Eindhoven University of Technology

MASTER

Application of QFD theory to policy formulation activities

Philips, M.J.M.H.

Award date:1993

Link to publication

DisclaimerThis document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Studenttheses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the documentas presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the requiredminimum study period may vary in duration.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

H R I_,J

D (1l~' u . r,

APPUCATJON OF QFD THEORY TO POUCY FORMULATION ACTMTIES

. NIET ~ UITLEENBAAR 1

ENCLOSURES

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

1.1 IC PRODUCfS 1 1.2 TECHNOWGICAL DEVEWPMENT OF PHILIPS TAIWAN 2

2.1 FUNCTIONAL CATEGORISATION OF ICS AT PEBEI-IC 3 2.2 INTERFACES BETWEEN PEBEI-IC AND END-CUSTOMERS 4

3.1 ATTRACTIVE QUAUTY 9 3.2 SIGNETICS PROPRIETARY NEED TO KNOW 13 3.3 PD SEMICONDUCI'ORS MARKETING INVOL VEMENT TO PEBEI-IC 18 3.4 FOUR STEP SCHEME OF THE QFD ORIENTED PROCEDURE 23 3.5 CHALLENGES OF THE 90'S BY THE PD 24

4.1 POUCY FORMUIATION AT PEBEI-IC 33 4.2 FOUR STEP SCHEME OF THE CURRENT PROCEDURE 36 4.3 QUESTION UST FOR ENVIRONMENT AL ANALYSIS 37 4.4 QUESTION UST FOR INTERNAL ANAL YSIS 39 4.5 RESULTS OF THE PRESIDENTlAL DIAGNOSIS 42 4.6 Cl-IP FORMAT 43

6.1 TIIE MSO SURVEY 47 6.2 CWQI METHOD 54 6.3 INFORMATION TO 1993 POUCY FORMULATION 56

enclosures, page 1

1. 1 IC PRODUCTS

PEBEI- IC lvfAJOR PRODUCTS

PRODUCT (PACKAGE)

DUAL I~ LINE (DIL)

SHRI~K DUAL IN LI:;E (SHDIL)

(SIL)

S~IALL OUTLI;\E (SO)

\"ERY S~IALL OUTLINE (VSO)

SHRINK S11ALL

LEAD COUNT

14/16/18/30/24/28/

32/40

24/32/42/52

9 /9P /13P /17P

8/81/14/16/161/20/ 24/28/28XL/32

8/40/56

O.UTLI~E P~.CKAGE 20 (SSOP)

QuAD FLAT PACKAGE 44/48

(QFP)

QSR 1-2

OUTLli'iE

.DIL 24 SHR l' ~ •••••••• •• . .

• • • • • ........ ..... -······--­...... .

•••••

SO 24L

!1!!!!1!1!!1!1!!1!1!1!1!1!!!!!

I .. I ~ .. ·. -. I . ili!ilii!ilililililiilili!ili!i!i!ili

SSOP 20

PHIIJPS INDUBTRUL AND ORGAN/ZATION DEVELOPAIENT IN TAI1rAN

• INDUBTRIAL

DBVELOPJIRNT LABOUR-INTBNSIVB (O.·Ol)

C!P lT!L rN"l'KNSlVI

(1.31()

• JJARDTING • RKTURN TO P ARRNT • KUROPIU.N AND

DRVEWPJJENT FACTOHY illiRIC!.N • WCAI. J.URDT . LOC.il. LUBDrr

DlOJrtaDGI IN'l'KNBIVI

(a.eu)

TICBNOLOGY rNftHBIVJr

• RIOION.A.L .ÄND GLOB.A.L UUDT

. WC.AL IURDT

:. INTXJUU.110N!L OFF SHORK INTIRN!TIONAI. : COilPiftNCI Cmn"D

DRVRI.OPYBNT - FACTORY - PRODUCTION CRN'TWR :. IUR.DTDfG. DIBLOPIRNT

. ORGANIZATION

._ - !.NI> PRODUcnON TnJl

• T'NH018 ( ) RRVRNUR PKR RLCPLOYRR lN NT DOIJ..AR

11

..__---~-----------...... -.,,_..---=-------------""""-~'~

"""' • N

~ ~ r--0 ~

~ t:J

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E: ~

~ ~ <b

:::3 (")

0 (/) c:: ëi3

.5'>

"2 CQ <b 1\)

enclosures, page 3

2.1 FUNCTJONAL CATEGORISATION OF IC'S AT PEBEI-JC

PH/UPS Consumer /C's

lndustriai/C's

SIGNET/CS Standard PG

Application Specific PG

Southampton teletext

Nijmegen

Hamburg

Ca en

Zuerich

Hamburg

Taipei

Nijmegen

digita/ audio D2-MAC NI CAM

TV-signa/ proc. radiojaudio digital audio audio power power control

TV-signa/ proc. VCR-signa/ proc. monitor radiojaudio

tuner /tuning video data conv. motor drivejcontrol

telecom mieros (SACMOS) clockjwatch clips;I2C

mieros (CMOS) desktop video ASIC

miçros consumer (SACMOS) remote control

CMOS logic

Nijmegen SSP special solid state products

Progr.Log.Dev. PAL, PLA, PLS, PML

LogicjPROM BICMOS logic Multibyte general purpose logic bipolar, CMOS bipo/ar PROM bipolar EPROM

Custom Prod. automotive disk drive AS/C's

Mproc.& contr. 80x51 68k EPROM UVjOTP

Standard prod. RF comms data comms. digital LAN industrial commodity /military

enclosures, page 4

2.2 INTERFACES BETWEEN PEBEI-/C AND END-CUSTOMERS

1: THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY The Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) is a yearly activity and is initiated by the MSO Taiwan. The aim of the CSS is to obtain general information on three different matters, namely

- comparison of the company performance against competitor-performance; - customer needs; - satisfaction level on different aspects.

The survey is done for 11 different PHIUPS-products in Taiwan. PHILIPS-ICs and SIGNETICS-ICs are 2 of those 11. The survey is done according to the principles on TQC of Prof. Kano, that will roughly be explained in chapter 3. The survey is meant to provide general information on customer satisfaction. It may serve to evaluate the improvements made last year, and it may he a guideline for policy formulation of next year.

Every year, the IC-Division (PEBEI-IC) conducts a list of about 28 items that it considers to be important. This list of items is conducted by the Q&R department, under consultation of several departments at PEBEI-IC on their vision of important product aspects. As references in this process serve a "checklist" provided by the PD and the list of items of the foregoing year. Mostly, items are considered to he important when the responsibles think that the item plays a relevant role in the process of supplier-selection of the customer. Another reason to select an item into the list may be that the company considers that item important. Third reason may be future expectations e.g. items that are expected to become important.

By selection of the items, three criteria are being defined: company performance, customer satisfaction and a basis for customer needs. By conducting the questionnaire in this way, company performance is defined equal to customer satisfaction or customer requirements.

The list of items will be the basis for the survey questions so that it will serve the three goals. These questions are determined by the Marketing department of the Taiwan N ational Organization ( the MSO ). They construct the final questionnaires, in cooperation with responsibles of all eleven product-manufacturers. For every product, a different questionnaire may he established but in practise, the differences between the questionnaires of different products or between different years is not very large.

In this way, the final questionnaire is constructed. It measures for all items the kind of quality, and it measures the performance of every item in relation to the competition. Also, the questionnaire gives opportunity to the customer to give bis comment on customer satisfaction and the way it is regarded by PEBEI-IC. The questionnaires and the address-lists of the customers are then sent to the Department of Psychology of the National University of Taiwan. This University takes care of all processing of the survey. The results are too received by the University. They translate the results into answers on the questions, posed as objective for the survey. The result are scores on the items of PEBEI-IC and the scores of competitors, as well as the kind of quality of every item, according to the theory of Kano on attractive

enclosures, page 5

quality, described in enelosure 3.1.

The list of items in the 1992 survey are shown bere in table e2.2.1, to give an impression of the information collected: these are considered to be the customer requirements; the product aspects that in the custoniets' eyes are the aspects to rate PEBEI-IC's performance.

Quality

Co st

table e2.2. 1

productperrormance product range meet requirement application circuitjperipheral components added many compatible souree of product speed of new product development IOC deflection rate production fine reject rate rellability jlife test reject ra te field reject rate by the defect of IC varianee of quality trom different batches product-newsjtechnical support in time lab. people provide technica/ support sufficient/y lab. people provide technica/ support in time conduct briefing of new product tast response to inquiry product knowledge of safes person visiting frequency suitable

pricejperrormance ration of product Delivery

speed of providing sample meet requirement order confirmation time tast handle complaint process of goods return reasanabie lead-time of suppliers inform standard lead-time deliver on time flexible tor change the quantity jschedule of order acceptance rate of rush short-term order early inform customer tor delay shipment

2: CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS All complaints from end-customers on IC-products that (maybe) are related to PEBEI-IC activities, are received by the Q&R department via MSO, RSO and or MDP organizations. The Q&R department handles all feedback according to the "customer feedback handling procedure", that aims provide the guideline of customer feedback and return products handling, to:

- trace back the original manufacturing status; - locate the failure cause; - reducefeliminate the complaint case;

enclosures, page 6

- initiate/follow-up corrective action; - satisfy customers.

There are five different categones of customer feedback: 1 complaints of customers, handled by a MSO (Japan, Singapore, Malaysia); 2 complaints of customers, handled by one of the PG's, the RSO's or the PHIUPS Taiwan organization; 3 feedback from the PG's; 4 belt-reject from local PHILIP$ intemal customer ( other PHIUPS industries in Taiwan; 5 return products from real customer or the PG, handled by one of the MSO's, PG's or PlliLIPS Taiwan.

In principle, all categones are treated the same: they all verify the complaint or the defect, then decide whether the feedback is justified, whether failure analysis is needed and dependant on the outcome of that, whether corrective action needs to be taken. The following failure modes are identified:

- Wire Bonding and Die Bonding (W /B+ D/B) -Body -Lead - Taping - Packing - Electrical escape - Solderability -Mixed type - Others

Every month, the progress of the customer feedback cases is measured: the amount of cases is measured, their root cause (failure mode), and the corrective action that bas been taken or that is being taken is discussed in the monthly quality meeting. This quality meeting discusses the results of the manufacturing operations of the past month and the necessities, with intemal or extemal cause to improve these operations.

