JP5603666B2 - Manufacturer quality evaluation system and manufacturer quality evaluation program - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a board maker quality evaluation system that evaluates the quality of each board maker in the selection of the board maker, and more particularly to a board maker quality evaluation system that can make a comprehensive judgment with less time and man-hours.

[Conventional technology]
Conventionally, quality evaluation of a printed circuit board and a board manufacturer has been performed when a set manufacturer or the like considers a purchasing manufacturer.
In that case, it has been mainly performed to relatively judge overall quality management evaluation, price, performance, etc. that are not specialized for the board of items such as ISO9000 series.
Alternatively, the specification is determined, and the quality level specialized for the substrate is sometimes evaluated against the specification.

[Related technologies]
As a related prior art, there is JP-A-2000-277888, “Method for Manufacturing Printed Circuit Board” (Hitachi Kokusai Electric Inc.) [Patent Document 1].
Although Patent Document 1 relates to a method for manufacturing a printed circuit board, there is currently no method for efficiently and comprehensively evaluating the manufacturer of the printed circuit board manufactured in this way.

JP 2000-277888 A

However, with the conventional quality evaluation method, it is difficult to give an overall index as to which manufacturer is suitable for various specifications, and it is very difficult to evaluate comprehensively, quantitatively and relatively. There was a problem that it took time and man-hours. In other words, the current situation is that the evaluation results are uniform at one point.
For this reason, manufacturers are often determined by important factors in addition to technical capabilities and price.

  In addition, the same consideration is made when board manufacturers improve their own quality. In that case, detailed process analysis and factor analysis are performed for improvement, but general level indicators are There was also a problem that relative evaluation was not made.

In recent years, price competition has intensified, and the need to consider overseas suppliers is increasing. Ensuring quality at that time has very difficult problems such as differences in the quality of defective content compared to domestic manufacturers.
Furthermore, there is no quantitative and effective screening method for products that have technical issues with new specifications even for manufacturers that continue to trade.

  The present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances, and an object of the present invention is to provide a board manufacturer quality evaluation system capable of making a comprehensive, quantitative, and relative judgment with less time and man-hours.

The present invention for solving the problems of the conventional example described above is a manufacturer quality evaluation system for evaluating the quality of a product manufacturer. For each manufacturer, a performance evaluation value Q1, a defect rate evaluation value Q3, numerical values of document examination items, Stores numerical values of management system items and technical capability items, and also includes multiple probable causes defined for multiple defect contents of process control items for each manufacturer, and people, machines, materials, methods, and measurements for each probable cause. 3H degree of change, after a long time is evaluated for the first time about the occurrence frequency information classified by 5M, evaluation information, influence degree information, discovery difficulty level information, defect occurrence work, and index of defect occurrence probability It becomes dangerous factor, a storage unit for storing a prevention method based on grade for each probable cause, as a processing means implemented by the operation of the processing program, stored in the storage unit, for defect content Raw frequency information, information of influence, information discovery difficulty calculates a rating for each manufacturer based on the risk factors, to determine the grade corresponding to the rating, the method for preventing from the storage unit corresponding to the grade both reading each probable cause, and imparts an evaluation point in the process management item selected in particular grades, calculates the average value of the evaluation points, the average value, the numerical value of the document review items stored in the storage unit , A process examination evaluation value Q2 which calculates a process examination evaluation value Q2 based on the numerical value of the management system item and the technical capability item and stores it in the storage unit, and the actual evaluation value from the storage unit for each manufacturer Q1, evaluation value acquisition means for acquiring the process inspection evaluation value Q2, and the defect rate evaluation value Q3, and a comprehensive evaluation based on the performance evaluation value Q1, the process inspection evaluation value Q2, and the defect rate evaluation value Q3 for each manufacturer calculates the evaluation value Q _ALL, related to the adoption And overall evaluation value calculation means for setting a decision that is characterized by having a control unit comprising a.

