Test Strategy Cost Model Innovations - Semantic Scholar

methodologies utilized to derive the Return-On-Investment (ROI) analysis of a particular manufacturing test strategy. The. Test Strategy Cost Model of...

20 downloads 219 Views 249KB Size
Test Strategy Cost Model Innovations

Carlos Michel

Rosa D. Reinosa

Hewlett-Packard Company Montemorelos 299 Guadalajara, Jalisco México 45060 [email protected]

Hewlett-Packard Company 1501 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, California United States 94304-1100 [email protected]

Abstract The selection of an adequate set of test and inspection techniques to verify the quality and functionality of a product, as well as, the integrity of the manufacturing process can be a complex task. This selection process would normally require a detailed technical assessment on the effectiveness of each test technique, trade-off analysis among alternate test techniques/platforms and an economic evaluation of the various options available. In industry today, there are many methodologies utilized to derive the Return-On-Investment (ROI) analysis of a particular manufacturing test strategy. The Test Strategy Cost Model of the National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative [1], Inc. (NEMI) completed, in April 2003, has been enhanced based on the feedback received from users of the model and on experiences of the authors when applying this model to analyze current product test strategies.

Addition of DPMO default values from NEMI study.

Introduction A paper describing the first version of the NEMI test cost model was presented at the Board Test Workshop (BTW03) in 2003 [2]. Since then, the test strategy cost model has evolved in many areas in order to expand its usability, increase its accuracy, and efficiency.

The test strategy cost model described in this paper provides the user with the option to select Yield or DPMO (Defect per Million Opportunity) data from the PCA test strategy under evaluation.

This paper describes all the new features incorporated in the model and presents a real case study for helping the users understand the process/methodology used when applying the test cost model.

The test cost model has the ability to perform the calculations with either DPMO information from the PCA or with Yield data from the test and manufacturing process history of the PCA.

Background

If the yield of the PCA is not known, the user can either utilize a historic yield for a similar product, a default yield provided by the model or launch the DPMO calculator which is embedded in the model and which utilizes the types, quantities and defects levels of all electronic packages that make up the PCA, number of joints on the board and yield at the first test stage of the first strategy.

The NEMI Test Strategy Project was organized to address the loss of physical access and fault coverage at In-Circuit Test (ICT) caused by the physical space constraints of increasingly dense interconnections and electronic packaging designs. Project activities were organized into three working groups: test coverage analysis, test vehicle analysis and test strategy cost model. The test strategy cost model can help drive quick decisions by demonstrating the value of adding or removing test stages vs. utilizing sampling strategies vs. 100% inspection methods. Users of the model can determine the drivers of making a test strategy a viable option such as PCA volumes, PCA costs, investments vs. returns, etc. by comparing two test strategies. Paper 13.3 384

The following table (table 1) is a snapshot of the package defect levels that are used for the PCA DPMO calculation. The DPMO default values provided in the table are based on a study performed by Stig Oresjo [3] in 2001.

ITC INTERNATIONAL TEST CONFERENCE 0-7803-8580-2/04 $20.00 Copyright 2004 IEEE

DPMO

Structural DPMOJ

Structural DPMOC

Electrical DPMOC

4

Leaded (Gullwing)

200

100

100

5

Leaded (Gullwing)

500

100

100

6

Leaded (Gullwing)

700

100

100

7

Leaded (Gullwing)

1000

100

100

8

Leaded (Gullwing)

10000

100

100

9

Leaded (Gullwing)