3: PACKAGE DEVEWPMENT Third interface is the package development procedure. Package and process design activities provide the outline for a new package and provide specifications for the assembly process of that package. Customer requirements will always concern the design of the product, or in this case the specifications of the IC. Therefore, the package development activities use customer information, although indirect, to develop packages and process-layouts that are related.

Package design is initiated by one of the MDP-teams. The MDP teams that have the need or the opportunity for development of a new package, send in an application sheet with the specifications of the new package. Reception of the application sheet can be seen as the trigger for the feasibility study, first part of the development process. QFD-design belongs to this first part and therefore, an inventarisation is

enclosures, page 7

made of the customer requirements that are concemed with this package. There are four sourees for these requirements:

- strategie marketing meetings, medium-term plan; - application sheet; - customer feedback; - feedback from assembly and process design.

The Strategie Marketing Meeting is a annual meeting in which all responsibles of the PD semiconductors meet. In this meeting, all relevant issues concerning the whole division are discussed, including the future plans. part of the future plans is the medium-term plan that gives a rough outline of how the PD should anticipate on the future-threats or opportunities. For package development, this meeting serves as an indication on what future customer-requirements will be.

The application sheet contains the most relevant specifications and the maximum effort (cost) that should be involved in developing a specific package and using it in assembly. This application sheet is almost always related to the standardized quality specifications, that are described in e.g. the General . Quality Specificadons for Integrated Circuits. The opportunity or need for new package development is coordinated by the Product Groups. They have the actual relation with their customers and insight in the development capability by coordination of the MSO's. If they decide that a new package is to be developed, then most of the necessary customer information will be translated into the specifications.

Furthermore, customer feedback and feedback from · the assembly responsibles is also taken in account. In the assembly area, they already have experience in sooner developed packages and they have the possibility to exchange this information before a new package is developed. The same can be said for the customer feedback. Feedback from IC-users that is related to package design is taken in account when next package is developed.

The information from the four sourees is seen as the input for the QFD-process. Based on these four, the customer requirements list is conducted and with judgement of the development-responsibles, weights are added. The result of this process is a set of product specifications, that together with a survey of field quality, economical indications and pubHeation of the specifications, form the basis for the defmitive approval for development.

Capturing customer requirements and taking them in account in the first step of the development processcan beseen as the third interface. By development of the SDIL 42 package, April 1990, the following customer requirements were involved, table e2.2.2. They are presented bere to give an example of the customer requirements that are seen as PEBEI-IC responsibility.

table e2.2.2

featuresjflexibility customer programmabie

customer code customer marking more Vopins

easy to use compatibility

tuffit future market trend easy application

easy layout

economical

clear application instruction no interterenee leakage injout

low fnvestment smal/ outline zero defect quality

easy production

specifications

good solderability adjustment tree low quality deviation vs. typical

user friendly packing just in time delivery

easy service

reliability

short time to reptace defects good marking

no breakdown esd tree even under high temp. varianee even long daily use

long life time · can be used several years

safety ;environment · no danger to body

no poison no sharp edge

not flammable not flammable

enclosures, page 8

Q!_IALUY_!EL!E:{LI//E!Jf z· (BY PROF. p.JOr-liAI ICAI\lO)

·j. Qfs~E_-:[]~_~jJf'J\~S~L}~8.~~_;}1.~8~J]u'/_I~~JS_~Jj~~~~J~;

IT WILL GIVE SATISFACTIOI\l u:: IT IS SUFI-=JCI~NT. A~~D VV~LL

Cf\USE DISSATISFACTION IF INADE:QUATE. 0 t. -;~~ 'ln.::.î !) rr-·· -;~ n I' r.:: f.'l q ~i.\ ~ n ... ~ .,, r.::: ,, f.::: !\. '.·I~:::;·\'.-; •• J .• ., ~3._~(L_tJ_•.,.~:~ ·.LJ_l!J./_l·.-.. _l 1{_,:·. __ (.1_]\, ,TJo._6 __ _I I~J,\x_tl·~, .. 11 L 1 ~ ... 1_'1. ~-q

IT v'ViLL ~;1At<E THE USEFl POSJTIVELY SAT!Sf-lf-:0 IF FULFiLLL:D BUï F?ESIGNED V'JITHOUT COMPLA!NT IF ~JOT.

~c\-·"' ~·~l~ ()1 ~8~ ~...,._,.\! f. .... ll' .... ~'J\"'"'01-~ 0 :~A n.r< ....... ' i) J · ..... ._. . ." ..... ·,. b ., (J • .•. LJJ_ï-.:--.. •·"''-~' -"'- ~ •·H• -- '"-<.<. h•-•- "l' .>'~>.~_: -~-~

r)~ <.. •

IT WILL BE TAKEN FOB GRAf\ITED IF IT rs SUFFICIENT Ar-JD WILL CAUSE STRONG DISSATISFP,CTION IF NOT.

FEEL Nl:ITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED NO MI\TTf=R \FVHETHER SUFFJCIENT OR INADEQUATE.

l,~-<:~~~·~·~·~·lf"'>t-· Q~ ~LD-""/ ,.~~ r·""i\lj'~i\j""'" -\'~t:-:- ~:.=1 .::~-u, ·-"'.:,~~)~··~~-J i tl t_IJ ~ J. ~ ~ ·; .. :,\.. r::r.:"· (:!t· M ~· .-.JL .. ~LlJ.,. _ .. ___ .. t_. _... . .... _J ___ .. ~- .. J. 1 ____ J_~~:

PREFERENCE SHOVJN TO THE SUFFICIENCV OR INADEQUATE IS CONTRARY TO THE GOAL SET fOR PRODUCT DESIGf'J.

enclosures, page 10

< ~ kl ~ ~ Ä h -h

ê ~ cq ~ C<

"'- < ~ < Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ t:"--i ~ ....., ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ < h ~ Q

~ ~ ....:;

t:3 ~ < Ë3 a ~ ~ t'-<

~ ~ "l ~ "l

èJ a ~

~

~ ~

I Q.

r_.., t..) ~ ~ Q ::---, ;:::;

G ~ ki >-...::) ~ ~ ' '-..::: ~ ~ I<

~ ;--1 ~ I~ ~ >....:; ........ ~ ~ '::--....: ~ ~ ~ - ~ Q ~ ..::..

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

l .

C:::; ~ V] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ Ct)

~ ~ ~ ........ V] t'-<

G ..... ~ ~ " ~ ~ t:"--i ~

(.:) t'J ~ ...__

,.. >-""';

~ ~ ("\ ~ ~ ~ \....) ~ < ~ Ç) ~ <...)

QUESTJONNAIRB~ DESIGN

(OLD)

J ~ STRONGLY S{GHTLY SIGHTLY

AG REg AGIWE DIS AG REE

1. 'l'IlE D ELIVERY LEA_D TUAE

FOR GENERA_L PIWDUCTS OF D D D PHILIPS IS TOO LONG

STRONGLY UNKNOWN

DISAGRim

D D

QUEST'JONNJf!RR DESIGN

CUSTOJll.'R SATISF.J.CTION' i. CJ.'N.b'R.HLY SPJI.!K1NC, Tfll..t1' DO YOU

{COlfP.K1'ITORS) TITINK .J.BOU1' PHILIPS JJJ.'LWJOO' 1'/UINC. T.J.f{]J.' fT POR

A n c SJ.TISPih.'D DISS.{ 7'/S l:'Ih'D CR.lN7'J,.'IJ

D D D DA> RELATIVELY SITORT

u>. WITAT DO YOU TrrfNK AllOUT TIHS D D D b>. IF 11' IS HAî'IIER LONG, D 0 D

lffiAT DO YOU 'l'fi[NK JDOUT T!TTS

D 0 D [] D> NO OPfNrDN

[] D [] l_]c> HATUER LONG

c>. WIIAT DO YOU TffiNK AIJOU'J' TIIIS D 0 rJ d>. rF IT IS RELA11VELY SHOin', D D D

v,riB.'r DO YOU TIIr!-JK AllOUT TfHS

3.2 SIGNET/CS PROPRIETARY NEED TO KNOW

TO:

FROM: Dis tribution (l ~,V"" J. N. Thielrnann~ 35

SIGNETICS

PROPRIETARY

NEED-TO-KNOW DATE:

FILE: SUBJECT: August, 1992 Signetics Q&R Indices

T. Ha3s

E:. Nichols

C. Merkley J. Neal

K. Sha~

C. Ash

R. Suen

J. Bailey

0. Liddie

R. Raak

B. Bach!!:an

0. Larn.be ::t

R. Sato

R. Deetz

P. Feisthamel a. Hobdy

R. Smith

P. Johnson

J. Ramsdell

R. Andersen

M. Michaels A. Brophy

J. Lewis

R. Gong

J. Bilham--Beult

K. Hampe

H. Y. Kwon

J. Vaughn

61

61

19 08

08

17

18

19

24

28

30

30

31

35

35

35

35

35

50·'' !,

61:

61

70

70

74

94

94

94

94

S. Hendrik:!

H. Benischek

J. Vedder

J. Macro

G. Mav::akis

K. Marb1e

J. Sandorf

G. Lijbers

A. Kotz

3. Bro\.n

K. Tirns

D. Andersen

R. Parr

0. Hines

J. Brady

J. Herring

L. Pugh

C. S. Choi

K. W. Lee

W. DeVries

Apichai L.

Wichai A.

A. Leon

J. Huang

A. Kuhn

A. J. R. de Koek

M. L. Chew

K. Suzuki

enclosures, page 13

Aug!.:s:: 14, 1992

JulTier

Eindhoven, s;~-P18

Eindhoven, B~E-P

Eindhoven, C-140

Alb~ 20

Alb::; 07

Alb::; 41

Albe; 50

Nij::-.egen-BY 3. ~8

Ge ::::-.any - Roe:::

Ore::-. Al

Ore::: C-1

Ore::-. ES

Ore::-. G3

Ore::~ El

Ore::: ES

Ore::: GJ

Ore::: F7

SigKor

S.iç:\or

~iç7hai

Siç7hai

Siç:hai - IQA

RT::, Caen

PE3EI - Q&R QS Har..!:lurg

Ei'-dhoven, ~AG-124

Hazel Grove, UK

Ph i lips Ja pa:-: :·!!-!ENT: June/July PA Elect::ical Cpk results from St'CDB for St'G ?::oducts ~o;e::e adde~ (Fic

Junc 582 part types and in Jul y 4 67 part types represen ::ing T:':../ S/LS/ f.:O.ST I ALS!EC!:iCT,

L/ABT families were sarnpled. For SPG, 72'1. of the product at PA ~ave CPk's above 1.5 fo: ogram parameters.