According to the present invention, the control unit uses a process examination evaluation value calculation means to define a plurality of estimated causes defined for a plurality of defect contents of process management items for each maker, and a person, machine, material, and method for each estimated cause. For the first time, 3H degrees of change and long-lasting degree are evaluated for the occurrence frequency information, influence level information, discovery difficulty level information, and defect occurrence work classified and evaluated by 5M of measurement, and the probability of occurrence of defects The score is calculated for each manufacturer based on the risk factor that is the index of the product, the grade corresponding to the grade is determined, the prevention method corresponding to the grade is read from the storage unit for each estimated cause, and selected by a specific grade An evaluation score is assigned to the process control item, the average value of the evaluation score is calculated, the average value, the numerical value of the document examination item, the numerical value of the management system item, and the technical capability item stored in the storage unit Based on numbers The process examination evaluation value Q2 is calculated and stored in the storage unit, and the performance evaluation value Q1, the process examination evaluation value Q2, and the defect rate evaluation value Q3 are obtained from the storage unit for each manufacturer by the evaluation value acquisition unit. Then, the comprehensive evaluation value calculation means calculates the comprehensive evaluation value Q _ALL on the basis of the actual evaluation value Q1, the process inspection evaluation value Q2, and the defect rate evaluation value Q3 for each maker, and sets the decision items for adoption . since the Rume over mosquitoes quality evaluation system, less time, there is a comprehensive, quantitative, and can be relatively determined effect in the process.

1 is a configuration block diagram of a board manufacturer quality evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention. It is a figure which shows the example of an evaluation criteria. It is a schematic block diagram of the memory | storage part of a comprehensive determination item. It is a flowchart of a comprehensive determination process. It is the schematic which shows a process control item evaluation index. It is a flowchart which shows process management evaluation item determination processing. It is a figure which shows the example of process management evaluation item determination evaluation. It is a flowchart of a process examination value determination process. It is a figure which shows the selection process management item evaluation example. It is a figure which shows the process examination value evaluation example. It is a figure which shows the comprehensive judgment value evaluation example.

Embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.
[Outline of the embodiment]
The board manufacturer quality evaluation system according to the embodiment of the present invention is to comprehensively, quantitatively and relatively evaluate the quality of the board manufacturer. As major items, the actual value, process, process examination value, defect After each quantification index is given to the rate value, a total value is calculated by a calculation in which each item is multiplied by the importance, and the numerical value is divided into levels as an overall five-level evaluation.

In addition, among the major items, the process assessment value is composed of the evaluation value of each process, and the evaluation value of each process is based on the occurrence frequency, influence level, difficulty of discovery, and risk factor of the process audit importance determination coefficient. Items are determined based on the determined importance. All of them are numerical values that give a quantification index.
The process examination importance determination coefficient is determined in consideration of human factors, equipment factors, material factors, method factors, and measurement factors.
Details will be described later.

[Substrate manufacturer quality evaluation system: Fig. 1]
A substrate manufacturer quality evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of a board manufacturer quality evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention.
A substrate manufacturer quality evaluation system (this system) according to an embodiment of the present invention basically includes a processing apparatus 1, a display unit 2, and an input unit 3, as shown in FIG.
The processing device 1 is configured by a computer, and basically includes a control unit 11, a storage unit 12, and an interface unit 13.

[Parts of this system]
Each part of this system will be specifically described.
The control unit 11 reads a processing program and realizes processing to be described later.
The storage unit 12 includes a storage unit for items shown in FIGS. 3 and 5.
The interface unit 13 connects the processing device 1 to an external network, the display unit 2 and the input unit 3.

The display unit 2 is a display device that displays process details and processing results of processing.
The input unit 3 inputs processing instructions, and is an input device such as a keyboard and a mouse.
The storage unit shown in FIGS. 3 and 5 may be provided outside and connected via the interface unit 13.

  In addition, the processing device 1 is a processing server, and a terminal system including a display unit and an input unit is connected to the processing server via a network. The processing server executes processing, and the terminal device inputs instructions and processing details. May be displayed.

