Management and the Technology Professional – B302
Case study answer 2
Primary factors:
- Cost
- Delay
- Impact
- Future problems
Options:
- Move on to step 7 and ignore missed tests
- Discard untested components
- Redo testing sequence (step 6)
Answer:
As the supervising engineer responsible for performing the final testing (step 6) before configuration, I need to decide what i need to do having missed a test during the final day of the performance testing. I think it’s probably the most viable idea to simply restart the test sequence all over again including the missed test and making sure that all the semi-finished microprocessors are working correctly to the right level.
My reasoning for this decision is because it is unknown if the semi-finished units have a fault or not due to the test being missed. The point of step 6 is to establish the detailed performance characteristics of the semi-finished processors, and if they haven’t been completely tested, some components may then be found to be under or over performing. Its important that faults are noted and their source is discovered in the earlier stages in the manufacturing process.
You can weigh up many pro's and con's for this decision. Obviously by delaying the manufacturing by another 4 days (minimum) the ship out time to customers will be delayed by the same time period meaning possible loss of business and increased production costs at Intel's expense. The flip side to this is it makes sure that the components are ready and fully functional before reaching the later stages or the outside world. Cutting out problems at this stage will improve the overall flow of the business even if it will anger some management and cost extra money. The recalling, the recycling and replacement of faulty microprocessors later on will cost Intel even more. I am sure Intel will come down hard on me for this decision but they would be highly embarrassed if they rolled out a huge batch of faulty components and then had to recall them, especially in the on running battled between Intel and their competitors such as AMD. It’s better to get the components right first time instead of putting them into the public eye where they may be faulty. If this mistake is a one time mistake it can be recovered from but a long term mistake in the testing and production needs to be worked out of the production system. By fixing the missed testing now following orders being rolled through the production line should have no problems. Another point is that by moving on faulty components to the later stages, those stages may also be delayed as a result of the faults being discovered for example.
Restarting step 6 will delay steps 7 and 8 of the manufacturing process but it will ensure a higher probability that the product output will function properly when it is used by customers. A delay might be create a knock on affect further along the critical path of production, but it will reduce the chances of faulty products being returned in the long run which should of been noticed. Any faults which are found by testing help the flow control of production as a whole and potentially improve the resulting product. Working out where problems have occurred in production is what were supposed to do in testing. Intel has brought in automated systems to remove the potential human error and try to make the production process more streamlined. It all helps.
Discarding the untested component wont really benefit Intel at all (cost or output wise), and ignoring testing could create problems down the line. Intel will come back to me about the delay but they will hate me more if loads of microprocessors fail because a fault wasn’t noticed. Companies using our processor will complain and loose Intel money possibly costing me my supervisor job (possibly if it ever got that far).
Notes:
Critical path is 1->3->4->( 6 )->7->8->Ship Products
Critical path total = 1+3+2+4+7+3 = 20 days
