Fico from ETO to ATOFrank Rood 2012 04 03

THE BESI PACKAGING COMPANY.

2

CONTENT

Company introduction

Why change?

Goal, plan and approach

Solutions

Execution and experience

Results

Additional projects and results

Final conclusions

• Founded in 1956

•One of the first in semicon equipment

•Equipment for semicon back-end processes

•Subsidiary of the Besi group

•Fico: headcount > 180 revenue > 60 M€

•Besi: headcount >1500 world-wide revenue >300 M€

Company introduction

www.besi.com3

Why change?

Why Product Company project:

•Volatile market with extreme ramp up and down

•Cost and lead time pressure

•Technology excellence without sufficient profit

Main drivers:

•Shorter and reliable throughput time

•Higher customer order product quality

•Lower costs

4

Goals

Realise a modular product structure for the Fico Compact Line in order to achieve that for each customer order:

•no customer specific engineering is required = NO ETO

•customer order specifications, matching the product requirements specifications, are complete and 100% reliable specified by Sales

• lead time from purchase order to shipment < 8 weeks

Project supported by

5

Approach

Vision communicated continuously:

“We want to become a Product Company.”

•Monthly update of project status

•Involve all departments (key players from each department)

•Key performance indicators reviewed quarterly as part of theBalanced Scorecard

• total inventory of standard modules

• inventory turnover of standard modules

• project lead times

• engineering cost as % of total cost of sales

6

Analysis primary process

TPT= Throughput Time in weeks

ORDER TOTAL ORDER STARTUP + DEFINITION

DESIGN ASSEMBLY + DEBUGGING

TPT HOURS TPT HOURS TPT HOURS TPT“STANDARD” SYSTEEM

18 w 40 u 2 w 425 u 3 w 500 u 5 w

CONVERSION KIT

15 w 30 u 2 w 400 u 3 w 425 u 2 w

REPEAT 15 w 16 u 2 w 60 u 1 w 500 u 4 w

DESIGN WORKPREPERATION

PURCHASING

ASSEMBLY AND

DEBUGGING

ORDER DEFINITION

OFFERSELL

7

Product Company project: the concept

Copy from old order Always different designs Customer specific parts are

copied as well Errors are copied also No costs for maintaining the

product definition base

P…1 P…2 P…3 P…4 P…5

Selection out of a Product Definition

Same reference for each project

Less redo work Better cost management Increase of reuse

P…1 P…2 P…3 P…4 P…5

BUIDINGBLOCKS

IST SOLL

8

Execution: Compact Line structure

Stack-down open bottom

plate

Stack-down closed

bottom plate

Tube offloader

Slotted offloader

Mod

ule

1

Mod

ule

2

Mod

ule

3

Mod

ule

4

Mod

ule

5

CLx

xx

CLx

xx

CLx

xx

CLx

xx

CLx

xx

Mod

ule

6C

Lxxx

Mod

uel 7

CLx

xx

Mod

ule

8C

Lxxx

Varia

nt A

CLx

xx

Varia

nt B

CLx

xx

Varin

at C

CLx

xx

Varia

nt D

CLx

xx

Opt

ion

AC

Lxxx

Opt

ion

BC

Lxxx

Opt

ion

CC

Lxxx

Opt

ion

DC

Lxxx

PR A

CLx

xx

PR B

CLx

xx

Spar

es A

CL0

25

B

Spar

es B

CL0

22

B

Base Variant Option PR Spares

Leve

l 2Le

vel 3

Category

10

What went wrong?

• Project Management had it’s ups and downs

• A lack of strong drivers / communicators in the project team

• Time was our biggest enemy, you need endurance:

• paradox: change requires stability - do not change your strategy

• change requires effort; market downturn resulted in pressure on fte’s during the organizational embedding

11

What went right?

• Strong vision of initiator and also in hard times believers on several organizational levels

• The product (Fico Compact Line) was fully prepared for the Product Company approach (excellent System Architect !)

• The philosophy was (finally) embedded in 2005

• The benefits of the new approach are clearly visible

• 2006 Success ! 15% EBIT

• 2007 Success ! 9% EBIT in a semicon downturn

• 2008-2011 Continuous profit on FCL => Cash Cow!

12

Culture is the sum of all shared values and behavioral “standards” of the majority within an organization.

It is a soft aspect and very hard to grab.

In change management the soft aspects are the hard ones.

Implementation & culture

13

Results

14

Next project: Tooling; the hardest case

There are customer-related requirements: we try to solve this by configuration: assembly-to-order = ATO.

There are also product-related requirements: we try to solve this by standard models.

A project within a project

•Tool Modeling

•Six Sigma approach.

15

Tooling Project results

16

Project ProductConfig

GOAL: 80% of orders – NO Engineering

SCOPE: AMS-W

capability----------------------

config------------------------------------

datasheet------------------

Sales Production

R&D

releasedmodules / options

lead time < 4 weeksgross margin > ..%

Next Project: configuration Molding System

17

Number of options

18

83

61 56

39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

created overview first meeting for reduction P6 Basic Module 2nd meeting for reduction

2010 04 14 2010 05 10 2010 06 28 2010 07 07

№ o

f opt

ions

(1)

action & date

Options AMS-W

Result ProductConfig

AMS-W Molding System

• Margin increase: 10%

• Beats competition

• Our new Cash Cow!

19

Final conclusions

1. Smart Customization is above all a cultural change process.

2. Keep it simple: one unique number.

3. Smart Customization saves resources, time, money and leads to more profit.

20

= 1 number

THANK YOU.