[Example of evaluation criteria: Fig. 2]
Next, an evaluation criterion example according to the embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of evaluation determination criteria.
As shown in FIG. 2, as items, Q1 is a performance evaluation value, Q2 is a process examination evaluation value (process examination value), and Q3 is a defect rate evaluation value. Each item is divided into five levels, and 1 to 5 points are given as points. Of course, the higher the score, the higher the rating.

The performance evaluation value Q1 evaluates the performance of transactions, 5 points are “house transactions over 5 years”, 4 points are “house transactions over 3 years”, 3 points are “company G transactions only”, 2 points are “No transactions including own company G”, one point is “new company”.
“Own company G” means “a group company or an affiliated company including its own company”.

  The process screening value Q2 evaluates the status of the process. 5 points are “industry TOP class”, 4 points are “characteristic”, 3 points are “standard”, 2 points are “request for improvement”, 1 point is It is “Unauthorized”.

  The defect rate evaluation value Q3 evaluates the state of occurrence of defects. 5 points are “No defects for 3 years”, 4 points are “No defects for 1 year”, 3 points are “Minor defects (within 1 case / year)” Only ”, 2 points are“ minor defects (within 2 cases / year) or poor response ”, and 1 point is“ failure due to serious defects ”.

[Configuration of Storage Unit for Comprehensive Judgment Item: FIG. 3]
Next, a configuration for storing comprehensive judgment items in the storage unit 12 of the present system will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 3 is a schematic configuration diagram of a storage unit for comprehensive determination items.
As shown in FIG. 3, in the storage unit 12, as a configuration for storing comprehensive judgment items, a performance evaluation value Q1 storage unit 121, a process examination value Q2 storage unit 122, a defect rate evaluation value Q3 storage unit 123, and It has.

  In order to make the explanation easy to understand, the storage unit for storing each value is separated, but each value may be stored in a table form in the storage unit 12 without being separated. In this case, each value is stored in association with the identifier (ID) of the board manufacturer.

The performance evaluation value Q1 storage unit 121 stores the performance evaluation value Q1 shown in FIG. 2 for each board manufacturer (board manufacturer ID).
The process screening value Q2 storage unit 122 stores the process screening value Q2 shown in FIG. 2 for each board manufacturer (board manufacturer ID).
The failure rate evaluation value Q3 storage unit 123 stores the failure rate evaluation value Q3 shown in FIG. 2 for each board manufacturer (board manufacturer ID).

[Process screening value Q2 billion 122]
The process examination value Q2 billion unit 122 will be specifically described.
The process review value Q2 storage unit 122 stores the process review value Q2 for each substrate manufacturer (substrate manufacturer ID), as well as a process management item storage unit 122a, a document review item storage unit 122b, and a quality system item storage unit 122c. And a technical capability item storage unit 122d.
In FIG. 3, the storage units 122 a to 122 d and the process screening value Q2 storage unit 122 are drawn separately because of space, but originally the storage units 122 a to 122 d are stored in the process screening value Q2 storage unit. 122. However, the process examination value Q2 storage part 122 and each storage part 122a-122d are good also as another structure.

[Each storage unit 122a to 122d]
The process management item storage unit 122a stores information related to defects (defect occurrence frequency, defect influence level, defect factor discovery difficulty, risk factor) for each substrate manufacturer (substrate manufacturer ID). Details will be described later.
The document examination item storage unit 122b stores a document examination item value (document examination value) for each board manufacturer ID.
The quality system item storage unit 122c stores a numerical value of the quality system item for each board manufacturer ID.
The technical capability item storage unit 122d stores a numerical value of the technical capability item for each board manufacturer ID.

[Overall judgment flow: Fig. 4]
Next, comprehensive determination processing realized by the control unit 11 of the present system will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 4 is a flowchart of the comprehensive determination process.
The control unit 11 acquires the performance evaluation value Q1 from the performance evaluation value Q1 storage unit 121 based on the board manufacturer ID (S1), and acquires the process inspection evaluation value Q2 from the process inspection value Q2 storage unit 122 (S2). Then, the defect rate evaluation value Q3 is obtained from the storage unit 123 of the defect rate evaluation value Q3 (S3), and based on the actual evaluation value Q1, the process examination evaluation value Q2, and the defect rate evaluation value Q3, the overall evaluation value (total determination value) Is calculated and comprehensive judgment is made (S4).