15000

100

100

10

Jlead

300

100

100

11

Eutectic BGA

100

100

100

12

Eutectic BGA

150

100

100

13

NonEutectic BGA

150

100

100

14

CSP

100

100

100

15

Column Grid

100

100

100

16

1206 SMT

400

200

100

17

0805 SMT

150

300

100

18

0402 SMT

150

400

100

19

0201 SMT

200

400

100

20

1206 Wave

400

500

100

21

0805 Wave

150

1000

100

22

0402 Wave

150

2000

100

23

SMT Connector 1

2000

100

100

24

SMT Connector 2

2000

100

100

25

Res/Cap Pack 1

100

200

100

26

Res/Cap Pack 2

100

200

100

27

PTH/Wave 1

2000

200

100

28

PTH/Wave 2

2000

200

100

29

PTH/Wave 3

2000

200

100

30

PTH/Wave 4

2000

200

100

Table 1 DPMO levels based on 2001 study The National Electronic Manufacturers Initiative (NEMI) completed a DPMO study [4] in 2004. In this study 11 companies and manufacturing sites contributed with DPMO data. The outcome of this project is a database containing number of defects, opportunities and DPMO levels at the termination, placement, component and assembly levels based on a volume of more than 300k boards from 380 different board types. The DPMO levels from the NEMI database are embedded in the test cost model. Through an option window at the inputs section the user can select to utilize (for the model calculations) default data from the following options: 1) Yield. Users can select this option when yield data from the manufacturing and test process is known (i.e. for a test strategy currently in use). Normally this option is utilized when the user is running the model to analyze the tradeoffs in cost and coverage of adding a new test stage to an existing test strategy for a product currently in manufacturing.

The following two options can be used when yield information is not known, like in the case when defining the test strategy for a new product to be introduced in manufacturing. 2) DPMO defaults 1. When this option is selected the user must enter the quantities of each package type that are present on the board under consideration. The model then will calculate the overall DPMO (and yield) values based on the DPMO default levels provided in the study performed by Stig Oresjo [3] in 2001. 3) DPMO defaults 2. When this option is selected, as in option 2 - DPMO defaults 1, the user must enter the quantities of each package type that are present on the board under consideration. The model then will calculate the overall DPMO (and yield) values based on the DPMO default levels provided in the NEMI DPMO study [4] completed in 2004.

Automated Sensitivity Analysis This new feature is driven by user’s input. Users of the previous version of the test cost model wanted to have an automated capability for conducting sensitivity analysis when considering a variety of implementation scenarios based on the selection of key strategic drivers. These strategic drivers are Volume and Coverage; therefore two new modules for the automated sensitivity analysis were added to the test cost model: Annualized Volume Analysis and Coverage Analysis. Annualized Volume Analysis In the automated volume sensitivity analysis the user can enter up to 10 values (or checkpoints) for the annual volume to be analyzed. These 10 volume-checkpoints can be selected by default. The default volumes are shown in the figure below (table 2). # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Annual Volume 500 2,000 10,000 30,000 50,000 100,000 200,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000

Table 2 Volume default values

The model then, will automatically calculate the savings obtained with the proposed test strategy on each of the Paper 13.3 385

10 checkpoints (volumes) provided by the user (or the default volumes, if selected). This new automated feature is very useful when users of the model want to verify at what point (in volume) makes economical sense to modify a current test strategy by adding new test stages (and test equipment) or improving, at additional cost, the coverage of the current strategy. It helps test strategists to answer the question: What is the volume required to profitability implement a proposed test strategy? The model automatically calculates the equipment needed to test each of the 10-checkpoint volumes. The test cost of any additional equipment is calculated and taken into consideration in the analysis as well (refer to section Automated Capability Analysis on this paper). The output of the Annualized Volume Analysis is presented in a graphic in which the savings of the proposed strategy are displayed for each of the 10 volume-checkpoints selected by the user. Below is an example of the output provided by the model (figure 1).

Checkpoint 1 … 10

Test Stage

Coverage & Cost

AXI

ICT

FT

Coverage

98.5%

75%

99.3%

Cost

-----

-----

-----

Coverage

98.5%

80%

99.3%

Cost

-----

$1,500

-----

Coverage

98.5%

85%

99.3%

Cost

-----

$5,000

-----

Table 3 Up to 10 checkpoints or coverage values

In this part of the analysis the user must enter the delta cost (or savings) associated with the incremented (or decremented) coverage at each test stage of the strategy (see table 3). These associated costs are reflected on the savings displayed on the analysis result. The output of the Automated Coverage Analysis is presented in a graphic in which the savings of the proposed strategy are displayed for each of the 10 coverage-checkpoints selected by the user. Below is an example of the output provided by the model (figure 2).

