If CFM is so valuable, why don�t all EMS providers embrace it?

Implementation of CFM requires the willingness to embrace new thinking and great discipline. We�ve noted at Qualcon that it is often quite difficult for new hires with previous industry experience to implement CFM. The inaccurate concept of "busy people and machines equals productivity" is embedded in the psyche. As Goldratt so effectively illustrated in The Goal, the only effective measure of productivity is the revenue represented by finished goods shipped. We must first teach our production management and associate personnel the simple basics of CFM:

1. Don�t start until you can finish and don�t stop until you�re done.

2. Identify the "bottleneck."

5. Focus on first pass yield.

Note that 3. and 4. above are a cycle of continuous improvement.

Rejecting the concept of "busy people and machines equals productivity" frees us to focus on the real work and achieving CFM�s goal of producing more finished goods faster.

There is a second vital indicator of effective performance critical to effective CFM implementation: first-pass yield. First-pass yield is simply the percentage of tasks completed right on the first try. It is an indispensable measurement of quality in any operation, but is often miscalculated, with disastrous results. Too many EMS providers operating in BMM use a crude measurement of first-pass yield, patting themselves on the back because a high percentage of defect-free finished products go out the door. What they neglect to factor into their calculations is the amount of rework and in-process repair used to achieve those perfect end products. BMM is the ideal environment to mask the inefficient waste of complexity, whereas the CFM process spotlights unnecessary steps. In CFM your first-pass yield is high and your customer satisfaction rating is almost certainly the same.

Implementation of CFM in our industry also requires CFM-compatible equipment. A practical barrier to CFM deployment lies at the head of the line in SMT placement equipment. The EMS industry is saturated with SMT placement equipment that requires two hours or more to change from product to product. With two hours of down time between production runs it is evident that "batch size = 1" CFM is not financially viable.

Although Qualcon has invested $250,000 in computer controlled conveyors to more efficiently facilitate CFM, complex automatic conveyors are not required. The only absolute conveyance requirement is the discipline of CFM --- batch size = 1.

To enable Kanban at our hand-load stations, we have implemented computer-controlled personal work stations on both sides of the conveyor that automatically move boards from station to station once all production associates signal that they have completed their work (see Photo Inset 2). Again, while our automated process increases production efficiency, a manual slide-line operating within the discipline of CFM is satisfactory.

So what�s the answer to, "If CFM is so valuable, why don�t all EMS providers embrace it?" The answer is, "THEY WILL." Considering that nearly all EMS providers are currently operating manufacturing equipment and physical plant layouts that eliminate the possibility of CFM implementation, the change will be gradual since the conversion will require significant expenditures of capital and time. But I know they will, because you, the sophisticated OEM, will demand it.

You will demand CFM because the world is a highly competitive market and the efficiency of CFM is required to survive. Think of the implications of your competitor employing CFM. Your CFM competitor reduces cycle time by 75% and inventory carrying costs to the same degree; creating more cash for R&D. On the current product release, they beat you to market by a factor of three and due to the enhanced R&D effort they can now afford, they�ll be a product generation ahead of you in less than a year. Quality is built-in to your competitor�s CFM process and their superior first-pass yield will cause your product to be more expensive and less reliable.

As the worldwide EMS sector grows at an amazing rate of 25% annually or more, the time has come for our OEM customers to insist on symbiotic relationships with their EMS providers. OEMs and EMS provider goals must align identically. Both OEM and EMS provider must understand and believe that for either to succeed --- both must succeed. OEMs and EMS providers who embrace this concept of symbiosis must operate in CFM.

Definitely evolution. Qualcon did not invent CFM. In one venue or another CFM has been around since the beginning of time. We identified and benchmarked a variety of manufacturing operations worldwide considered best in class. Upon comparing the strategic common denominators among these world-class manufacturers, the most significant element we found was CFM. Through additional benchmarking of common tactical elements, and some creative innovation of our own, we were able to design and implement CFM. Although Qualcon did not invent CFM, we are proud to be the first EMS provider to effectively and exclusively implement it.