TIER I TIER II *

Figure 1 List. 1

Table lRA Table lAA Table lAC Table lCAl Table 1064 Tablc lGB

Table 1!A Table 1!-!C Table lNO

Table 1SF

Table 1UA

Table 1

Figu::e 2 Figu~e 2-1 Table 2B1 Table 2Bl 7able 292 Table 2B2 Figu::e 2-2 Table 283 7able 2B3 Table 294 Table 234 List. 2

Figure 3 Table 3

Figure 4

Table 4 Table Figure 5

Table 5

Figure 617

Table 6A Table 7A Table 7C

Figure 6 Table SA

enclosures, page 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE

Signet.ics Ship-To-Stock Cust.omer Growth Summary Recent Custorner Incaming Reports Re eived· Al ca tel Net.work Systems ( Rockwell Int' 1) Oa las, Inc::::-.ing Allen-Brad1ey Highland Height~, Board Remov 1' AT&T-Allentown (Consolidat.ed), Supplier Rat ng "COC GCTC"-St. Paul Incaming DEC (Consolidated) Marlbere Incaming GE Fanuc Automation, Charlottesville Incorr~~g Group Technologies Corp., Tampa Incaming Honeywell-Sperry Commercial f_light Systems, Phoenix ::1coll'.ing Honeywell-Indust.rial Automat~on & Control, ?hoenix :'-coming IBM Poughkeepsie Supplier Ra.ting Metr~~ ~nforrnation Storage, Denver Incomi'-~ NEC fi2 OA Division, Japan, Incaming Raytheon Missile Syste:ns Div. Lowell, s~pplier Q:;ali::: ?.ating Seagate Supplier Quality Evaluation SlA Military Products Unisys CEPO, Incaming Signet.ics Customer Survey Summary Custorner Commendations (Plaques)

S~~ary World Wide Quality Returns (% GS) World Wide Product Quality Returns (~ GS) World Wide Product Quality Returns (CRTNO::., World Wide Product Quality Returns Major Reasens World Wide Pack/Ship/Order Entry Quality ?e:~::1s (~ :s) Packout/Shippir.g/Order Entry Quality Rett::~.s IC:::.:-:;c;: Packout/Shipping/Order Entry Quality Rett::'-s ~aJc: ?~asons Quality Wins/Lcsses

Summary World Wide Returns and Allowances GS! World Wide R&A by Transaction Code (ASOll

Swr.mary SHC!T ( IQA Raw ~a te rial) Per f o r:na:-. ::e C!ia::ts (CT, FPY, STS) SMCIT (Incornir.g QA Raw Material) Per!orrna~::e Charts S~~ary Fab E-Sort Outgoing QC DSV !nspec::or.s E?Q ::?M) Fab E-Sort Outgoing Die Sort Visual E?Q - ::; Fab Area

Summary PA Electrical & _visual/Mechanical :::spec:ic:-.! EPQ (PPM) Sleetrical PPM Ranked by Family (Non C~BRi Mechanica! PPM By Plant by Package Family PA Electrical, EPQ - By Product Group (Q~:::3) QA Visual/Mechanical, E?Q- By Asser..!:lly ?::.::: (Ç'.;cs:;i QA Visua1/Mechanical, E?Q- By Product G:~~? (QAOS!:.

S~~ary PA Herrne~icity Inspeetiens QA He=eticity, EPQ - 9y Asserr.bly Pla:1t (;:;..:SêD)

2

enclosures, page 15

LIST 1. SUMMARY RECENT CUSTOMER INCOMING REPORTS RECEI~D

0 Alcatel Netwerk Sy:stem:s (Rockwell Int'l Telecom) - Dalla:s - Feb 1992 report recelved 3-4-92.

LAR (%) 1990 Total 1991 Total ... - ~ Jan • 92 .. -Feb'92 - - -o Allen-Bradley - Hiqhland Heiqhts - March 1992 report received of failcre rates by AB Part Nuïïîber a11d Fam:..ly for "unconfirrned" factory removals. Bath 3 and 12 ~onth rolling data i:s reported:

DESCRIPTION

Signetics 1990 Total Signetics 1991 Total Rolling 12 Months - Mar

TTL Logic TTL/LS Logic TTL/S Logic CMOS & MOS Logic PROM U/V Fuse EPROM IC Peripheral Miscellaneous IC Total Rolling 3 Mo.-Mar

ï

NUMBER ·~· S!GNETICS REMOVED . PPM

• AVG. ALL ~...NOORS

o AT&T - Jûlentown, Plus Works Locaticns - The Jan-F-.p:- 1992 Tri.:nester :-eview WèS

fiëiërb-2-92 ln Sunnyvale. In the h:s::orically mos:: significant catego::-:.;, Product Quality, Signetics ranked 86/117 (tie! of 10. In Ql·!>E overall scoring, Signetics ::::anked H4 of lo.

Product Quality

Columbus Dallas Denver Litt.le Rock Merrimiack Valley Oklahoma City Shreveport OVERALL

QH&E Audits AlphaTec Anam, Korea Anam, Manila Hyundai SigKor Orem Team Pacific Sunnyvale SigThai OVERALL ('!.)

s

enclosures, page 16

o Metr~m Information Storage - Denver - Apr 1992 report received.

0

Lot3 Recei ved Lots Rejected LAR \

NEC-H2 OA Div Jap5a0n - Nov'91-Jan'92 data received via. K. Suzuki. Incoming

qual1ty, agalnst PPM maximurn target, wa3 as follo~o;s:

June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan

Electrical

Suppliers are secred G (Gold R (Red = Poor).

Suooliers 1 2 3

AMD/1-!MI R R s In tel G G G Motorol a G G G National R s s Phil/Sig R G s ~T I • s s R Fujitsu G G G Hitachi G G R Mitsubishi R G R Toshiba G G G

R R G s s R G G G G

Vis/Mech

Excelle~t), S (Silver = Within Target),

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 1 -

s s s s s s s R G G R G R G G G G G G G G R G G R s s s R s s s G G R R R R s G R G R s s s R G R G G G R R G G G G G R G G G G G G G R G R G G G G G G G G G G G

o Raytheon Missile svstems Div. Lowell - Supplier Quality Rati.ng Report dated 7-02-~2 recelved contalnlng current 12 rnonth period ending June 1992:

I Ove::all SQR

*Apparently ene or more occurences of a purge/asse~~ly/field failure.

o Seaoate Corporate - March-May 1992 (Q2) Supplier Quality Evaluation and April­June Suppller Service Level Rating reports received, compiled from input from 5 Seagate Location3.

Q-Evaluation Score• Q-Score Ranking

Service Eva!•• Service Score Ranlcg

9

0

enclosures, page 17

Jan'S2 lot rejects were PLS168A, 74F657 and 27C256- 170 e1ectricals. Feb'92 lot rejects were 556, 100125A, 100124A, 100125A, 74F657, 27C256-15N, 745136, 100125A electricals. Har'92 lot rejects were 2 lots 27C256-20N, 74F544, 74F260B, 100125A, 74F269, PLUS 405-SSA, 20R4-7, 74F711, and l00124A electricals. Apr'92 lot rejects were 74F37, 27C256-20N, 6!24 and 74F536 electricals. Hay'92 lot rèjects were 2 lots PLUS405-55A, 74LS96, 74F242, PAL16R40, 8!24, and 100124 electricals. June'92 lot rejects were 27C256-20N and 745471 electricals. July'92 lot rejects wera 74F242 and 100175 electricals.

Signetics Customer Survev - The PROPRIETAP.Y Hfinal Report Survey of Customer Needs and Expectatlons for Signetics' Current and Potential Customers", dated 9-20-91 is available for review on a need-to-know basis. A consultant company conducted the 501 interviews of custcmers defined by Signetics. The blind survey compared 3 IC sup~liers includi~; SigneticJ. On a scale cf 1 to 10 (with 10 being the best score possible), the most important Dimensions of Performance as viewed by the custor..ers and the ra::in-:1 per Dir.oension of Perforr..ance for Customer Satisfaction can be s~~arized ~s fellows for the 9 suppliers:

_,- \ Worst Best Dimension of Perfor:nance 1..v of Class Sionetics of Class

~~ 9.6 Quality ·~ 7.6 8.5 Delivery ~ ~ 7.1 6.2 Price 5.0 7.9 Technical Support 6.6 7.7 Customer Service 6.5 7.2 Order Processing 6.9 Product Offering 6.3 Distributor Suooort 6.3 Sales & Marketing 5.0 Global Company

A few of the Conclusions:

6. 6

7. l

a. 4 8.3 7.1 8.6 8.3

8.5

8.1

The study identified multiple problem areas and gaps where significant impravement is required on the part of Signetics.

The difficulty which Signetics faces is the ability to prior1t1ze and target problems which will have the greatest impact on future customer sa tis taction.

11

enclosures, page 18

3.3 PD SEMICONDUCTORS MARKETING INVOLVEMENT TO PEBEI-IC

l'hilioa'""""""""" B.IL • P.O.Box 218 • 5600 MO 6ndhown_ Th• N.m«ianda

P.D. Management, Sales 1 Q.lality

.. direct d~IUno no .

Ge.rst.leg 2 65:34 AE Nijllegen

ref. no.

Q.M.S. :mB--68-92-288 /TV

~,,,r.,

11c· Jr'e,)

vvi-Ven:ku:- Rating OSo-532865 J\me 15, 1992 'CL-t-Jo

P.lilips Se!ni.c:::n:iuc is rata:! by cust.cmers as a ~lier against ot."l.er SlWliers. 'Ihe rating r1!pOrts are send to cm:- sales crganizaticns, rut the c::.ntents are oot lcnown on a wièe scale in the PD. 'n'..e reasen \lhy the o:::ntents are net lcnown is the d.iversity arrl c::II;llexity ct the rating systems. FNery OlSt.o:ler bas its own rating syste:l, measures di!!erent criteria !er rating a supplier arrl the rat.in;s cx:n:::ern di!!ere:nt pa.rts ct Fhillps Semic::n:b:'"...crs (arrl C::z:p:nents) •

A rep:::rtin; syst.em has !:een start.ed witll the objective to collect t.'l.e rating repcr-...s ct OlSt:::me...""S, te t:rans!cr:n the rating values into 6tan:iardized val1Jes arrl te distJ:ibit.e the rating results on a wièe scale, in the PD. Semic:cn::luc'-...crs.

