Focus on Business
Jake
Kulp

Phase Gates, Not Face-to-Face: Modernizing the EMS NPI Process

The six functions every successful NPI needs.

A recent exchange on LinkedIn about the EMS industry got me thinking about the many good, bad and ugly NPI processes I have been part of or audited over the years. While there is no one right answer to launching first articles in the EMS space, far too many unrepeatable and inefficient NPI processes are “time eaters,” enabling first-article failures and taking the NPI team away from their day-to-day duties. This month, we examine some basic principles to consider if your NPI process is not consistent from NPI launch #1 to NPI launch #100.

Figure 1. Dedicated online tools allow NPI team members to track their colleagues’ progress and reduce face-to-face meetings.

Let’s first agree on the definition of NPI and when an EMS should run the NPI process. NPI (new product introduction) is the process by which the EMS validates all steps and procedures needed for a first-article run that, once inspected and approved by the OEM, would permit the EMS to begin its production runs. A product should go through this process in a number of instances, including:

  1. When the factory has a new build it has never before produced.
  2. When an existing product currently being built is significantly changed.
  3. When a product has not been run in a very long time, say, a year.

Why does an NPI run require a robust and repeatable process? Without a documented process that outlines a conscious decision on what action to take, or not to take, decisions are left to memory and chance. Without a robust process, even if a successful NPI launch does occur, the odds are not good that the next run of first articles will be successful. A solid, well-defined process can also be adopted by other manufacturing sites when an EMS operates more than one facility. With most EMS companies advertising seamless transfers between sites to their OEM clients; it only makes sense that an OEM audit should verify whether the same NPI process is used by alternate sites scheduled to build their product.

A good NPI process is phase-gated, allowing functional participants on the launch to communicate and track the required workflow without meeting in person multiple times a week. The brute-force NPI processes, requiring numerous face-to-face meetings, take the functional participants away from their day-to-day tasks so they can simply be updated on the NPI progress, or lack thereof, and talk about any problems the participants may be experiencing as they move through their duties. This is not an efficient way to conduct business.

I strongly recommend online systems be utilized in which each function can update its specific required tasks, see the other team members’ progress (read only) and send notes back and forth to each other if questions or important learning occurs. In my case, the best I have seen was a home-baked system used at one of the EMS providers I worked with.

Even if the EMS has a standalone NPI team, as opposed to the functional areas a general manufacturing group would have, the same functions are required to participate in that NPI process through a successful manufacturing first-article run. The goals of these functions are to mitigate a failure in the handoff to manufacturing for the first-article build, and these functions should include:

  1. The business office or program manager (the PM should lead the NPI)
  2. Materials
  3. Product/manufacturing engineering
  4. Test engineering
  5. Quality
  6. Planning (the gatekeeper).

In my case, every task each functional leader could perform was listed on their respective computer screen. Keep in mind that the individual functional leader is the only participant who can update their own tasks, but each team member can see the other members’ screens as read-only. In this way, each member can track the progress of the other functional NPI team members. Very few face-to-face meetings are required.

Not every NPI requires every action to be taken. Listing all possible actions an NPI may need requires functional leaders to make conscious decisions of which actions to take and which are nonapplicable.

The screens should show:

  1. The functional owner of the task force.
  2. A list of each possible task or action.
  3. After each task/action, the screen should permit updates to include “not started,” “in process – add a start date and an ECD (estimated completion date)”; and “completed – state the end date finished.” Also, a “not applicable” status should be included.

Even in a dedicated NPI team, the functions are similar to the functional manufacturing participants. Let’s review these.

  1. Program manager (PM). The tasks that should be listed include obtaining the latest revised documents from the OEM, including any purchase agreements applicable to the build. The PCB details, the BoM/AVL, any ECNs, test requirements, quality requirements and a risk assessment may all be needed. Is this a leaded or RoHS deal? Are there any certificate of conformity (C of C) requirements?

A review of the purchase order to ensure that it matches the quote is in order. At this point, the team should also decide whether a DfM and DfT are needed based on the product’s complexity and the experience/capabilities of the EMS. (Note: A first article is not the right time to find all the design flaws that may make the product unbuildable.) Decisions to request a charge, or to do so at no charge, should be part of the business office’s decisions and communicated to the OEM. The PM should lead the NPI kickoff meeting as well. While the supporting functional areas within the EMS should be able to communicate with their OEM counterparts, a clear distinction must be made that the PM and a single OEM point of contact are the only authorized signatures to proceed with the NPI as-is or make changes to specs, the PO or contract(s).