Volume vs Savings

Coverage vs Savings

$300,000 $150,000

$250,000

$100,000

$200,000 $150,000

$50,000

$100,000

100,000

93,000

82,000

67,000

54,000

45,000

32,000

20,000

12,000

-$100,000

5,000

-$50,000

-$150,000 -$200,000

Figure 1 Example of the output of the Annualized Volume Analysis

Coverage Analysis Similarly to the Annualized Volume Analysis an option for an Automated Coverage Analysis is available. In this new module the test cost model calculates the savings obtained with the proposed test strategy (as compared with the current test strategy) at 10 different checkpoints or coverage values. Although each of these 10 coverage values represents the coverage of the overall test strategy, the user can modify the coverage of each individual test stage and then the model will automatically calculate the overall strategy coverage (see table 3). Paper 13.3 386

95%

93%

91%

89%

87%

85%

82%

80%

-$50,000

77%

$0

75%

$0

$50,000

-$100,000 -$150,000 -$200,000

Figure 2 Example of the output of the Automated Coverage Analysis

Automated Capability Analysis There is another new module on the test cost model that includes an intelligent feature to estimate the production capacity based on the production volume, test time and line throughput. With this new feature the test strategy cost model automatically estimates the test resources needed to support each of the test strategies being considered. In addition, the model provides visibility to test equipment requirements based on production volumes.

Case Study The following is a case study that shows the process of collecting/completing the inputs of the test cost model and understanding the outputs of the model. The purpose of this section is to help the users understand the organizational issues and the methodology utilized when applying this model.

Test Strategy # 1 Field Return Rate [%]: Number of Test/Inspection Stages [1-10]:

Test Effectiveness [%]: Test Access Multiplier:

This case study is based on a project in which the model was applied in order to analyze the cost/savings and yield/coverage tradeoffs of adding and Automated Xray Inspection (AXI) stage into a current test strategy (for a product currently in manufacturing in HewlettPackard) composed of In-Circuit Test (ICT) and Functional Test (FT) only.

Test Time [min]:

The table below (Table 4) summarizes the inputs for both, the current and the proposed test strategies that include Automatic X-ray Inspection (AXI), In-Circuit Test (ICT) and Functional Test (FT). The model can accommodate up to 10 test stages per strategy.

FT 80.00%

1

0.8

1

3.00

1.00

5.00

0

1

2

100.00

0.05

1

1

2

Annual Test Operator Cost [$]:

Number of Test Operators:

$28,000

$35,000

$35,000

Repair feedback loop [1 or 0]:

0

1

1

90.00%

90.00%

90.00%

Repair Yield [%]:

Inputs

Field and warranty organizations had to be involved in the process and mountains of data were analyzed before we could get a reliable input for the Field Return Cost and Field Return Rate for just a single product.

ICT 80.00%

1000.00

Diagnostic Cost [$/per defect]:

Some of the most difficult values to obtain are values related with warranty costs (Field Return Cost and Field Return Rate).

AXI 90.00%

False Reject Rate:

Repair Cost [$/per defect]:

The first step is to select whether to use DPMO or Yield data for the calculations in the model. Since we already had a manufacturing history for this product we selected to use yield information

2

False Reject Units:

Although the input values presented in this paper are the same as the model default values (the real product and manufacturing values are not shown here) the conclusions of the present case study are still valid as the methodology described here is the same methodology as the one applied in the project.

Through the input section, the user enters all the variables that describe the key PCA manufacturing process financial metrics such as Annual PCA Production Volume, PCA cost and Field Return Cost (per board) and the test stages for the various alternative options.