  The process S1 is executed by the performance evaluation value acquisition means, the process S2 is executed by the process examination evaluation value acquisition means, the process S3 is executed by the defect rate evaluation value acquisition means, and the process S4 is executed by the comprehensive evaluation value calculation means. Each evaluation value acquisition unit of the processes S1 to S3 may be collectively referred to as an evaluation value acquisition unit.

The comprehensive evaluation value is calculated by adding importance to each of the values Q1 to Q3.
Each evaluation value of Q1 to Q3 is quantified. For example, the performance evaluation value Q1 includes a quantified index such as the number of years of transaction performance as shown in FIG. 2, and is quantified. The process examination evaluation value Q2 and the defect rate evaluation value Q3 are also quantified including numerical indicators.

In addition, the overall evaluation value Q _ALL is calculated by, for example, the following equation when each evaluation value is a five-level evaluation.
Q _ALL = [1.5 * Q1 + {3+ (Q2-3) * 10} + Q3] ÷ 3
The above formula is obtained, for example, by adjusting from the past results.

[Process management item storage unit 122a: FIG. 5]
Next, the process management item storage unit 122a will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram showing process management item evaluation indexes.
The process management item storage unit 122a includes a function for each process, a failure mode for each process, an item for the failure mode, a failure content for the item, an estimation factor for the failure content, a 5M type for the estimation factor, a prevention method for each estimation factor, etc. As shown in FIG. 5, a failure occurrence frequency storage unit 122a1, a failure influence level storage unit 122a2, a failure factor discovery difficulty level storage unit 122a3, and a risk coefficient storage unit 122a4 are provided. Yes.

[Each storage unit of process management item storage unit 122a]
The defect occurrence frequency storage unit 122a1 stores a numerical value of the defect occurrence frequency for each board manufacturer ID.
The defect influence degree storage unit 122a2 stores the numerical value of the influence degree of the generated defect for each board manufacturer ID.
The defect factor discovery difficulty level storage unit 122a3 stores a numerical value of the defect factor discovery difficulty level of the generated defect for each board manufacturer ID.
The risk coefficient storage unit 122a4 stores the numerical value of the risk coefficient related to the occurrence of defects for each board manufacturer ID.

[Process management evaluation item decision flow: Fig. 6]
Next, the process management evaluation item determination processing flow will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing process management evaluation item determination processing.
The control unit 11 of the processing apparatus 1 reads the processing program, starts the process management evaluation item determination process, reads necessary data from the process management item storage unit 122a, defines its function for each process (S11), A failure mode for defects occurring in the process is defined (S12).
Taking FIG. 7 described below as an example, a function “deleting smear of the connection portion” is defined for the process “desmear processing”, and further, a failure mode “smear residue” is defined.

Next, specific failure contents and estimation factors for the failure mode are listed (S13). Then, for each factor, the aspect related to 5M (person, machine, material, method, measurement) is classified (S14). Further, the occurrence frequency of the defective evaluation index is evaluated in consideration of the 5M factor (S15).

  In the example of FIG. 7, 17 estimated factors (estimated causes) are defined for 6 defect contents, each estimated factor is classified into 5M, and the defect occurrence frequency is stored for the defect contents based on the board manufacturer ID. The occurrence frequency of the influence of the defect is read from the part 122a1.

  Specifically, since the estimation factor and 5M types are stored in the process management item storage unit 122a in association with the defect content, the control unit 11 reads necessary information from the process management item storage unit 122a. It has become.

  Next, the degree of influence of the defined defect on the function of the process is evaluated (S16), the degree of difficulty in finding a defect factor when a defect occurs is evaluated (S17), and the work 3H (change for the first time, degree of change after a long time) ) Is evaluated (S18). The degree of 3H serves as an index of the probability of occurrence of a failure and indicates a risk factor.