'lhis !.irst report is an .int:ro::uc'-...ion te the rep:rtj.ng sys'"...em of veroer Rating by OJstaners. I! yc:u have aey a:Jimmt er corrt:ribltion te tl;e repcr-...ing system, please o:nt:ac:t ale ct the urx:!ersigned. en a c:::ntim:inq base the reporti.rx] m veroer Rating by ClJstcxiE..""S vill, 1:rt:m ro.r on, be hd.l.Xled in the quarterly quality repor-...s of ~-

In the !ol.lcwirg pages yo..1 will !irrl uroer dlapter I the ova."'"al..l rat:in:;s in· \ arrl bet:1.leen brackets the relative pasition in the field o! &Jt.Pliers. Clap""....er II gives a medium value !er the IIDSt .i.l!pJrt.ant rating c::dteria, so that wak arrl st::=crx] points in verxjcr ratin;s are reco;nized. In cr..apt.er III rema:cxable o::mnerrt:s 1:rt:m recent OJSt.aner rep::a:ts are c::::Jl.lec'-....ed.

'llle ~ describes the met.7::d used in the rep:a:tin; syst:em.

T. VOOder 01S

~~ mmps International B.V.

SC\GI'IoWn. n.. ........... ,... Commercie~ RÇsc• €indhown no. 7082:.

A. v. Errlert ~

enclosures, page 19

"VENDOR RATING BY CUSIOMERS"

Report r (JJarter; 1992.

r. Oyeryiew of veroor ratlms w rust.qnerá (soores in \, between brackets plaoe va cx:rrpetitioo)

GPI' I Q:Jventry I UK GPI' 1 Li verpool, I.1IÇ 79 GPl' I Beeston I UK ICL, UK

HP, Greldlle, FR ~Jo:.upec, FR Siesrens, GE Gnurlig, GE

AT&T, USA Narth. TeL I USA Motorola, USA

Rl i li ps CQoslnner

(sm. signal) (aai. pa..t. tr) (reet. I stacks) (power) (I Cs)

1990 111.1991

80 87 82 (11/24) 94 97

66

75 (5/16) 79 ( 4/15)

112,1991 U\.1992

' -..

.. ... ·~ •• t -

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

Benlarles

Cllarqes in syst:em ~es in system

I..aJ soore for all vendors

Soare higher, b..tt relativa ratirq 1~1

11

11

11

enclosures, page 21

·" m. Re!tarkable o::mrerrt;s I !acts

Soeyl OK

Cocpaql USA

Panaseniel OK

G?l' Li verpool I OK

Siemens, FR

Fhilips Consumer El.

Grun:iig I GE

ZGrich class 1 supplier (100% on time).

Delivery on time in Q1, 1992 only 9%.

Intrtx1uc:tion -of Centurion has led te a dec:line in c::ustaDer SJRXrt.

Score <IJ for "electronic trad.in;;" = EDI nat available.

Inp:ove time resp:mse of failure analysis an:i ccntents of failure analysis response.

Il:::lw scores on fleribility

High reject level (place 50/64).

enclosures, page 22

n:c:m fNf!r'f rat:in] repart ext::ract the rat:in] tigures per ra~ criteria arxi J;er time perio:i. o::nvert the rat:in] :t.igures .into %. tTse the rat:in] criteria as used in the eni repxt. 'nle t:iJne peri.cds are a half year tor recent ratin;s an::l a year for 1989 ani 1990. 'lbe rated crganizaticn shculd be the total ct Semio:n::hJctors. Sa ratin;s tor ditterent prcdiJct eenboes shoJld ba aó:3ed into ene rat:iz:q (an ~ is Jraèe tor CE, l:lecause it gives 1lllCh valuable details). ·

Qlapter I uses the tctal ratin;s directly tran the c:ust:.aDer repartirq. 'nla ratin; :tigures are translated to %. Gi ve \olhere possible also the relative p:sition between l:lrackets.

For c:hapter II searc:h tor ratin; criteria lolhich ccn:esponi with the c:hosen 4 main criteria. As these criteria net al"ways match, it can happen that only 1 er 2 are taken over tran ale OJStaner report. In that case it is mportant to ensure that these criteria do nat sut!er tran extreme high er low ratin;s in one report. Befere use, the ratin:; ti.gures lD.lSt be rec:alculated so that the total rati.rq of that cust:.cmer report equals t:ha average ot all total rat.in:r-;. In that way only relative di.t!eterx:es bet:.leen the c:hcsen criteria will be sha.m..

T. VEèder

enclosures, page 23

3.4 FOUR STEP SCHEME OF THE QFD ORIENTED PROCEDURE

Stage 1

goal

input

output methad time personjdept.

Stage 2

goal

input

output

methad

time personjdept.

Stage 3

goal input output

methad

time personjdept.

Stage 4

goal

input Output methad time personjdept.

: to capture the true and unbiased voice of all tour groups of customers, as far as it is policy tormulation related, into one weighted list of customer requirements; : environmental changes, changes in product aspects, response to inteNiews andjor suNeys, NO policy and directives, PD policy and directives, PEBEI-IC long term plan, customer complaints, competitor performance; :a list of weighted customer requirements (overall importance); : brainstorming, inteNiews, suNeys, competitor analysis, weighted averaging of ranks; : August, September, October; : sponsors, QFD team and supeNisor.

: to define a list with control items (performance indicators) that tagether represent all necessaty aspects of performance to daliver customer requirements. Besides this, the goal is to make an inventarisation on the current and potential performance on the control items. : the customer requirements list, the obligatoty control items list, the current chart, the presidential diagnosis comments, benchmarking dàta, and the current and expected performance as input; : list of this year's performance indicators, included their definition, their current performance, the current influencing factors and the potential improvements that can be made next year; : comparison of customer requirements list trom this year with the one trom next year, discussion and brainstorming by the QFD team, presidential diagnosis, benchmarking, internal analysis; :November; : QFD team.

: definition of major measures and policy recommendation to GDM; : all output trom stage 1 and stage 2; : major measures and policy recommendation: recommended targets and recommended responsible; : discussion, brainstorming, assembly and analysis of relevant facts and figures of the ëurrent way of working, calculus on customer requirements overall importance score; :December; : QFD team and GDM.

: tormulation of next-year policy; deployment of the policy to targets; presentation of the policy and targets to sponsors; : the policy recommendation and the major measures trom stage three; : policy and tilled-in Cl-IP format; : discussion, QIC workshop; :December; : sponsors, QFD team with supeNisor, departments.

~--------------------------------------------------------------------ï~

Missio11 staten1e11t Pl1ilips SeJnicoJJductors

To be a leading supplier of semiconductor products on a global scale with sustained profitability through:

o Focus on selecteet application areas in the consumer, telecom, EDP and automotive markets with emphasis on the rnerging consumer and professional applications including partnerships with leading customers

o Supplying strategie semiconductor produels needeel by Philips

e Fully meeting customer requirements

0 l<eeping pace with technological trends

· o Motivated people being tlle souree of our strength

Pli I Ll PS 91000!:UJ I

C11

2

~ G)

~ ~ ~ l'1i

~ c/3 OJ "<:

~ tg

BODy EI...Ecr MUL.TIPL.EX WAONIGS /

I RING

Car information and control

\~-~~

= z

PC.II Lli)5 92090903-32

92090903-33

Multimedia new products for home and business

HlOHBPf!!E!D

92090903-J 1

91071702 ·0 3

Gonsurn er

P~IILJ~§ 92090903-34

Cl?a!/enges of the 90' s (1)

o Video/Radio/ Audio HDTV, consumer TV, satellite TV, simulation, movie industry, medica!, videophone, CD-I, education and training

• Telecommunication Intelligent networks, braadband LAN I WAN, voice mail, mobile office systems, mobile communication, ISDN-terminal

-------~------~~-~~--

Challenges of the 90' s ( 2)

• EDP-Multimedia audio and video applications merged with the personaf computer, CD-I, CD-ROM, desktop video

• ln-car electranies Fuel economy, emission control, safety, reliability, autopilot, navigation, mobile office, entertainment, information, bus-oriented system architecture

c 92090003-27

~~------~~~-- ------------~~~~~--~-------------------- ------ ----

C/Jallenges of t/Je 90's (3)

• Partnering Co-design, co-development, STS, JIT, cost of ownership, common tools

o Manufacturing excellence Customer-tailored products, process control, flexibility, inspeetion and testing, Just-in~Time delivery, Statistical Process Control, cycle time reduction, cuslomer service, responsiveness, quality and reliability of produels and services

e Process technology . __ .Bipolar, CMOS/SAC-MOS, mixed technologies (BÎCMOS), Submicron technology ·

PHILiDS 910723.H4

-----~-----~----~----~-~~·~~·~--·~~~~~~-----~ ......... --------.

PEEEI-IC 9-STEP CWQI ANNUAL PROGRAM IN 1998

STEP 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

dec. I JAN."' DEC.

~~=~~J@'n~:r_;J-~u~ -NO/BU-IC -DEP!' JIGR -QIC

POL/CT CONTROL -Q!C W.G. PLAN

-Q,C,D ITEJI -QJ.IT f----~ GO.J.L -Q!C PDP -TPC

DO

CHECK

ACTION

-CDJI WORKSHOP POUCY -PDP

-CDJI SEMINAR CONTROL ITEM

' i ! ! l

-CONSULT. -PR!DE -CWQI .ACTIVITY DAY -SQC/QCC

-EXECUTE' -TPC -TECll./PROF. .DEPT MGR l/ONTmY JIGT'/ ~--·~ CONTROL NEWS . - QUALI'l'T IJIADNOSr.l ITEJI -QCC/SQC GENERAL JirJNTR __

.QA.rJ' TPPS . -QIC PDP -PRESIDENT THEME CONVENTION REV/EYr -GDM

.QCC Tl!EJfE JrORKSHOP

L ......................................... c· -Q,C,D .

PERFORJI.ANCE REV/EYr

REeOMMENDAT/ON

PART[~IL----------------r~JI~A~N~A~C~EM~E~NT~---~~~--------------------------------~ I STAFF CIPANT I SJlOPFLOOR

* JIONTH WITJ/ LOW'ER CASE LETTERS l/EANS JIONT!l OF PREVIOUS YEAR

~--------------------------------------------------------OP-!111 rot::

enclosures, page 34

po...uu I IOJW I ICATIOt<AL 0110. ~~ .. 1 ,ACr."UT-1 Rt:r~AFPI O)tef'UU<O! D0an.<L'CTA11Clt IOMJC><C Tl!t:J(V. ll<OU<Ult

QUAI.lTT

r~1 IOAaO loiCT ~OOUCTI fCUC't ...aTI><I ~"'""' PKa.DSOf'KT

tca.r:CUT OI' L'<VIAOf<I•U<TOWOGa. ~ rv~u ... nort ~ ~srnzAnOH. •·•·· ...............................................................