1.00%

Re-test Cycles Permitted:

3

3

$1.00

$1.00

$1.00

$1.00

$5.00

$35.00

Equipment Cost [$]: $450,000 $500,000 $50,000 Fixture Cost [$]:

$0

$20,000

$15,000

Programming Cost [$]:

$10,000

$30,000

$30,000

Annual Maintenance Cost [$]:

$25,000

$20,000

$20,000

3

3

3

Equipment Depreciation (years):

Table 4 Test Strategy Inputs

The board and field return costs were obtained from the market history data of the product. All the other required information was available except for the X-ray inspection stage of the new strategy for which data history didn’t exist. In order to obtain such data an AXI test effectiveness study was performed with the assistance of our test partner, who programmed the AXI equipment and ran five hundred boards on their tester. That is how accurate numbers for the test coverage and the test time (as well as for the rest of the inputs) were obtained. The Cost Model also includes a Time to Market (TTM) Savings module that can be selected to estimate the cost savings for an early market entry or losses for delays introduced during the new product introduction phase. But since this product is already in the market the Time to Market section of the model was not selected. Calculations The following represent the key calculations that are included in the test cost model:

Paper 13.3 387

Yield

Re-Test Cost

Yield Costs

Defect escapes

Field Return Cost

Effectiveness

Scrap Cost

Programming Cost

Repair Cost

Maintenance Cost

False Reject Cost

Equipment Cost

Diagnostic Cost

Test Operator Cost

More information on yield can be found on the test cost model User’s Guide [1] and on reference [5].

Yield Enhancement Savings Time to Market Savings Return of Investment Metrics. Savings with Strategy 2.

Internally the test cost model uses DPMO data to perform all the calculations. However in some cases, like in the present case study, when manufacturing history exists, yield information is easier to obtain and the test cost model must automatically translate yield data into DPMO information. Following are the formulas and the rationale behind the formulas utilized in the test cost model to perform yield and DPMO calculations. A) Yield Calculation. Yield is the area under the probability density curve between tolerances. From the Poisson distribution this equates to the probability with zero failures. Mathematically, this relationship is described by Equation 1. −λ

− e λx Y = P( x = 0) = = e −λ = e U = e − DPU x! D

B) DPMO (Defect Per Million Opportunities) calculation. Some organizations give focus only to the rate of defects at the end of a process. A defect level per unit calculation, however, can give additional insight into a process by including the number of opportunities that exist for a failure to occur. A defect level per unit metric considers the number of opportunities for failure within the calculations. A pareto chart of the defects or fault spectrum by DPMO can give insight to where test process improvement efforts should focus. The DPMO of the process is calculated using Equation 2.

DPMO =

Equation 2 DPMO formula Where D is the defects on board and O is the total opportunities for defect. In the spreadsheet, D is calculated as the sum of the structural defects (DS) plus electrical defects (DE):

D = DS + D E Equation 3 Defects on Board Structural and electrical defects are calculated with the number of components and joints on the board, the structural and electrical DPMOc (components) and DPMOj (joints) and with the structural and electrical multiplier:

DS =

Equation 1 Yield

CB = Components on Board. JB = Joints on Board. SC = Structural DPMOc.

Probability of -DPU defect =1-e

Figure 3 Yield Measurement Paper 13.3 388

10 6

Where:

Specification limit

-DPU

(C B × S C × M S ) + (J B × S J × M S ) Equation 4 Structural Defects

Where λ is the mean of the distribution and x is the number of failures. This relationship is shown pictorially in Figure 3.

Yield =e

D × 10 6 O

DE =

SJ = Structural DPMOj. EC = Electrical DPMOc. MS = Structural Multiplier. ME = Electrical Multiplier.

C B × EC × M E 10 6

Equation 5 Electrical Defects The electrical and structural multiplier can be modified by the user in order to reduce or increase the electrical and structural number of defects on the board. For example, if there is a known design problem with the

component, a structural multiplier of 2 or 3 will increase the defects on that component to reflect the design problem. C) DPMO calculation using Yield data. If a user lacks the DPMO data, the yield data can be utilized to backward calculate the DPMO by utilizing Equation 2. However, the defects on board (D) are calculated utilizing the following method. From equation 1 we know that the yield is:

− DF

Y =e n

Equation 6 Yield at stage n. Where DF is the number of defects found at test stage n. Test coverage can be defined as:

DPMO = −

ln(Yn ) O × TE × T A

Equation 10 DPMO calculated from yield data Once that the DPMO and Yield calculations are completed, the model then calculates two other important values: the defects escaping out of each test stage and the test effectiveness of each test as well for the overall strategy D) Defect escapes. The DPMO calculated on B) or C) is used as the number of defects entering to test strategy 1 and test strategy 2. The yields of the test stages are calculated using the formula of equation 6. The defects entering to following stages are the defects that escape from previous stages.