  1. Materials. Any task required to drive all raw materials should be planned and executed. If a BoM scrub was not performed at the time of the quote, consider one now. The materials plan will consider costs, any consigned material, minimums, NCNR risks, any regulatory compliance issues to obtain the raw materials, PPV and lead times. They will ensure the MRP load of the BoM/AVL matches the bid on the previous quote and determine the logistics of obtaining needed material. Any unknown material risks discovered that may have changed from the bid will be communicated through the PM to the OEM for agreement on how to proceed.
  2. Product/manufacturing engineering. They ensure all assembly requirements are documented and communicated to the manufacturing team. All assembly tooling is identified and ordered. Even if the EMS relies on its PCB sources for the panel design, it must approve and document the work. Work instructions are generated in the EMS factory’s manufacturing support software system. DfM is performed and any major issue that would prohibit a successful first-article run is explained in detail to the OEM, identifying the specific requested action to be taken by the OEM. This group will also determine where in the factory (which SMT line and any secondary operations) manufacturing will occur. (This assumes there is not a defaulted/dedicated NPI line, which makes this decision much clearer.) During EMS first-article validation, before shipment to the OEM, all critical inspection points are documented (redlined) to accompany the shipment.
  3. Test engineering. They ensure all test-related activities are identified and communicated to manufacturing. If applicable, a DfT is completed and communicated to the OEM for any corrections the EMS suggests, or risk assessments are rethought if robust test coverage is absent. Will test software come from the OEM, or will the EMS develop it? ICT, FCT, flying probe and boundary scan plans, as required by the purchase order, are delivered to manufacturing. The validation of any test plan should occur at this time.
  4. Quality. All requirements needed to meet the OEM’s quality levels are considered. Incoming raw material inspection and the manufacturing quality plan are documented and given to manufacturing. Any agency approvals are coordinated, and all first-article final inspection requirements are documented and communicated to the responsible FQA individual on the build team.
  5. Planning. This is the ultimate gatekeeper of the NPI process. They must ensure all changes are made and monitor each functional team member’s progress with their tasks so the kit drop will be timely to meet the EMS’s committed first-article ship date. They provide a last look at the BoM structure and manufacturing order, ensuring they are accurate. When a high percentage – say 80% to 90% – of all the teams’ tasks are completed, they schedule the kit drop, which acts as the final “clear to build” warning to the NPI team to clean up any unfinished actions, as manufacturing capacity has now been scheduled and the kit drop is imminent.

An online NPI process like this has many advantages.

  1. Mitigates numerous time-consuming face-to-face team meetings for updates or questions.
  2. Ensures all steps needed for the NPI are completed and establishes a repeatable process that the NPI #100 launch will follow the same process as NPI launch #1.
  3. Ensures no critical action is missed, or a non-essential action is taken, leading to more successful initial first-article runs completed by the EMS.
  4. Gives the OEM confidence when making sourcing decisions for new product awards.
  5. Mitigates missing committed ship dates made by the EMS to the OEM and paves a path for a faster release of follow-on production runs, generating revenue for the EMS.
  6. Supports any TTM and TTV constraints the OEM may be under.
  7. Knowing the details of such a robust process is an excellent sales and marketing tool to win new clients.

What are the biggest NPI issues I have seen in the EMS marketplace?

  1. An NPI process left to individual whims and experience.
  2. Employing unrepeatable processes that vary even within the same customer’s launches.
  3. No DfM or DfT deployed on extremely complex designs, only to find unbuildable issues that stall the expensive SMT lines for days and cause missed ship commitments on the first articles. SMT lines idling while design or manufacturing issues are solved not only hurt committed first-article ship commitments but can negatively affect other customer commitments.
  4. Brute-force NPI processes requiring numerous in-person team meetings every week, chewing up time from other day-to-day tasks. This also impacts other customer issues and leads to dissatisfaction.
  5. Critical tasks missed, contributing to first-article failures.
  6. First-article failures resulting in an OEM walking away from the EMS after a large, hard-fought deal was won, and a multimillion-dollar revenue stream exiting to a competitor. (It takes a year or two to win most new large deal clients; how does the EMS get that time back?)
  7. The EMS missing its revenue plan due to a shortfall of new business caused by failures to launch.
  8. For a publicly traded company, missing guidance for the quarter or year due to failures to launch.
  9. Inconsistent EMS NPI processes from site to site, causing a first-article failure at a relocated EMS site, after successful builds at the initial site.
  10. Changes agreed upon by the OEM and EMS but do not follow a strict signature approval process, costing the EMS unexpected costs and OEM dissatisfaction.

In conclusion, nothing shakes an OEM’s confidence in its EMS selection like a failed first article. Moving to a new EMS is risky, and many new customer relationships have dissolved prior to a full-ramp revenue stream due to failed NPI launches.

An online NPI process permitted a small (mid-tier) EMS to divest all the PCBA manufacturing from a high-tech defense industry OEM and conduct over 250 NPIs in under 10 months, as well as continue its normal flow of NPI process with its existing customers.

If you have any off-the-shelf software that handles a similar online process, let us know so the EMS industry can continue to evolve. “Snitches may get stitches,” but bad NPI processes bruise our business. End of article content

Jake Kulp is founder of JHK Technical Solutions, where he assists OEMs and EMS companies with optimizing demand creation offerings and deciding when and where to outsource manufacturing. He previously spent nearly 40 years in executive roles in sales and business development at MC Assembly, Suntron, FlexTek, EMS, and AMP Inc. He can be reached at jkulp@cox.net.