1 l r.o.

STUTEClC l.Ot<'EI TEIW c '-D. WCTI?EWC STI.ATECIC 1:1SUC IIWI>CSI"-"' a:suatac:...: WGnr<O DUIC\WtON"NTTM

cwc 1 1

f ·"1 l

tuV.L.Ol"Gf~ 1UJo< IUm<ESS OCV. war. llmi'CUI.....,.,

f'I..AIUPOUC'( WUt1><0 I'OC.JCT

IOU.C.UTOI __ ."....,._

~ ·-----· JUI\I~ EVALU4T10fl01 ............................ u •••••••••••• N.O. waT .MWC WGnM: WIICUTD

" CUIIEHf JrTUA T10N.

~ ~OI \"UT n.AI IUUl.T.

J

( ~NUA~ ) ( o&CA.:':~L }-IUllt<US :CO.iofG'T.IPUC WUT1>oQ WIIM'ES

O&lt~ OIJIC'7"N!:S MGT1loQ

I ~OI' f."Cvt'I~MI!KTAL.~ C10SSF'UJ<"T')Qf114 WEE'1"D'40.,.C'r\IT!.l:

.... a ~~~t.'~"'-TSlS OJWWIT'itS

l.w..uoaM~C..U: U"V1~tn:LfC'nOH

~' .,E.'<vtaaf<ro:~~~ ........................ 10<~ ....",., "IMmS SIJI'T'.U c~~r~ ON, C*QC I CJ ~COtT"''fiCI.JC"'''.

AtfO Q("1"'!1tt<fAJ.. AlfALT.SJS "'""'~ ....",., .. .,.."... <:S.W.O.T.>

~ r

WAIOa Wt!A.SUilU ............................. OC'V.C'*Q1S..C. ..EE'1'1:'<1Wti'C\I'TD l U'<IEWIUUCTI""

l ( DIV. ) DIV • ....,-, >c<En>« NEET11"ClW~ POUCY

&--. ('~PT ........................

~ ~

"""- o.<J'II.O'OiëMENT ACTlOM PUll l ·~t.Wmi'<Q ·"""""" orv.CWQct.c. -~~:So r ...:t10fcS IN<.

fUST' PUSIDEmlAL DIA~ OV.OH:l!'lS PUS1DelmAI.. ···•: """''"""' """'""" I.ENLTIOfV

1 COUIEC'T'M ACTION rt.u<

& EXECtmOll ...... rtOISCT T'EAW qa:....""., QCSTOC.T

I "'""'...,..".., W&ni«J>cii<UI'!l

l .. J ..". . ." OlECXIACTlOll 0JWWEIC1A(. IWHOVEWEI<T

""""""' "-"'

~ 1 PCES1DCimAL : OIAG1'<01tr

~ SS:Ol!O P'RESIOEl'<TIAI. OIAQ<OSIS W&niCl """""""' ····~ IILSULTIDfV x CDOIIöCTMt

~ T AC"nnfiirt.A."C

'"""'.....",., ""'""" WlMlftl D<C. OlECXIACTlOll _ . ."

cota~ ...•. coww&aa.u. ACTION "'-"'

"""""" FEED&ACX FOR :<EXl' YEAA I'OUCY FQRMUl..ATIOI< """lt qc:.JIOIT

"""""""'"

4-3

enclosures, page 35

Policy formulation procedure

P.D. ' N.O. Policy/Goal Control point

(S. W.O.T analysis)

ng term slralegy and planning

1 PEEEI - IC

Management control item

r-----------------------------, : 2 Last Year

Externe.! appraisal lnlernal appraisal Performance renew

· Cuslorner Sa listaction · Presidenûal Survey diagnosis Cammen

·IC eperalion business plan . ----------

· Polilical/Economical · Campelilive Social/Technological anal~is

'

-t 3 Strengtbs & lfeaknesses

Opportunilies & Threats

~ 5

S.W.O.T Synergy matrix

J 6 Basic Slralegy

(Yearly major measures) ---

Currenl Situalion

analysis

"""----...J

Goal drafting

-.-----, I I

l __ --------------------- ~- ---- J

7

B

..,

I

I .. Approach

; (I) Camparisoa & 1 Summarizalion

: (2) Respective analysis

; (3) Bmbmarking

: ~ 4 ~ Bra in slorrning 1 4 KJ melhod I

• I 1 (5) Sl\'OT table : (!lalrii melhod) I

:(6) Discussion

1(7) Discussion

I

:(a) Matrix charl 1(8) Syslem chart I

Place/Time

(I) QIC meeting/ Ocl 15

(2) Allairsis meeüng/ Nov.4-9

(3) Staf/ ope!1!ling/ Nov. 16~17

(4) SiOT analysis meeting/ Nov. 19

(5) POP ... orksbop/ Nov. 20

(5) POP workshop/ NoY. 2tl

enclosures, page 36

4.2 FOUR STEP SCHEME OF THE CURRENT PROCEDURE

Stage 1 goal

input

output

method time pers.jdept iv.

Stage 2

goal input

output

method

time persjdept iv.

Stage 3

goal input output

method

time persjdept iv.

Stage 4

goal input output method time persjdept iv.

:-identification of the important issues of the superior policies -analysis of the long term plan -identification of the control items tor next year

:-CSS -operation business plan -environment analysis

:-important issues In the policies tor next year to stage three: Opportunities and Threats :surveying, brainstorming, KJ-method :October, November :department heads, GOM, O&E

:-obtaining information on PEBEI-IC performance: internat analysis :-NO and PO directives tor control items -performance of PEBEI-IC activfties -presidential diagnosis comments -competitor information

:-list of control items, identified as strengths or weaknesses; -potent/al tor impravement on the control items;

:QCD remaining problems analysis Presidentlal diagnosis SWOT analysis; relations between internatand external issues

:January, June, October, November :NO, GDM, all departments, O&E

:definition of major measures and policy recommendation :information of stages one and two :major measures and policy recommendation (new targets on the control items, based on the major measures) to GDM :-analysis of the information of stage 1 and 2, identification of impravement items by identification of relations: SWOT analysis. -Group discussion on impravement measures :November :all departments, O&E, GDM

:definition of policy, lssulng policy to superiors and deptoyment to departments :policy reeommendat/on and major measures :po/icy, tilled in Cl-IP format :catch bal/ and agreement, policy tormulation workshop :December :NO, PD, GDM, all departments

enclosures, page 37

4.3 QUESTION UST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

EXTERNAL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------

The intention in this step is to arrive at as complete a picture

as possible of the most likely external trends and possible events

in thP environments, that in the coming years may substantially

influence the business activities, or otheruise offer ne~

opportunities or threats.

Write down as many·external trends or possible events as you

wish, and then make a selection of those that you believe to be

the most important.

Typical to be considered

A. Macro environment

- Political

- Economie

- Social

- Technological

- Environmental Proteetion

B. Marketing structure

- Competitors Capability

- Users (Consumer, Customer, purchaser ... )

- Customer satisfaction survey

- Distribution channels

Criteria for relevanee of items are primarily

al Expected impact upon the firms results

bl Probability of occurrence

cl When is something to be expected

dl Acceleration of the trend

.--------------------------------~- ~- --~

enclosures, page 38

OPPOTUNITIES AND THREATS

ISSUE)

Oppounities: 1. ~--------------------------------~

2.

3.

Threats: 1. ~--------------------------------~

2.

3. ~--------------------------------~

enclosures, page 39

4.4 QUESTION UST FOR INTERNAL ANALYS/S

INTERNAL ANALYSIS =====================

I. Strengths and weaknes~es may be considered for the whole range of

the firms capabilities.

For any firm doing business in the particular market concerned,

what are the main factors which together ~ould measure success ?

what are the main things that are important for a firm that wants

to be in a strong position ?

Typical to be considered

Al Market Share

World position, regional spread, market reach, dealer network.

B l Image

Company image, brand image, advertising service.

Cl Product range

Innovation, features, diversit~.

Dl Product quality

Reliability, serviceability, performance, quality appeal.

El Profit level

Selling costs, cost price, market price-level.

Fl Industrial structure

Co~ponent and material sourcing, flexibility.

Gl Technology

Research, development, production process.

Hl Organization

ManagementA personnel, structure, external contacts.

Il Others

Morale, training, turnover rate.

COtn"ROL ITEMS

TQE assessment

Complaint response time

of Complainl

belt reject

Il'-TTERN AL AN_ALYSIS

GO Pi..

SETT[NG

score

ays

PPM

1

CUP..RENT

PEf~F\) f<MANt~8 BENCWJAP.KJNG

Strength ./

Sl:.rength

~ Weakness . '--.

'·...._

Strength

F.E!.U..FJ\

Cc.nlpt.=tr.:: -vdUt Sigthï..=ti,PG i:tl'ld olher plants

Complaint under

CRI SP systern

if include JPN, PG complainl cases, will over 400 cases I

Llmlled lo TMiwan I rea cuslomers

TJOI:l-1$

<t> :::J ()

o-(i) c:: ~

_Cil

~ ~ ~ 0

enclosures, page 41

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

( ISSUE) ~----------------------------~

Strengths: 1.1 1 ~----------------------------~

2 ·1 I ~----------------------------~

3. I l ~----------------------------~

Weaknesses: 1.1 I ~----------------------------~

2· r 1 ~----------------------------~

3.1 I ~----------------------------~

IV. COUHTERHEASURE Ev:~l.

Rea­ulL Haln Commenta

1. IllSUFFICIENT AtiALYTIC CAPABILITY

2. ItiSUFFICIEIIT HARKET ORIENTEO

3. PRESENTATION IS NOT CLEAR

Haln Cauaea

INFORMATION SYSTEH

1, 2 WORKitiG LOAD

1. 3 TRAINUlO

~.-1_._4_P_RA_c_T_I_c_E ____ . ----·.I 2,1 ORGANIZATION I

ItiFORHATIOit COLLECTIIIG

CONTACT l '--------WEAK LOGIC TIIINKitiG -1

- --···-··-·-···------NO RESPECT GUEST

.,

WORKLOAD & PRIORITY I 1-------,--

Evaluation Item

A B C 0 E

5 3 3 3 3

5 3 1 1 1

3 3 3 5 5

3 5 3 5 3

3 5 3 5 3

3 3 3 5 3

1 3 5 5

5 3 3 3 1

3 1 1 5 3

1 1 3 3

3 5 3 1 1

17

11

1')

19

19

17

15

17

lJ

9

13

countermeaaures

------------------------------------ FASTLY IHPLEHENT HIS TO UPGRADE

DATA AHALYSIS AND APPLICATION

- STRENGTHEN AllALYSIS CAl'ABILITY BY HEANS OF FORD QOS STRUCTURE

- HAHAOEHENT REVIEW SUBOROINATES PERFORMANCE NOT ONLY RESULT BUT ALSO PROCESS AHALYSIS

- CONSIDER TO SET UP RESPONSIBLE FUNCTION

SET UP IHTEGRATED CONTACT CHANIIEL WITIIIN N.O.

