineers don't want to address purchasing/production realities.
19. The adlib, make it up along the way, unsupported documentation, unfinished ECNs, lack of proper signoffs, the massive amount of redlined drawings, the wild revisions thrown in at the time the parts are released to purchasing....this needs to stop and be better managed, documented and measured for consistency with department policies and procedures.
20. Both old and revised procedures are being used.
21. Engineers do not note what specification variables are acceptable....they just assume the specs they supply should be met without question.
22. Engineers assume, once they have selected parts, that suppliers should simply have them in stock. In their mind...if the part is listed by the manufacturer...then it's available.
23. Part request forms do not contain enough information needed for making decisions further down the pipeline.
24. Too many procedures duplicated in the flow.
25. Too many drawings with errors are being released to suppliers with the thinking, if found by them, can just be revised while the supplier attempts to make the part.
26. There are no supporting documentation that explains how to fill out forms nor the meaning of the nomenclature on them.
27. There are no prompts on forms to cause engineers to consider what to fill out. So ...those parts are usually skipped by them.
28. There is a lack of ongoing training to understand and follow procedures.
29. Use MRP, ERP and PLM software is slowed to a crawl due to lack of training to understand the terminology used in them. Much of the use is a guess along the way with no consistency and thus causing lack of or incorrect input.
30. Documentation is extremely informal....used in whatever manner a user deems fitting on any given day and at any given time.
31. Few want to use the management software as it is seen as bogging down an already highly impacted work flow.
32. BOMS that should have drawings....don't.
33. Use of management software lacks a structure of different participation levels.
34. Many processes and procedures cannot handle the needs of different departments, but there are no updates to do so.
35. We really need to start condensing the amount of specifications we are documenting.
36. Process guidelines and specifications we use have no central location where we can access them in an effort to be consistent.
37. There is a need to use industry and agency standards, but there is allocated time to examine them nor implement them into the flow. Everyone wants them, but nobody wants the responsibility. Everyone knows of their importance for use in design, PCB rules and part qualification, for example.
38. Present system is inadequate to support reliable and consistent materials planning and management of manufacturing.
39. Pressure to change procedures puts too much pressure on the whole list of affected systems in the flow. And so it's skipped.
40. Tremendous resistance to change throughout the company even tho everyone knows it would be good thing....boils down to time in the midst of such a heavy-laden process flow...so it seems that is.
41. Much of our custom and semi-custom part specifications could be better rather than 'this will do'.
42. We need newer and more efficient capital equipment.
43. Too many headaches created by too many deep-in-the-process-flow problems coming up too late in the game of things.
And all this boils down to zero risk management. I can't emphasize enough the need for regular review of process flow throughout a company. The cost of not doing so means higher costs down the line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)