History provides many lessons in CFM. Beginning in 1939, German U-boats took a horrendous toll on shipping to and from England. By the time the United States entered the war in 1941, England was desperate for supplies, food and ammunition. The Germans were sinking freighters faster than they could be built. An American industrialist, Henry J. Kaiser, came to rescue with CFM. Up to 1941, freighters were built in BMM, with cycle times in most instances exceeding a year!

Although CFM is the seminal requirement for manufacturing efficiency, we expect that time will provide further refinements. One such refinement currently under examination is asynchronous process manufacturing (APM). Like CFM, APM is described as a linear process flow manufacturing methodology. When a product is put into production, it moves through the assembly process to the next available workstation --- not necessarily in the same production line. Sophisticated control software is required for dynamic real-time process control. Some proponents see APM as the successor to CFM. Industry literature indicates that those who view APM as a distinctly new and superior process to CFM, simply don�t understand CFM. The APM technical papers reviewed by Qualcon actually describe conversion of BMM to CFM-with-APM; and erroneously attribute enhanced efficiency to the APM sub-component. The only true differentiation between CFM and APM is the dynamic ability to perform processes on any available equipment in the plant regardless of line orientation. Considering the myriad of variable factors such as solder stencil sizes, fab/panel sizes, machine programming, oven and wave solder profiles, material (component prep and feeder loading), work instructions and production associate training; it is difficult to embrace the concept of APM in the EMS industry. Don�t write off APM. World-class OEMs who can limit variable factors through design discipline will be the first to effectively add APM to their CFM production. EMS providers would be well advised to focus first on the implementation of CFM.

Footnote: Electronic Packaging & Production, Beating the Challenges of High-Speed, High-Mix Assembly by Lloyd McConnell, June 1997, Pages 53,54,56,58.

CFM is the natural extension to manufacturing of the Just-In-Time (JIT) material planning philosophy so widely employed over the past decade.

It is for most, but not for all. When compared to BMM, the immense benefits of CFM appear as a panacea. Qualcon has learned from experience that the powerful attraction presented by CFM to EMS customers can be a painful learning experience for all parties. Most EMS customers require significant education in the principles of CFM to effectively participate.

The opportunity for customer education presents itself frequently. "You�ve got all of my SMT components. Go ahead and get us through SMT and we�ll get you the PTH components next week." Which invariably leads to, "You�ve got most of the PTH components. Whatever you�re missing, you can solder by hand later." These scenarios violate Rule #1 of CFM: Don�t start until you can finish and don�t stop until you�re done. In this case, complying with our customer�s requests would produce 100% BMM and totally defeat the efficiencies of CFM. Qualcon�s costs increase, as does our price to the customer. Cycle time increases three-fold and quality is jeopardized --- due equally to the lack of understanding and planning. What did the premature production start described above gain for the customer? Nothing. No assembly can be used until it�s complete. The operative question in CFM is always, "Will it allow me to ship more finished goods faster?" If the answer is "no," then the action is complexity and not real work.

A degree of design stability is required. Consider the customer who issued Qualcon an engineering change order for a programmable device on an assembly. Although the customer was aware that his 1,000 unit CFM production was scheduled for a production start the previous morning, he was nonetheless shocked to hear that we completed and shipped the assemblies the previous evening.

No matter how powerful the attraction to CFM is, breaking old BMM habits is a tough proposition.

There are many fine venues available for education to foster understanding of the CFM process. One of these is The John Costanza Institute of Technology in Denver, CO USA. But regardless of education, mutual discipline between customer and EMS provider is a required component success in CFM.

How will you know when your EMS provider is operating in CFM? When they stop quoting delivery lead times in weeks and start quoting lead times in hours, it�s probably time to take another look.