- ENHANCE LOGIC THINKING TRAIIIING COURSE

- TO AVOID TO USE INCOHPREIIEHSIVE FORMAT AllO ABBREVIATIOH/ACROIIYH IN FUTURE PRESENTATION.

Al Dept lnvol~emenL, 61 5bve~lty, Ct Urgency, Dt Pra~Llcallty, Et Heasura~lb Evaluation degree 1 !light 5, Hldt 3, Lowt 1

enclosures, page 43

4.6 Cl-IP FORMAT

PEBEI-IC MANAGEMENT CONTROL ITEMS FOR 1993

Date : 1992-12-07 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Controle Items PEBEI Terms

V

V

V

IJ 1 TQE aseesament

Quality require't Incl SPC: 47 pts

Aasesament scores from Ford companr auditor or Phi1ips SemLconductors auditor who is author­

Delivery require't > 95 \

Eng'ing require•t > 95 \

ized by Ford

----------------+-·------·------·---·--·----·--~ Nr. of comp1aint Customer compl- Cumulative complaint aint impravement cases from FE customers

customer belt rej. Reject at CED+PCD

Complaint response Customer compl- Days of CRISP samples time aint handle time

Cuetomers RLIP

Order lead time

Prod. cycle time

Delivery CLIP

Delivery balance

WCO accept rate

Door to Door TPT

Technica1 stock

Commercial stock

New package ratio

Pkg. development cycle time

Equipment develop­ment CL:P

Start up yield

Outgoing quality

Assy yield

Material line reject

Key customers Q'ty del'ed on time/ Q'ty by key customers

WIP/Daily output

Factory ASY+TST Q'ty to store (-0\ - + CL!P ar +10\)/0rder Q'ty

jLatej+jAdvancei de1'y

Weekly Call Off Q'ty confirmed/requ

Sneedline turn- Speedline total turn around days around leadtime

New packa9e sales rat:.o

\ of value of + Pur.

\ of value of \ of value of

New Sub-pkg or pkg \ I total sub-pkg or pkg in 1993(eg. QFP,SQFP,SHDIL)

Initial quality Assy yield Óf # 4

Budget + 15 \

Elec+Me.ch visual PPM

Assy output/Die input

Reject lot \ from Prod + Incaming

De1ivery/Headcount Industry prod'ty TTL sales 1 PEBEI-IC

Delivery

6.2 Productivity

6.3 Energy consumption

M) 7 Oir. turnover ratel

7.1 Oir. absenteeism

Yearly planning 93 yearly planning & Local Assy Business

Budget + 15 \ Direct headcoünt ~r Hulskotte/Test unLt

Electricity and Fuel measurement

I IMJ 9 Waste water pass IMeet_government

rate requLrement +------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fr om

Q&R

Q&R

Q&R

Q&R

Q&R

Q&R

Q&R

SPFI

SPF!

HHD

1'.1'.0

HHD

HHD

days !'..MD

!'..MD

HHD

PD

PD

HEC'

Ass· .j. ___

Q&R

ASS

HHD

AD!'

AD/1

O&E

PED

1993 CONTROL ITEMS AND IHPROVEHENT PLANS

Division/OeptJSection :Pebei - IC Date 1 Dec. 07, 1992 Rev. Date 1 Job Title I Name :GOH,, Gray t!uan9

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ control Items I Control Hethad Impravement Plans

Hain. Job ----------------------------------+-------------------------------- Goal -------------------------/ Function Code' • control Point 'Check,Tr. Chartl Docu-, Oeploy CDH 'Finished

Impr. : Check Point Freq• From ment To Major Heasurea Date

-----+---------+-----+----------------------------+-----+---------+------+---------+-----------------+----------------+--------

H

Cuatomer TQE Aasesament Q Q&R Q&R • To minimize Q3 '93 Satisfac- propoetion tion 1.1 : Quality Requirement Q Q&R W Lin varianee by

TPH approach

Service Quality AtJaut·anca

1.2

1.3

2

2.1

2.2

Lo9istics 3 Hana9e't

3.1

3. 2

3.3

3.4

1 Delivery Requirement Q

: En9ineerin9 Requirement Q

• Nr. of Complaint H

: Customer Belt Reject H

: Complaint Response Time H

Cuetomers RLIP

: Order Lead Time

Production Cycle Time

Oelivery CLIP

Delivery Balsnee (Late & Advanced)

H

H

Q&R

Q&R

Q&R

Q&R

Q&R

SPFE

SPFE

w HHD

w HHD

w HHD

s Chen

NT t1uan9 .._.

Assy 1'uut

Q&R

Q&R

SP~'E

SPFE

Aaay Test

Teat

HHD

.Ta level up delivery performance by launchin9 new lo9iatica aystem with Daily Reaalu­tion

Dec '93

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ • Check Frequency : Q • Quarterly, 2H = Bi-Honthly, H = Honthly, W • Wu~kly Pa9e 1 1 of 3

1993 CONTROL ITEMS 1\ND IHI'HOVEMENT PLI\NS

Diviaion/Dept/Section :Peb~i - IC Job Title I Name :GOH, Gray lfuang

Date 1 Dec, 07, 1992 Rev. Date 1

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Control I tema I Control Hathod Impravement Plans

Hain. Job ----------------------------------+-------------------------------- Goal ----- ·-------------------/ Function Code' • Control Point lchack,Tr. Chartl Docu-~ Deploy GOH 'Finiahad

Impr, 1 Check Point Fraq• Fr om mant To Hajor Heasures Date

-----+---------+-----+----------------------------+-----+---------+------+---------+-----------------+----------------+--------(1) (Logistic (3) (. Cuetomars RLII' )

Hanage't) 3.5 wco 1\ccept Rata

3.6 Door to Door TPT

) • 7 Technical Stock \ M

3.8 Commercial Stock \ M

Deva1op't 4 Now Package Jtatio H Quallty Aasurance 4. 1 Package Dev. cycle Time M

4. 2 Bquiprnent Dav. CLIP M

4.3 Slart Up Yleld H

H Product'n 5 Outgoing Quality Quality As auranee 5.1 1\usy Yield M

5.2 Material Line Reject M

w MMO

w MMO

HHD

MMO

PIJ (Huch)

PD (Hech)

He eh

Auuy

w Q&R

1\ssy

MMO

MMO

MMO

MMO

SPFE PDD

PIJ (Hoch

PO

Ho eh

1\auy

Test

1\ssy

MMO

. To win umall scala prod­uction with univeraal tool and SPC on ylold

Dec '9)

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ • Check Frequency : Q • Quarterly, 2H • Bi-Honthly, H = Monthly, W • Weekly Page : 2 of 3

~~------------------------------------------------------------

1993 CONTROL n'EHS AND IHPROVEHENT PLANS

Dlvlalon/Oept/Sectlon :Pebel - IC Date 1 Dec. 07, 1992 Rev. Date 1 Job Title I Name :GOH, Gray lfuang

+-------------------------------------------------------------------;·-----------------------------------------------------------~·

Ha in.

I Impr.

Job Function

Control Items I Control Hethad Impravement Plans

----------------------------------+--------------------------------Code/ . Control Point ICheckiTr. Chartl Docu-~ Deploy

: Check Point Freq• From ment Tc

Goal

Major Measures Date GOM I Finished

-----+---------+-----+----------------------------+-----+---------+------+---------+-----------------+----------------+--------

H

H

Coat 6 Delivery per lfeadcount M ADM ADH .Tc generata Dec '93 Manage't higher Income

6.1 ' Delivery

6.2 Productivity (lfulskotte Unit)

6.3 Energy Conaumption

Human 7 Direct Turnover Rata Resource Manage't 7. l I Direct Abaenteeiam

8 Indirect Turnover Rata

Environ- 9 Waste Water Pass Ra te ment Control

H AOH

H O&E

H PED

H PNL

H PNL

H PNL

H PED

MMO Aaay

Asay Teat

PED

PNL

PNL

PNL

PED

Fr-:>.'11 Oparation from Strategie 4H-IC93, e.g. MAN by Unit Oparation I MATERIAL by new souree and economie deaign1 MACHINE by fully utili:te capacity1 HET!IOD by praeaas aimplification

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ • Check Frequency 1 Q ~ Quarterly, 2H m Bi-Honthly, H = Honthly, W = Weekly Page 1 3 of 3

6. 1 THE MSO SURVEY

SURVEY

r·rom: l::).t'~"J:<.lWU--RTTPPTL5

To: SG09182 --SPSPISA2 WILLIAM SIM KR0028A --RTTPPTL5 "NAMHEE HAN ELCMS81 --ATSYISAB MICK MARCIC KR0027A --RTTPPTLS S.K. KIH THPAPOTH--RTTPPTL5 PONGTORN ZECMS06 --ATSYISAB MURRAY ANDERSON ELCMS66 --ATSYISAB M. MCKINLAY MYKJAFPE--RTTPPTL5 JAFPER WONG HK1300AI--NLEYDPSB SAM MANG

cc: IOEDTJLI--RTTPPTL5

FROM: RICHIE WU

enclosures, page 47

Date and time· 92-10-09 13:13: JP412'7AI--NLEVüJ;•fm :;; . NAKANURA TELCJEKA--RTTPPTL5 JERRY KAO JP4128AI--NLEVDPSB K. KISHI PH4664A --NLEVDPSB PERT CABATANA KR0006A --RTTPPTLS B.J. SHIN MYKWOOFK--RTTPPTL5 F.K. WOO JP1309AI--NLEYDPSB T. OKADA HK1300AI--NLEYDPSB SANDY TSE

IOEDHCLU--RTTPPTL5 H.C. LOE

Subject: Externalanalysis for PEEEI-IC policy tormulation dear partners, the following survey is conducted by a dutch student in our 0 & E dept. after receiving all your replies, he will consolidate the report and send back to you all. pls send your replies back to me befare Oct 21. thanks for your co-operation and assistance.