TC = TE × T A

The defects that escape from a test stage can be defined as the total defects on board minus the defects found at that particular stage:

Equation 7 Test Coverage

Don = Db − Df n

Where TE is the test effectiveness and TA is the test access. The number of defects found on a particular test stage is:

Don = Db − (Tc n × Db )

DF = TC × D

Don = Db(1 − Tc n )

Equation 7a Defects found.

Equation 11, Defect escapes from stage n.

Where TC is the test coverage at that particular stage, and D is the number of defects on the board. By substituting equation 7 into equation 7a, DF can be obtained.

Don is the number of defects that escape from stage ‘n’, Db is the number of defects on the board, Dfn is the number of defects found at stage ‘n’ and Tcn is the test coverage at stage ‘n’.

D F = TE × T A × D

E) Test Effectiveness. The effectiveness of each test strategy is defined in the model as the relationship of the defects that enter to the strategy and the defects that escape from that strategy.

Equation 8 Defects Found at stage n and substituting equation 8 into equation 6:

Y =e n

−T

E

×T × D A

− ln (Yn ) = TE × T A × D D=−

ln(Yn ) TE × T A

Equation 9 Defects on Board

TEn =

Din − Don Din

Equation 12, Test effectiveness of strategy n. Where Din is the number of defects entering to strategy ‘n’ and Don is the number of defects escaping from strategy ‘n’. Using the formulas above to calculate the defect escapes in our case study the model shows the following Paper 13.3 389

comparison of the defect escapes for the current and the proposed strategy. ICT Yield 85 % Defects 5,078

FT Yield 93% Defects 1,828

AXI Yield 80 % Defects 1,828

To find out when will make economical sense to invest in an AXI test stage for the current strategy is necessary to look into the volume-forecast (table 5) for this particular project. Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Defects 365

ICT Yield 97% Defects 965

FT Yield 99% Defects 347

Defects 70

Figure 4 Test Defect Escapes The remainder model calculations are described in the NEMI Test Cost Model User’s Guide [1] in the appendix called ‘A Case Study’. Outputs The output section of the model provides a summary of estimated costs vs. savings/ losses introduced by each of the test strategies under evaluation. A comparison of the costs of both strategies, as well as, the total savings introduced as a result of yield improvements or other process improvements provides the ability to determine which test strategy will bring the best return on investment for a company. Figure 5 shows the outputs of the model for the present case study.

Annual Volume 5,000 12,000 20,000 32,000 45,000 54,000 67,000 82,000 93,000 100,000

Table 5 Forecasted Volumes Using these ten values as volume-checkpoints for the Automated Annualized Volume Analysis in the cost model, we get the following results: Volume vs Savings $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000

Test Cost

Strategy 1

Strategy 2

Difference

$400,000

$613,000

-$213,000

100,000

93,000

82,000

67,000

54,000

45,000

32,000

-$100,000

20,000

Annual Savings

12,000

-$50,000

5,000

$0

Summary of Savings with Strategy # 2

-$150,000 -$200,000

Figure 6 Results of the Annualized Volume Analysis

Yield Enhancement Savings:

$99,195

Total savings with strategy 2:

-$113,815

Figure 5 Summary of annual costs & savings From the outputs of the model it can be observed that it doesn’t make economical sense to add the Automatic Xray Inspection stage to the current test strategy. According with the cost model calculations the recurring and non-recurring costs of the new test stage are higher than the potential savings generated by the coverage improvement obtained with the addition of the AXI stage. Paper 13.3 390

Conclusions of the case study By observing the results of the test cost model calculations it can be concluded that, for the current annual production volume, the overall cost of adding AXI into the current test strategy are prohibitive, but for 2005 and beyond (with annual volumes above 45K) it is recommended to implement the X-ray station since for that volumes the return will be greater than the investment.