  Specifically, the control unit 11 reads the influence degree from the defect influence degree storage unit 122a2 based on the board manufacturer ID, and reads the defect factor discovery difficulty degree from the defect factor discovery difficulty degree storage unit 122a3. The risk coefficient (3H) is read from the coefficient storage unit 122a4.

Then, the control unit 11 calculates the total score (score) based on the occurrence frequency, the influence degree, the difficulty level of discovery, and the 3H degree (S19).
With this calculated value, it is possible to select a process to be checked and a defect occurrence factor to be noted.

[Process management evaluation item decision evaluation example: FIG. 7]
An example of process management evaluation item determination evaluation will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of process management evaluation item determination evaluation.
In the process management evaluation item determination evaluation example of FIG. 7, as the process management items, “function”, “process”, “failure mode”, “item”, “defect content”, “estimated cause”, “5M type”, “effect of defect”, “grade” There is a “prevention method”.

The process management evaluation item determination evaluation example in FIG. 7 is generated in the process management item storage unit 122a as a process management evaluation item determination evaluation table by the process management evaluation item determination processing flow in FIG.
The “function”, “process”, “failure mode”, “item”, “failure content”, “probable cause”, “5M type”, and “prevention method” in FIG. 7 are stored in the process management item storage unit 122a.
Also, each item excluding the score of “effect of defect” includes a defect occurrence frequency storage unit 122a1, a defect influence level storage unit 122a2, a defect factor discovery difficulty level storage unit 122a3, and a risk factor storage unit 122a4 in the board manufacturer ID. It is memorized every time.

The score of “effect of defect” is calculated based on the five-level evaluation of each item of “effect of defect”, and “grade” is determined by the value of the score. The score in FIG. 7 is calculated by weighting the numerical value of each item.
For example, score = geometric mean - and calculates an arithmetic expression or the like of ⁴ √ (abcd).
“Prevention method” is stored for each “estimate cause” in the process management item storage unit 122a for each “grade”, and the corresponding “prevention method” is read based on the determined “grade”.

Specifically describing each item in FIG. 7, “function” is “deleting smear of connection part”, “process” is “desmear processing”, and “failure mode” is “smear residue”. .
“Items” are classified into “specifications”, “chemical analysis”, “chemical replenishment”, “immersion time”, and “apparatus”, and “defect contents” are divided into “specification” “incorrect input” and “no specification instructions” “Chemical solution analysis” is “Analysis result transmission error”, “Chemical replenishment” is “Incorrect supply amount”, “Immersion time” is “Condition error”, and “Equipment” is “Aging / deterioration / failure” It is.

  "Estimated cause" includes "Incorrect input instruction", "Incorrect specification", and "Uncertain arrangement" for "Incorrect input" and "No specification instruction", and "Incorrect input", "Forget to input", "Format item" There are “insufficient”, “wrong supply amount”, “wrong entry”, “forget to fill”, “format item shortage”, “no confirmation after replenishment”, “condition error” has “condition error”, “aged / deteriorated”・ There are "daily management", "start-up inspection", "vibration mechanism, etc."

  “5M types” are evaluated for people, opportunities, materials, methods, and measurements for each estimated cause, and “O” is entered. “Effects of defects” is “frequency” for each “defect content”. ”,“ Effect ”,“ Discovery Difficulty ”,“ 3H ”, and a score (overall score) is calculated, a“ grade ”(rank) corresponding to the score is given, and a“ prevention method ”corresponding to the“ grade ”is“ Set for each "probable cause".

[Process examination value decision flow: Fig. 8]
Next, the process examination value determination processing flow will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 8 is a flowchart of the process examination value determination process.
The control unit 11 of the processing apparatus 1 reads the processing program, starts the process examination value determination process, and determines the score calculated in the flow of FIG. 6 for the target substrate / technology (S21). The grade is divided into, for example, I to III according to the determined score (S22).

