| 1. Work Instructions | |
| 1.1 | Is there a revision controlled Operator Work Instruction which contains set-up information for the specific product being reflowed? (Score 0 if any unsigned/undated handwritten instructions or any handwritten instructions more than 48 hrs old) |
| 1.2 | Are Work Instructions readily available to the operator and are they followed at Reflow? |
| 1.3 | Is the conveyor speed set point specified on the Work Instruction and is it the same as that specified in the program? |
| 1.4 | Are the temperature set points specified on the Work Instruction and are they the same as those specified in the program? |
| 1.5 | Do Work instructions indicate if pallets or other tooling are required? |
| 1.6 | When center rail support is required, do Work instructions indicate this requirement and is the location specified? |
| 1.7 | Is the machine Program Name specified on the Work Instruction or set-up sheets? |
| 2. Machine Capability | |
| 2.1 | Is the Reflow technology in use suitable for the product being built? Must be full forced Convection with sufficient zone count. |
| 2.2 | Are air flow controllers or a centralized control system used to balance exhaust flow rates for each individual exhaust drop? |
| 2.3 | Are exhaust flow rate ranges specified and monitored on a regular basis to insure compliance? |
| 2.4 | Is the machine Program Name revision controlled to show traceability of program changes? |
| 2.5 | Is the machine Program Name traceable to the PWB and PCBA part number? |
| 2.6 | Is access to the machine program password protected with restricted access? |
| 2.7 | Do program changes to critical parameters during machine control remain unsaved unless approved by a technician/engineer? |
| 3. Temperature Profile | |
| 3.1 | Is there available a Temperature Profile for the product currently being built? |
| 3.2 | Is the Temperature Profile assessable and readily available to operators / technicians as and when required? |
| 3.3 | Were the Temperature Set Points and Conveyor Speed logged for that Thermal Profile when it was conducted? |
| 3.4 | Do the Temperature Set Points & Conveyor Speed written on the Thermal Profile correspond to the current Program settings? |
| 3.5 | Is there available an Engineering based specification to detail the acceptable process window for Temperature Profiles? |
| 3.6 | Was the Engineering based spec. derived from the Paste & Component manufacturer’s recommendations but controlled to a narrower window? |
| 3.7 | Does the product Temperature Profile fall within the Engineering based specification for the process window? |
| 3.8 | Does the product Temperature Profile fall within the Engineering based specification for glass transition temperature requirements? |
| 3.9 | Can any excursions outside of the process window be justified and supported with hard evidence and logical analysis? |
| 3.10 | Does the product Temperature Profile meet the reflow requirements for the SMT components according to the component manufactures? |
| 3.11 | Are the boards used to establish the initial Thermal Profile kept as engineering samples? |
| 3.12 | Is there evidence that a once off comparison study been conducted for a loaded versus an unloaded oven? |
| 3.13 | Have at least five thermocouples been used at various points on the board to establish the Thermal Profile? Note* |
| 3.14 | Is there a documented and systematic approach used to identify the most appropriate locations to attach the thermocouples? |
| 3.15 | Can it be demonstrated that a BOM review was conducted to verify that the chosen profile is appropriate for all specific component conditions? |
| 3.16 | Is there evidence that each thermocouple ball was bonded to a board joint using Hi Temp. Solder or Conductive Epoxy? |
| 3.17 | Is there the capability to detect a temperature zone failure and to trigger an alarm automatically if this occurs? |
| 3.18 | Has a Calibration Profile been established in order to detect machine long term performance degradation? |
| 3.19 | Is there a documented frequency for running a Calibration Profile and was it established based upon historical performance data? |
| 3.20 | Is there evidence to demonstrate that Calibration Profiles are conducted and that records are up-to-date? |
| 3.21 | Is the practice of comparing the current Calibration Profile to the Standardized Calibration Profile used to identify changes? |
| 3.22 | Is the current Calibration Overlay/Profile used to determine if a variation in the ovens thermal characteristics has occurred? |
| 3.23 | Is the current Calibration Overlay/Profile used to determine if a variation in conveyor speed has occurred? |
| 3.24 | Is there evidence to demonstrate that action was taken when the Calibration Profile was different to the Standard? |
| 3.25 | Is a standardized tool, like an OvenRider, used with a standardized profile to conduct a Calibration Profile? |
| 4. Manual Inspection (NA allowed, for questions in this section if AOI is deployed) | |
| 4.1 | Are outputted boards at least sample inspected pre reflow for placement, missing components, and solder defects? |
| 4.2 | Are Workmanship Standards defined for placement and soldering, and are they accessible and used to determine board acceptability? |
| 4.3 | Are Inspection Templates available and used to identify missing & unpopulated components and component polarity post reflow? |
| 4.4 | Are Inspection Templates or Visual Aids used to identify ICT not tested components post reflow? |
| 4.5 | Are Templates readily accessible for verification purposes? |
| 4.6 | Are Inspection Templates revision controlled and traceable to the current product ECO level? |
| 4.7 | Is there a point and click software tool post reflow which is linked to CAD or program data to facilitate component identification for rework? |
| 4.8 | Is there a documented requirement to conduct at least sampling X-ray inspection for BGA devices, and is there evidence that it is practiced? |
| 5. Automatic Inspection (NA allowed, for the cells indicated) | |
| 5.1 | Are AOI/AXI complementary methods, which include solder joint inspection, used for all reflowed parts? |
| 5.2 | Is the AOI coverage % calculated based on the board OFE for a given side vs the total # of joints/components inspected? |
| 5.3 | Are the components/joints not covered by AOI documented and known and targeted for visual inspection? |
| 5.4 | Is there evidence that the AOI coverage is verified periodically by using ICT and manual inspection feedback data? |
| 5.5 | Can it be demonstrated that the machine calls are reviewed by the operator to determine if real or false? |
| 5.6 | Can it be demonstrated that the operator been fully trained and certified to interpolate the AOI images presented? |
| 5.7 | Does the ICT pareto of defects suggest that AOI is being 100% deployed and is being effective? |
| 5.8 | Can it be demonstrated that AOI detectable ICT failures are feed back to AOI to improve program and operator effectiveness? |
| 5.9 | Are rejected boards automatically stopped on the line post operator false call validation? |
| 5.10 | Are changes to AOI coverage made based only on performance feedback? |
| 6. Process Control | |
| 6.1 | Is there evidence that the SPC used to monitor output post reflow, is effective at identifying & correcting process performance issues? |
| 6.2 | Is the processes DPMO and the products DPU monitored in real time? (‘real-time’=now) |
| 6.3 | Is OFE data readily available and calculated in accordance to documented procedures? |
| 6.4 | Is AOI data used to calculate SMT’s DPMO? Score 0 if AOI deployed and not done. |
| 6.5 | Are ICT debug results used to re-calculate SMT DPMO as a true measure of SMT DPMO? |
| 6.6 | Is the data collected meaningful and can it be demonstrated that it is used to make process control decisions? |
