Package Development Process - Post Mortem

1
Package Development Process - Post
Mortem Reduction of Product Returns Caused by
Improper Handling
Mr. Alan Masnek, CPP (Seagate Technology) ETM
5131 Project July 28, 2003
2
Problem Statement

• Develop a packaging container to decrease the
  problem
• Product returns caused by improper handling are
  35 of all returns that results in a profit
  impact of 70 million and customer
  dissatisfaction.

3
Measures of the ProblemProblem found-percent of
product returned
Customer Handling Damage HDI PCBA FW Motor DPPM Rate DPPM Goal
A 35 20 15 12 15 3500 1000
B 45 25 13 1 5 2500 500
C 28 50 0 10 10 6000 750
Product return rate for top 3 customers that
represent 25 percent of revenue for 1Q2002
4
Measures of the Problem

• The company sets aside a certain dollar amount to
  cover warranty related costs for each product it
  produces and ships. The warranty reserve is
  presently 3-4 per product produced.
• Actual product returns drive this dollar amount
  up or down. Current cost for defective product
  from handling damage is 60 to 70 million. The
  MBB projects the proper solution can save 70
  percent of that amount.
• Balanced Scorecards supplied by customer.

5
Corporate Packagings View

• Product Assurance
• Test Standards
• Corp Packaging Test Lab
• CETEC
• Drive qual in package

• Manufacturing Engineering
• Develop line ready packaging - FoF
• ESD
• Cleanliness

• Engineering - RD
• Mechanical Stability
• Core Team support

• Packaging
• Packaging Development
• Components drives
• Measure Environment
• Documentation
• Material selection
• SQE interface
• ASL updates

• Operations
• Material Handling
• Palletization Requirements

• Other
• Xiotech
• CES
• Product Stewardship

• CMT
• Supplier Packaging (FoF)
• Establish and Manage Global
• Supplier Relationships
• Support Supply Chain Strategy
• Price leverage
• Manage pkg. consumables specs

• Distribution/Logistics
• Customer Satisfaction
• Reverse logistics
• Shipping Costs
• Regulatory Compliance
• Damage/loss

• Marketing
• Graphics Standards
• WW CSO Support
• Website Maintenance
• Customer interface

6
Project Objectives

• Develop a solution that will do the following
• Reduce product returns due to handling damage
  from 35 to 5 - 10 within one year and justify
  any product packaging cost increase that may
  accompany the solution.
• Create and capture customer value. (Solve other
  problems perhaps?)
• With a breakthrough idea, capitalize on and make
  packaging, an area normally taken for granted, a
  differentiator.

7
Deliverables

• Reduced product returns
• Improved profitability
• Increased customer delight

8
Alternatives to be Considered(As used during the
project)

• New and improved shipping container utilizing the
  following materials
• Extruded polyethylene foam. Rectangular
  extrusions in its infancy
• Conductive bubble bag. Inadequate cushioning.
• Corrugated fiberboard. High manufacturing labor
  costs.
• Must use ESD bag. Inadequate cushioning.
• Corrugated with PE foam. High manufacturing
  labor costs.
• Must use ESD bag. Excellent cushioning.
• Vacuum-formed closed-cell cross- High material
  cost. Must use ESD bag.
• linked polyolefin foam. Inadequate cushioning.
• Thermoformed tray w/ foam insets. High labor
  cost. Excellent cushioning.
• Thermoformed plastic with shock Inadequate
  cushioning. Material damage evident
• dampening buttons.
• Seashell Viscoelastic dampening and material
  thickness
• combine to provide ESD protection and
• excellent cushioning within price target.

9
Alternatives to be Considered(A better way to
measure-select the best solution)
Shock dampening ESD Cleanliness Cost Labor cost Producibility Clarity Total pts
PE Foam 9 7 7 6 9 4 0 43
Cond bubble bag 5 10 6 6 5 5 2 39
Corrugated fibreboard 3 1 2 10 8 9 0 33
Corrugated w/foam 9 7 7 4 7 4 0 38
Thermoformed plastic with foam 9 8 8 8 8 8 9 58
Thermoformed with buttons 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 61
Thermoformed, hinged, clamshell with ribs 10 9 9 9 8 8 9 62
10
Project Approach and Criteria for(Evaluating
Alternatives-The way it should be done)

• DMAIC Six Sigma for Operational Excellence
  approach will be used (Emphasis on
  solution-After-Next Principle)
• Define
• Measure
• Analyze
• Improve
• Control
• Each alternative will be evaluated against the
  deliverables

11
Project Approach and Criteria forEvaluating
Alternatives(Questions not developed or answered
before project start.)

• ? Meets shock and vibration requirements.
• ? Does it improve protection of the product?
• ? Does it meet the physical requirements?
• ? Improve handling of the product. Does it make
  it easier for the customer to prevent dropping
  the product.
• ? Improved visibility of the product
• ? Recyclable, reusable?
• ? Stackable?
• ? Is it patentable? Can we lock out competitors
  from obtaining it?

12
Project Plan - SeaShell Protective
Holder (Schedule Slippage)
Concept Mgmt Approval Prototype Pilot
Run Implementation Investigation to
Proceed Build and Test Production
Customers
Jan Mar Apr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Date of Plan
Indicates anticipated date for Completion of
phase Actual Completion Date
13
Problems Encountered

• Inadequate/wrong team members selected.
• Lack of buy-in from organizations.
• Poor and flawed definition and quantification of
  the problem.
• No cost guideline.
• Manufacturability not established.

14
Problems Encountered

• Poor timeline and project planning.
• Customer acceptance not defined.
• Life cycle analysis not performed.
• Criteria for measuring and evaluating
  alternative.
• What exactly was the deliverable.

15
Recommendations

• Training for Six Sigma DMAIC concepts for proper
  project execution should be administered to the
  group.
• Development team must devise a plan to seek and
  obtain involvement from colleagues across the
  organization. Dont assume the team members
  know or understand the problem and the plan.