Then, it is determined which grade or higher is to be raised as the evaluation standard (S23). For example, when rank (grade) I is used as a reference, the content of I is scored at the time of the process examination, and a process management evaluation value is calculated (S24).
Specifically, for the contents (items) of rank I, “score” is read from the table of FIG. 7 and set as “evaluation score”. Calculated as “management evaluation value”.

[Selected process management item evaluation example: FIG. 9]
Here, an evaluation example for the process management item of rank I will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating an example of evaluation of selected process management items.
A grade (rank) I is extracted (selected) for the grade determined in the process management item decision evaluation example shown in FIG. 7, and the selected process management item evaluation table shown in FIG. 9 is generated in the process management item storage unit 122a. .

Specifically, referring to the table of FIG. 7, rank I is set in the rank column, and a process name corresponding to rank I is set. Furthermore, an item (defect content) corresponding to the process name is set, and an evaluation score (score) for each item is set. Then, the average value of the evaluation points is calculated and set as “process management evaluation value (numerical value of process management item)”.
Here, since FIG. 7 is created for each board manufacturer, the table of FIG. 9 is also created for each board manufacturer.

Next, in FIG. 8, the other three elements (document examination value, quality system, technical ability) of the process examination are scored (S25).
Specifically, the control unit 11 reads the numerical value of the document examination item (document examination value) from the document examination item storage unit 122b based on the board manufacturer ID, and the numerical value of the quality system item from the quality system item storage unit 122c. The numerical value of the technical capability item is read from the technical item storage unit 122d, and the process examination value Q2 is calculated together with the process management evaluation value of FIG. 9 and stored in the process examination value Q2 storage unit 122.
Here, the process in which the control unit 11 calculates the process screening value Q2 and stores it in the process screening value Q2 storage unit 122 is realized by a process screening value (process screening evaluation value) calculating means.

[Example of process examination value evaluation: Fig. 10]
The scores for the three elements will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of process examination value evaluation.
The control unit 11 sets the document examination value, the quality system item value, and the technical force item value from the document examination item storage unit 122b, the quality system item storage unit 122c, and the technical capability item storage unit 122d shown in FIG. 10 and the process screening value evaluation table of FIG. 10 is generated in the process screening value Q2 storage unit 122.

Furthermore, the average value (process management evaluation value) of the evaluation points is set in the process management item of the corresponding board manufacturer with the evaluation points calculated for each board manufacturer in FIG.
Then, the average value of the process management items, the document examination value, the numerical value of the quality system item, and the numerical value of the technical capability item are read for each board manufacturer, and the numerical values are integrated to determine the process examination value Q2 (S26).
Specifically, an average value of each numerical value is obtained and set as the process examination value Q2.

[Example of comprehensive judgment value evaluation: FIG. 11]
Next, an example of comprehensive judgment value evaluation will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of comprehensive judgment value evaluation.
As shown in FIG. 11, the control unit 11 generates a comprehensive judgment value evaluation table in FIG. 11 in the storage unit based on the performance evaluation value Q1, the process examination value Q2, and the defect rate evaluation value Q3 for each board manufacturer. performance evaluation value Q1, step appraisal value Q2, based on the failure rate evaluation value Q3, set by calculating the overall judgment value Q _ALL the calculation formula of the above-mentioned Q _ALL, by its overall judgment value Q _ALL, "continued adoption "Determining recruitment", "reexamination", "non-recruitment", etc.

Note that “continuous employment” is a board manufacturer with a high actual judgment value Q _ALL that has a company transaction. In addition, “recruitment examination” is a board manufacturer with a high overall judgment value Q _ALL , although there is no in-house transaction in track record.

[Effect of the embodiment]
According to this system, it is possible to perform a quality evaluation of a relative and relative board manufacturer considering professional defect factors of all boards in less time and man-hours than before, and quality such as cost and delivery time It has the effect of being able to make a comprehensive judgment easily with other items.

In addition, this system has the effect that it can be used as a stopping factor for ensuring quality even when considering new suppliers such as overseas manufacturers.
In addition, this system has an effect of facilitating selection and examination of quality examination items even for new specifications.

  INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY The present invention is suitable for a board manufacturer quality evaluation system that can be comprehensively, quantitatively and relatively judged with less time and man-hours.

  DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Processing apparatus, 2 ... Display part, 3 ... Input part, 11 ... Control part, 12 ... Memory | storage part, 13 ... Interface part, 121 ... Performance evaluation value Q1 memory | storage part, 122 ... Process examination value Q2 memory | storage part, 123 ... Defect rate evaluation value Q3 billion parts, 122a ... process management item storage unit, 122b ... document examination item storage unit, 122c ... quality system item storage unit, 122d ... technical capability item storage unit, 122a1 ... defect occurrence frequency storage unit, 122a2 ... Defect influence degree storage unit, 122a3 ... Defect factor discovery difficulty degree storage unit, 122a4 ... Risk factor storage unit

Claims (2)

A manufacturer quality evaluation system for evaluating the quality of a product manufacturer,
Stores performance evaluation value Q1, failure rate evaluation value Q3, numerical values for document examination items, numerical values for management system items, numerical values for technical capability items for each manufacturer, and multiple defect contents of process management items are defined for each manufacturer. Multiple estimated causes, information on occurrence frequency classified by 5M of people, machines, materials, methods, and measurements for each estimated cause , information on impact, information on difficulty of discovery , work on occurrence of defects , For the first time, a storage unit that stores a risk factor that is an index of the probability of occurrence of a failure when 3H degree of change, long-lasting degree is evaluated, and a prevention method based on a grade for each of the estimated causes ,
As processing means realized by the operation of the processing program,
Based on the occurrence frequency information, influence level information, discovery difficulty level information, and risk factor stored in the storage unit, a score is calculated for each manufacturer, and a grade corresponding to the score is determined. , Reading out the prevention method according to the grade from the storage unit for each estimated cause, giving an evaluation score to the process management item selected in a specific grade, calculating the average value of the evaluation score, the average Process examination evaluation value Q2 calculated on the basis of the value, the numerical value of the document examination item, the numerical value of the management system item, and the numerical value of the technical capability item stored in the storage unit and stored in the storage unit Computing means;
Evaluation value acquisition means for acquiring the performance evaluation value Q1, the process examination evaluation value Q2, and the defect rate evaluation value Q3 from the storage unit for each manufacturer;
Comprehensive evaluation value calculation means for calculating a comprehensive evaluation value Q _ALL on the basis of the actual performance evaluation value Q1, the process examination evaluation value Q2, and the defect rate evaluation value Q3 for each maker, and setting a decision item related to employment. A manufacturer quality evaluation system comprising a control unit. Multiple estimated causes defined for multiple defect contents of process management items for each manufacturer, occurrence frequency information classified by 5M of people, machines, materials, methods, and measurements for each estimated cause , impact level information of information, of discovery degree of difficulty, for the work of failure, for the first time, change, calculates a score for each manufacturer on the basis of the risk factor, which is an indicator of the long time of the 3H degree of failure probability of occurrence is evaluated, the The grade corresponding to the grade is determined, and the prevention method corresponding to the grade is read out for each estimated cause from the storage unit, and the grade is assigned to the process control item selected in the specific grade, and the average of the grades. The process examination evaluation value for calculating the process examination evaluation value Q2 is calculated based on the average value, the numerical value of the document examination item, the numerical value of the management system item, and the numerical value of the technical capability item stored in the storage unit. Calculation And management,
An evaluation value acquisition process for acquiring a performance evaluation value Q1, a process examination evaluation value Q2, and a defect rate evaluation value Q3 for each manufacturer;
Comprehensive evaluation value calculation processing for calculating a comprehensive evaluation value Q _ALL on the basis of the actual evaluation value Q1, the process inspection evaluation value Q2, and the defect rate evaluation value Q3 for each maker, and setting the decision items regarding the adoption. A manufacturer quality evaluation program characterized by being executed.

Images