Model Limitations •



The list of package types and their defect levels are not representative of all package types currently available in industry. The present tool models test coverage of each test stage as a multi-stage test, such that test coverage always overlaps from one stage to another. This model does not accurately represent results when multiple test stages are used in a complementary manner. For example, if test stage 1 had 100% coverage of all defects on 60% of the board that it can access and test stage 2 had 100% coverage of all defects on 40% of the board that it can access, the model would not deliver accurate results. Stage 1 Test Access

Stage 2 Test Access

60%

100 defects

100% Coverage

40

40

escapes

defects

Faults detected

Stage 2

0 escapes

100% Coverage

+

40

100% Coverage

=

Actual Coverage

Instead of giving a result that represents 100% coverage, the model would deliver only 76% coverage of the board. The model was constructed in this manner in order to simplify the calculations. Users of the model need to take these limitations into account when considering complementary test coverage. 100 defects

Stage 1 100% Coverage (60% Access) Faults detected

60

40

40

escapes

defects

+

A true failure diagnosed as a true failure. A true failure diagnosed as a false failure. A false failure diagnosed as a true failure. A false failure diagnosed as a false failure.

In this test cost model we are assuming a 100% diagnostic yield, which means that any diagnostic performed is always able to catch failures. In other words, in the present tool we are only considering cases 1 and 4. The economic impact of the false failures (case 4) is reflected on the test cost model in the calculation of the diagnostic and re-tests costs.

There are potential model enhancements to the tool suggested by users of the test cost model and that are under consideration that could continue to improve the accuracy and usability of the model in the future. For example, the model is not designed to handle system testing where a number of cards are brought together in a box and then the box is shipped out to a customer. Including this type of capabilities will increase the cost model’s flexibility.

Faults detected

60

1. 2. 3. 4.

Future Work

40%

Stage 1

In a test process there are true failures and false failures. When we have a diagnostic process, the following things can happen with the failures detected at a particular test station :

24

Stage 2 100% Coverage (40% Access) Faults detected

16

escapes

=

Coverage Calculated by the Test Cost Model

76% Coverage

Conclusions The NEMI test cost model was created with the intent of enabling decisions when considering trade-offs between manufacturing test techniques. The model is intended to be used by engineers or managers that are responsible for making decisions on test strategies for their company. The tool can be utilized to justify the economic investment made when selecting a test strategy. The utilization of actual data in the model will drive accuracy onto the calculations. Therefore, the cost model results will be credibly and trusted. The model has been created to justify test strategies in a high volume production environment. However, the model can still be utilized in low volume production environments when the equipment is shared by various production lines. This scenario, however, would require a greater deal of calculations, multiple runs of the model and sensitivity analysis. Today’s estimates of ROI of manufacturing test strategies generate different results because they are not based on common financial drivers. The NEMI Test Paper 13.3 391

Strategy Project members would like to see an industry wide adoption of the model. Standardization of the economic analysis of production test strategies will bring consistency to the overall approach for determining the financial impact of various test techniques. The model is available to industry (free of charge) on the NEMI website [1].

References [1] “NEMI Test Strategy Cost Model” Download the cost model and User’s Guide at: http://www.nemi.org/projects/TSCM/test_strat_cost_mo del.html. [2] Michel, Carlos. Reinosa, Rosa. “Manufacturing Test Strategy Cost Model” Proceedings of the Board Test Workshop at the International Test Conference 2003. [3] Oresjo, Stig “One Billion Solder Joints …and Counting” Circuits Assembly, February 2001. [4] NEMI DPMO Project visit NEMI DPMO website: http://www.nemi.org/projects/ba/dpmo.html [5] Breyfogle, Forrest “Implementing Six Sigma.” Wiley Interscience, John Wiley & Sons Inc Verma, Amit. “Management of DPMO metrics reduces the cost of PCB assembly” APEX 2003, Conference Proceedings Ungar, Louis. Ambler, Tony. “Economics of Built-In Self-Test” IEEE. Design and Test of Computers 2001

Paper 13.3 392