3EST REGARDS, ~ICHIE WU 3PFE - PEBEI

·-· I

~** Forwarding note from IOEDTJLI--RTTPPTL5 92-10-08 15:22 ~** fo: ISPFRIWU--RTTPPTL5 MR. RICHIE WU :c: IOEDHCLU--RTTPPTL5 t1R. H.C. LUE

'rom: T .J. Lin iubjec~: Externalanalysis for PEEEI-IC policy formulation

üchie, As the morning I said, pls help to do this survey ·tiuough your channel. Welcome you to imprave the contents, if necessary. tks.

External analysis for PEEEI-IC policy formulation

Date : 1992-10-08

Dear sirs.

Soon, the 1993 policy will be iormulated for PHILIPS EBEI-IC, the assembly and testing facility for 90% of all PHILIPS IC's.

Like last years, this policy will identify the areas in which f~BEI-IC will improve its performance. In 1892 policy, we set targets to improve e.g. implementation of CLIP (>90%), Product Yield tAssembly ~~.U~%. Testing 97.01%), or TQE implementation (>90%). At the end of this year. these targets will be met.

As you are involved in marketing our product, we think it is good to ask you some questions about these improvements. We think don't think it is good to set targets for impravement based on our vision alone. We would also like t<) itliProve our service to you by listening to you and setting next year's targetsbasedon your requirements and the requirements of your customers.

That is why we send you this survey: to obtain information that can be

enclosures, page 48

used for target setting towards better products, easier marketing and higher satisfaction for end-customers.

This year, this survey will be experimental: only some of the MSO's in East-Asia are involved (see distribution list), and only brief and few information will be asked. Thè information that we might receive from you will be analysed, and the result of this will be used to set impravement targets in 1993 policy. After policy foru!Ulation wa will evaluate this survey on how to imprave it next year. You will receive a full report on this process and the results as our 1993 policy has been stated.

Answering the questions of the survey and mailing back befare OCTOBER 21 would be appreciated very much. We expect that answering of the questions will cost about one hour trom your time or from specialists around you. We hope that you will see this as an investment that will pay back.

If you think you are not the appropriate person to answer the questions, then please mail the list back unanswered, but with a suggestion of who to approach. If filling in the questionnaire causes any problem or difficulty, then please do not hesitate to contact us. The purpose of this activity is to serve you, not to discomfort you.

Thank you in advance, with kind regards, Mathijs Philips, PEBEI IC U&.E

.ülSTRUCTIONS: a• The questions in this survey are all related tu IC's, N01 to

Semiconductors in general. If you can only provide intermation on the Semiconductor market as a whole and not on the IC market, then please continue to answer the questions but note this clearly!

bM IC-products are: PHILIPS Consumer IC's + PHILIPS Industrial IC's + SIGNETICS ASFG IC"s + SIGNETICS SPG IC's.

c* The questions in this survey are all related tothesales area.of your HSO. For example: the survey sent to Taipei HS() is only related to the Taiwan area.

dM Within every area, four market segments are identified: the EDP­segment, the Consumer Electranies segment, the Teleco~~unications segment and the CAR/GI segment. Internal sales may be treated the same way as external sales. Sales to distributors are not considered here, exept tor question 1.

e* Please answer the questions as specific as possible. Especially w.r.t. question 4: if possible, do not mention for example ··quality"', but try to specify such general terms to aspects like "'conformance to specifications" or "Lot Acceptance Rate"' or whatever appropriate. The better answers are specified, the easier it will be to set concrete targets. For effective target setting, such specificatien is very important.

f* If you do not manage to answer all the questions before OCTOBER 21 then please send the survey back partly unanswered.

enclosures, page 49

QUESTIONS: GENERAL QUESTIONS ON SALES

1 How much do you estimate that your total sales of IC-products (w.r.t. a*) will be in 1992 (all sales included, like sales to distributors or with "unknown" destination)?

Total sales expected in 1992: ____________ __ amounts in which currency? : ____ _

2 How much do you estimate that the sales of IC-products (w.r.t. a*) in 1992 will be on each market segment in your region.? How much percent is this of the total market volume in each segment?

EDP Consumer E. Telecom.

Sales: Sales: Sales: ____ _

marketshare in sagment: ___ ;·~

CAR/G. I. Sales:-----------

marketshare in segment: __ % marketshare in segment: __ % marketshare in segment: __ %

amounts in which currency?

IDENTIFICATION OF COMPE1'ITORS 3 Who are the most important competitors on each segment of the IC­

market in. your HSO-area, and how much do you estimate that their marketshares in the segment are (their sales of !C's on a segm~nt. related to total market volume of that segment} 'i'

Note: the marketshares of competitors are not most important. if you can provide them or estimate them roughly, then we would appreciate.

EDP segment competitor 1 2 _______________ _ 3 ____________________ _

Consumer E. segment competitor 1 ____________________ _ 2 ________________ ___ 3 __________________ _

Telecommunications segment competitor 1 2 3 _____________________ __

CAR/G:I- segment competitor 1 ____________________ ___ 2 _____________ _ 3 __________________ _

estimated marketshare

% __%

estimated marketshare

__ % o,·

----'• __ __ %

estimated marketshare

% %

__ __ %

estimated marketshare

__ __ % __ __ %

__%

IDENTIFICATION OF PRODUCT-ASPECTS 4 What product-aspects (or sÛpplier-aspects) are most important to

customers when they select an IC-supplier out of the potentlal IC­suppliers?

enclosures, page 50

Note:- For example, consicter a customer that needs an IC with certain functional specifications. Suppose that there are some potential suppliers of that type: which criteria will he use to select one of them?

- Please put the most important aspect on number 1, the second important on number 2 etc.

- Please refer to instruction e* This is the most difficult and most important question of this survey. Please take your time to consider the definitive answer.

important aspects on the EDP segment: ! __________________________________________________ ___

2 3--------------------------------------------------

important aspects on the Consumer E. segment: ! ____________________________________________________ _

2 3 __________________________________________________ __

important aspects on the Telecom. segment: 1 ____________________________________________________ _

2_____ --------------------3 -------------------------------

important aspects on the CAR/G.I. segment: 1 2------------------------3 ------------------------------------------------------PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

5 What is the performance of each competitor of question 3 on the most important product-aspects of question 4? Also, please add your impression of the performance of PHILIPS.

Note:- Please value the performance of each by choosing on ot thé following symbols: ·'-t+"' =very good - =worse than average '"+" =better than average " =very bad You may find it easier to repeat your answers on q. 3 and 4 shortly in the following matrix

market segment: EDP competitor 1: competi~or 2: competitor 3:

PHILIPS product aspect:periormance: 1-------------"----;------------- ------------

market segment: Consumer E. competitor 1: competitor 2: competitor 3:

PHILIPS product aspect:performance: 1 ____________ __

2_____________ -----------3 ____________ _

-·-...:- -- --~ ~. ~vill~~~~Lor ~= compe~i~or 3:

product aspect:performance: 1________ -----------2 _________ __ 3 ______ _

market segment: Telecom. competitor 1: competitor 2: competitor 3:

product aspect:performance: 1 ____________ _

2.____________ -------------3__________ -----------market segment: CAR/G.I.

competitor 1: competitor 2: competitor 3:

product aspect:performance: 1 ______ _

enclosures, page 51

PHILIPS

PHILIPS

PHILIPS

2 ______ _ -------- --------

3

GENERAL QUESTIONS; EVALUATION 6 What should in your opinion, be improved on PHILIPS IC's and why?

7 Was it difficult to answer the questions? very difficult /difficult jso so /~asy job

8 How much time did you spend on it? ______ man~minutes

9 Do you have any suggestions for impravement of the survey?

Lin , IC O&E - System & Organization

enclosures, page 52

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS THE MSO SURVEY, october 1992

GOAL OF THE SURVEY: Get insight in the opinion of the customer on PEBEI-performance in comparison with competitor performance.

SURVEY SAMPLE: 10 MSO's in the region South East Asia included Japan/Korea

QUESTIONS: Sales per market segment:

EDP Sales: Consumer E. Sales: Telecom. Sales: CAR/G.I. Sales:

---------------------=-----

marketshare in segment: % marketshare in segment:-% marketshare in segment:-% marketshare in segment:=%

amounts in which currency? : --

Performance and competitor performance per market segment:

competitor 1: competitor 2: competitor 3:

product aspect:performance: 1 2----

3 ----

RESPONSE:

PlllLIPS

2 MSO's: MSO Taiwan (200 min.) and MSO New Zealand (?)

ANALYSIS: The answers of New Zealand could not be analyzed. Analysis of the results of Taiwan was done in three directions: 1: on what product aspects has PEBEI relatively minor performance ? 2: what product aspects are related to the highest sales ? 3: on what product aspects that are related to highestsales is the PEREI-performance relatively minor ?

enclosures, page 53

RESULTS: Result of direction 1:

Performance of PEBEI related to competitor (top=worst; downward=better): -Delivery -New product development cycle P -Price P -Performance of specifications P

P means: this product aspect is only partly related to · PEBEI activities.

Result of direction 2:

product aspect related with high sales (top=highest sales; downward=less): -Delivery 29 -Price 29 P -New product development cycle 9.7 P -Performance of specifications 3.5 P

P means: this product aspect is only partly related to PEBEI activities.

Result of direction 3:

product aspect related with high sales and relative bad performance of PEBEI (top=highest sales and worst performance; downward=less and better):

-Delivery -Price P -New product development cycle P -Performance of specificadons P

P means: this product aspect is only partly related to PEBEI activities.

* *

*

*

EV ALUATION: response is too low to pull good conclusions on the answers to SEA market; response from Taiwan provides interesting information on Taiwanese IC mar ket; Next time, the questionnaire must be shorter, questions simpler, space to mention product aspects must be bigger, motivation to cooperate must be increased, a reminder to return the questionnaire after immediately after the deadline is preferred; interviews in the same style as the survey, with selected MSO's inside and outside SEA should be considered.

enclosures, page 54

6.2 CWQ/ METHOD

The NO Taiwan office emphasizes a more customer oriented approach in policy formulation for the Taiwan organizations. In the words of this report that means more or less, that PEBEI-IC should try to emphasize the fourth group of customers: the MSO's/RSO's/IC buyers. And with this standpoint, one enters the problem already identified by the QFD approach and the PEBEI-IC practise: obtaining information from these rustomers is not easy. As a practical support for their guideline, the CWQI office developed a practical approach that supports this vision. This approach will now be described shortly as a reference and to identify the specific difficulties in obtaining customer information in this practise.

