RMAs: Negative Experience or Valuable Opportunity?


Reading time ( words)

Returned product is inevitable if you work in manufacturing. That does not imply that it is easy to address. No matter what the reason for the returned material, it disrupts the normal flow of the quality and manufacturing teams. An inspector must first review the defect and agree that it is indeed a defect. This seems like a simple task and can be if the material doesn’t match a customer specific requirement.

However, if the material must adhere to an industry-wide standard, such as an IPC standard in the circuit industry, it becomes a little more tedious. In most cases the manufacturer will be more familiar with the specification than their customer. Also, they are more likely to keep the latest revision of the requirements in their library. This can cause a situation where the customer has identified a reject that isn’t agreed upon when compared to the standard it was built to. Tedious indeed!

As well, there are other cases that have been witnessed by the author that create a lessthan-easy situation. For instance, if the customer sends back rejected material that wasn’t built by your company. This is typically easy to determine by company markings. Or they send back materials that have obviously been damaged by handling at their own facility. It complicates an already difficult process.

How does it happen?

In the flexible circuit industry (and any other industry, for that matter), there are times when all the material delivered to the customer fails to meet the specifications. This can happen for a number of reasons and typically depends on the final inspection process. Two common final inspection processes used are sampling and 100%. When a product utilizes the 100% inspection process, every part that is shipped to your customer will also have been inspected. A sampling process is intuitively a partial inspection, typically 10-25% of the total, and is used on products that have a long history of zero defects.

To read the full version of this article which originally appeared in the April 2018 issue of Flex007 Magazine, click here.

Share

Print


Suggested Items

I-Connect007 Editor’s Choice: Five Must-Reads for the Week

08/28/2020 | Andy Shaughnessy, Design007 Magazine
This week, we have quite a potpourri for you. There's good news about the PCB market. And as this year continues to surprise us at every turn, companies are discovering the true nature of their leaders. Todd Kolmodin has a great column about bosses and leaders and why the two words are not synonymous. Not to be outdone, columnist Barry Olney found a way to explain the wavelength of electromagnetic energy by using a chocolate bar and a microwave oven. We also have great articles by Sagi Reuven and Pete Starkey.

Avishtech: A New Player in the Field Solver and PCB Simulation Tools Market

08/13/2020 | I-Connect007 Editorial Team
It has been a crazy year with lots of ups and downs. But within the clouds, we’ve seen plenty of silver linings, too. Case in point: Avishtech, a brand-new company lead by founder and CEO Keshav Amla. (You may be familiar with his father, Tarun Amla, a veteran PCB materials technologist who is now with ITEQ.) We recently caught up with Keshav and asked him to discuss his company’s simulation tools, his plans for the company, and what it’s like launching a company in this “new normal.”

Dana Korf: What Fabricators Expect From Designers

06/18/2020 | I-Connect007 Editorial Team
Andy Shaughnessy and Barry Matties spoke with Dana Korf, former chief PCB technologist for Huawei and currently principal consultant of Korf Consultancy, about the breakdown in communication between manufacturers and designers. Dana discusses exactly what a fabricator expects from a PCB designer, why these expectations are often not met, and the need for designers to make mistakes so that they can learn from them.



Copyright © 2020 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.