Question

Robots Fail Too By Ferra Weyhuni Within the recent month, there have been two sudden robot failures on two differ- ent tools during a build cycle. Lisa, the manufacturing engineer, has notified Nick, supplier quality engineer, about the failures, assuming that the two robots have some bad parts. She has requested that the two robots be sent back to the supplier for rework, even though no root cause has been identified. But, it seems that such a move has caused some to question where the blame should be placed. The focus of this case is related to project quality management. OUR BUSINESS The IEM Company is a high-tech company producing customized Ion and Electron Microscopes. The applications of their products can be used in a variety of fields, from academia to high-tech industries. Their customers are given the options of customizing the product to meet specific process needs. The company’s financial profile shows that their sales revenue last year exceeds $400 million. The company is currently upgrading their tools for the improvement in the imaging and wafer transfer system. This is required to help expand the market size and to meet customers’ satisfaction. This upgrading project was executed and is now in now in its operational stage. WE HAVE A PROBLEM AND IT IS NOT OUR FAULT Nick: How do you know it was the supplier’s fault? Is there a chance that we damaged them during handling or installation? Lisa: According to the Reject report, the technician said that the two robots were working fine for two weeks after installation. But then there were a few error lines such that the wafer transfer was stopped. Nick: We don’t really know if it’s the supplier’s fault or not. If it is their fault, those robots wouldn’t have worked for two weeks, would they? Lisa: True. However, anything is possible. I think we should send these machines back for them to check it out. Nick: We can’t just send them back without a well-documented “potential causes” report. Lisa: We don’t have time to do any tests or troubleshooting. They have the experts in their company who can test the robots to find out what’s wrong with the machines. I suggest we send them back and save ourselves some time. Nick agreed with Lisa’s suggestion. The two robots were sent back to the sup- plier for investigation. One week later, similar problems occurred on several other machines. The problem became so big that the issue was elevated to Donnie, a manufacturing engineering manager. Donnie asked Lisa to form a team to identify the root cause of the problem. Lisa agreed to put together the team to brainstorm the root cause and the next course of action. She promised to follow the following steps: goal definition, root cause analysis, countermeasures identification, and standardization. Lisa called a meeting with Nick and the other two manufacturing technicians, Joseph and Ryan. The team was working to get a list of possible causes for the problem. As a normal procedure in the team’s analysis, the first thing to do was to create a fishbone diagram. Joseph: As a starting point, can we capture what actually happened before the error message showed up on the screen? Ryan: I don’t really know what happened. I was just starting to teach the robot, following our procedure, but then the error message showed up. Joseph: That doesn’t make any sense. If nothing changed on the system itself, we shouldn’t have gotten the error. There’s got to be something changed on the system. Lisa: Let’s create a fishbone diagram for potential root causes of this problem. The team brainstormed using the affinity diagram method. The purpose of this exercise was to ensure everyone’s input was captured during the process. They determined the amount of time to be spent on brainstorming, and then went through each idea that each member came up with. When going through each idea, they also decided whether those ideas were candidates for root causes. If any of the ideas didn’t make sense, they put them aside and noted them as “possible but not likely” causes. Some of the ideas are shown in Table 8.1. Once the ideas of potential root causes were laid out, they started their fishbone diagram by grouping the potential causes into larger categories such as Software, Mechanical, etc. The fishbone diagram would be used as a tool to communicate with upper management as well as field personnel showing all possible items that needed to be checked if and when the errors occurred again. Figure 8.1 is an example of a fishbone diagram. Lisa: Here’s the fishbone diagram you requested. We came up with a few things that need to be checked using our tools on the manufacturing floor. Donnie: How much time do you need? Do you have a test plan for each item? Lisa: I have not created the test plan yet but it should be straightforward. Donnie: I think you should create a test plan to show us all what you’re going to do and what the results would be. The customer does not know that we have this issue on the manufacturing floor and they don’t know how severe it is. We should get to the root cause before it gets out of hand. Lisa: I understand. However, I don’t have the bandwidth to do all of this correctly. Donnie: This is of the highest priority now. Lisa: Okay. I will work on it. Lisa created a spreadsheet that could be used by technicians to test the tool for all possible causes (see Figure 8.2). This spreadsheet shows all activities to be per- formed to ensure there are no assumptions made by technicians. The results are recorded and anything worth noting during the test must be written down.

+ Abstract ?

+ Context and Background Information ?

+ Identification of the Main Issues/ Problems?

+ Analysis of the Issues?

Answer 1

Answer: Abstract

Robots Fail Too By Ferra Weyhuni Within the ongoing month, there have been two abrupt robot disappointments on two distinct tools during a form cycle. Lisa, the assembling engineer, has informed Nick, provider quality architect, about the disappointments, expecting that the two robots have some awful parts. She has mentioned that the two robots be sent back to the provider to modify, even though no main driver has been distinguished. The organization's money related profile shows that its business income a year ago surpasses $400 million. The organization is presently redesigning its tools for the improvement in the imaging and wafer move framework. They have specialists in their organization who can test the robots to discover what's going on with the machines. Scratch concurred with Lisa's proposal. The two robots were sent back to the provider for an examination.

The issue turned out to be enormous to the point that the issue was raised to Donnie, an assembling designing administrator. Donnie asked Lisa to frame a group to recognize the main driver of the issue. Lisa consented to assemble the group to conceptualize the underlying driver and the following game-plan. Lisa assembled a conference with Nick and the other two assembling specialists, Joseph and Ryan. The group was attempting to get a rundown of potential foundations for the issue. As a typical system in the group's examination, the primary activity was to make a fishbone graph. I was simply beginning to show the robot, following our method, yet then the mistake message appeared. There must be something changed on the framework.

While experiencing every thought, they additionally chose whether those thoughts were contenders for main drivers. If any of the thoughts didn't bode well, they set them aside and noted them as «possible yet not likely» causes. When the thoughts of potential main drivers were spread out, they began their fishbone outline by gathering the possible causes into bigger classifications, for example, Software, Mechanical, and so forth. The fishbone chart would be utilized as an instrument to speak with upper administration just as field faculty indicating every single imaginable thing that should have been checked if and when the blunders happened once more. Lisa made a spreadsheet that could be utilized by specialists to test the apparatus for every single imaginable reason. This spreadsheet demonstrates all exercises to be performed to guarantee there are no suspicions made by experts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you liked the answer please give an Up-vote, this will be quite encouraging for me, thank you!"