The following figure e6.2 is a key document in this CWQI approach. This document is filled in by the MSO-office and the information on it is analyzed by them. The complete results will be provided to PEBEI-IC. The CWQI approach covers in this way the key IC-buyers in Taiwan, which are about lÓ. This way of obtaining or rather charting from IC-buyers' information is meant toserve MSO and PEBEI-IC on their efforts towards quality improvements in a customer oriented way. The information mentioned in this schedule is the name, region, product-kind and turnover target related to that customer. Then, a competitor analysis is made that shows the weak and the strong points of each competitor on the five product-aspects (4P&S). Furthermore, key success factors and strategie issues related to that customer can be giVen.

This schedule might be compared with the schedule developed for the survey: similarities can be found in the basic assumptions, namely that a customer decides for a supplier based on his requirements (4P&S, three aspects) and on a comparison of competitor performance on those aspects. Also similar is. the fact that the weight of the information is measured by the current or targetsales of the concemed customer. In the survey, the weight of the information is measured by the sales or target sales in the market-segment.

Differences in the two approaches, the CWQI approach and the survey of this report are the following: the CWQI approach only deals with key customers, and makes a rather detailed analysis on them. The survey however limits itself to market segments. Furthermore, the CWQI approach focuses on Taiwan customers; the survey includes customers in the SEA region. Another difference may be that the CWQI approach will probably ask more time than the survey, especially if such analysis is done for about ten customers. Last difference mentioned bere, is that the CWQI approach asks to identify strengtbs and weaknesses on the five basic categories and that the survey only asks for the three most important product aspects.

There is no experience with both approaches at the PEBEI-IC site, and there is not enough known about the rustomers of PEBEI-IC to decide which is the best option. E.g.: only when there is some evidence that the key customers in Taiwan are representative for all IC-buyers, then one may prefer the CWQI metbod that emphasizes detailed analysis, but if not, then one sho1:1ld favour the survey that emphasizes universa! use and simplicity.

COHPETITOR ANALYSIS/STRATEOIC ISSUES GENERATION

·--·····----------------------··-·······--·-··· Region 1 __________ _

Cuatomer ~--------- / Product 1 T/0 Target 1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Place (Channel) Service Promotion Competitora\ 4Pa ·Product Price

------------------Strength

-------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------.--- ------------------Weakneaa

--------- -------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------Strength

------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -----------------~ Weakneaa

Strength

Weakneaa

--------- -------- ------------------ ------------------Strength

----------~------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------Weakneaa

Strength

Weakneaa

Key succeaa foctorai ____________________________________________________ ~--------------------------------------------------Strategic iaauea1 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __

N013-HT92072 1992-10-27

6.3 INFORMATION TO 1993 POUCY FORMULATION

PEBEI-IC MANAGEMENT CONTROL ITEMS FOR 1993

Quality require't Incl SPC: 47 pta

Delivery require't > 95 \

Eng'ing require•t > 95 \

Nr. of complaint Cuatomer compl- Cumulative aint impravement cases from

Customer belt rej. Reject at CED+PCD

Complaint response Customer compl- Daya of CRISP samples time aint handle time

Cuetomers RLIP

Order lead time

Prod. cycle time

Delivery CLIP

Delivery balance

wco accept rate

Door to Door TPT

3.7 Technical stock

3.8 Commercial stock

Key cuetomers Q'ty del'ed on time/ Q'ty by key cuetomers

WIP /Daily output

Factory ASY+TST Q'ty to store (-0\ - +5 CLIP or +10\)/0rder Q'ty

jLatej+jAdvancej

Weekly call Off

Speedline turn- Speedline total turn around days around leadtime

\ of value of + Pur ..

\ of value of \ of value of

'---náte

I) 4 New package ratio New packac;re salea ratl.o

New Sub-pkg or pkg \ / total sub-pkg or pkg in l993(eg. QFP,SQFP,SHDIL)

Pkg. development cycle time

Equipment develop­ment CLIP

Material line reject

Initial quality Assy yield ~f I 4

Budget + 15 \

Elec+Méch visual PPM

Assy output/Die input

Reject lot \ from Pred. + Incaming

Delivery/Headcount Industry prod'ty TTL sales 1 PEBEI-IC

DeHvecy

Productivity

Energy consumption

turnover rate

Yearly planning 93 yearly planning & Local Assy Business

Budget + 15 \ Direct headcoûnt ~r Hulskotte/Test unJ.t

enclosures, page 56

1992-12-o7

SPFE

SPFE

MMO

PO

PO

MECH

ASSY

Q&R

ASSY

MMO

enclosures, page 57

WHATs vs WHYs Date: 06 Apr 93 c:lqfdcaptlqfddatai053QF028

u " ~ : ; ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ( \.

~ .. +- ~ . 't ~ ~ ~ - ~ • : ~ +-

G

~ ( ~ ~

> ;

~ ~ ~

Q

- ~ L ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ - u u

L ~ -~

( ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ë ~ • '1: ~ ' ; ~ ~ ~ ~ [ : ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( -

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f +- ~ l

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .t:.

~ ' ~ c ~ ~ +-

g g - ~ -- - ; ~ ~ .. ; : ~ g ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ È l <. ~ (

1 faster response and better qual ity l\

2 high techn. support from gaveroment l\ * 3 sufficient and qual ified H.R. * 4 high growth marl::et * l\

5 high growth in eertaio specific product segment * l\ * 6 increasing Iabour cost * 7 tougher requirement on qua I i t y and flexibility * * 8 labor and expertise shortage * 9 higher environment requirement * 10 higher requirement on product de I i ver y * 11 more competitors * *

enclosures, page 58

Is. w.o. T TABLE ANALYSIS I OPPORTUNITIES AND TiffiEATS

I CRITERIA I ~~- 8 E .-s A

~ OPPORTUNITY THRE.AT ; '"I I ~ V

"'BlC11 'lm::R ~ I § I 8 A

STREHCTB3 ( +) STRENC'm3 ( +) B :d u

I L "' m:1.P US DIREC'II.Y mi2 US DIRJ:C'l'LY :lil

~ TO EIPLOrr THI:3 TO COWB.A.T

~ i u OPPORTUNrrY THlS THRJ:AT ~~ ~ I SJ ~ i

I 8

I i A

~ ~I ~ ~ t I ~~

83 T ;~ s.v q i5

I 1'HICH 'WHICH

IJ4 ~ ~ I ~(-) YEAXNli:S3l!:3 (-) IA RINDER 'OS BINDER US ~~ ~ ~s I ~~ "" si 0

DIBEC'l'LY IN DIRB:CTLY IN

~e ~g I § a N XIPI.OmNG COWB.A.'1"1'JNC = la ca &!

Tm3 OPPORTUNl'l'Y '1'Hl:9 THREAT a ~= a m~ ~ tHQ ~0

0 0 0 0 0 T T T T T T 11. TQE ASSESSYENT

1.1 COloiPU.IN'l' ~NSl: TnoiE @ ''IZ @ ~ 1.2 NR. OF COliPU.INT s 6 4

~ 6 1 0 6 7

!'--' 88

1.!3 CUS'I'OliXR BXLT RXJECT

2. NU1dBER OF COldPLAlNT

2.1 COllPLAINT RJ:SPOJm ma: w 16 0 1 9 6 2 14 2 1 4 10 64 2.2 CUSTOWJ:R BJ.LT RJ:nCT

~ 3. CUSTOYER RLIP

3.1 DEUVE C!) 3.2 PRODUCTION C1CIJ: ma: ·z 3.3 '1'CO .ACCJ:PT R.U'l!:

~ @) @ ~ 3.4 DEUVimY B!I.ANCE w @ 0 1 ~

6 4 2 3 g 87 fl.l 3.6 1 ACTORT STOCK

~ 3.15 CO~a~XRCW. STOCK 3. 7 ORDER IZ.\D TDa

' 3.8 C!I.EHIUR DJ.13 SPJ:li:D'l'I:Ia tr.l 1">-l 4. NE1r PRODUCT RATIO tr.l

~ ~ fl.l w 1 @ 8 @ 213 5 1 3 7a

I . 4.2 EQUIPla:N'r DiV. CUP ~ p 4.!3 ST.ART UP 1'IJ:Il)

6. OUTGOING QUALITY w til J.SSY nxu> 11 2 3 •5 7 6 g 3 3 . 6 8 63

ti2 IU.TERIAL WiE REJrer I

6. DEUVERY/ HEADCOUNT

''M ~ 8.1 PRODUC11Vl1 r s 4 6 6 8 3 1 6 3 8 69 8.2 DZUURY lö 8.3 E!aROY CONSUllPTION

7. DIRECT TURNOVER RATE a ja .. 7.1 DIREC'l' ABSEN"l'EElSY s 1 1 9 1 2 17 1 2 1 49

8. INDIRECT TURNOVER RATE s 1 3 13 2 3 A

6 2 13 1 0 3 47

9. WASTE WATER PAST RATE s 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 1 0 18 ...

4.00 a.a 5.00 ue IY 10.0

;e.e In 111.0 IY 1e.e 1U

1LO 2.05 ... 111.2 ~.1 In

14.0 In

.. .0 ö.ii1 411.0 2.110 uo

2.00

I'"" ~

n IlO

].!!

• ft 11 ft J• n IM n I"'

l'_ .o_ ft ,......

(.Q.77,ö:iiil) ft 1118 n ISO :Y 111 y I!!_

Hl ii -42

y lii .'!___l1l!CL 1Yiii7 n 11.0 n 111.4

~ I m..".,

L .. ~ 1.11 IY IY E 2.20 I IY 1 u.uo

e.:ze Jl'__jy_ ..

I i

1TOE-1.1~---1.2~~ , ................. _.._

11 nr.al~-I L1-beltNfee!,_

!.&.~~..--·~-N.l .. % L1 __ _

u~...!2!!!!.-,,. t.A-..y-uwoo_ ... ..._ .. _lPT 8.7_.., ....... ~ u...,._".....,.... .. ,_,......,. .....

1 .... 1_.__ ... ~-

I IIUipOinip !loliil 1.1 U ...-.JIN .... 1_"""-lt,.,. ............... 1.1 ......... u tiiDdUCIMIY u-..~ 7----7.1dlrec:t.....,_". ·-----·--~ ...

~ (")

0" ~ (ti

_Cl)

i ~ ~