Component reliability

[Thorsson]

It's very difficult to rate RMAs for any company unless you've had recent experiences. A lot of places the first problem is getting an RMA number as they don't answer the phone (often 1 person working 9-5 which is stark contrast to their selling staff).

The company with the best RMA I've ever seen is Crucial. It's bloody brilliant.

[dodgybob]

Crucial are good for RMA but were a pain with my address last time. Despite updating my details on their site, responding to their email with my new address and including a note in the box they still sent the replacement ram to my old address. Luckily I got on well with my old land lord. Aside from that they were very efficient.

I have had RMAs with Scan before where they haven't picked up the fault that I sent the product in about. Having said that it's pretty easy to get them to retest stuff if you think there's something that they've missed. I would rate their service as very good.

[Blitzen]

Crucial, Viewsonic and Logitech have the BEST RMA service i have ever come across.

Overclockers.co.uk and Dabs have the worst i have come across.

[Lucio]

I wonder though, with regards to the OP, isn't it likely that we're simply seeing the result of having to stretch the same amount of resources further and further? After all, companies have to make more profit each year, by selling more product to more customers than ever before. What doesn't pick up so quickly though is the available resources (time, money and energy) to do the work, so things like quality and control testing fall by the wayside.

[Phil_P]

I think you only have to look at modern components to see why failure rates are so high. I have an old Gigabyte motherboard (AMD K6-2) from ~10 years ago that's still going strong. The tracks on the board are all about 1-2mm wide with good separation, and it's probably a 2 or 3 layer board. Yet many more recent boards have failed in less than 3 years and they all have tracks the thickness of a human hair that are packed so closely together the tolerances are beyond belief. Modern kit is just so much more advanced, I'm not at all surprised the failure rates are so much higher. That, combined with reduced costs and building down to a price point and I think you have the answer.

So please, how do SCAN rate for sending out reliable parts, and how good is their RMA system?

regards

acro666

I had no problems with Scan. Last summer, I received an expensive PSU on which it appeared the warranty sticker had been cut although nothing else was physically wrong with the unit (it tested fine). I contacted Scan and they immediately arranged for a collect and return at no cost. A new unit was shipped (I checked the serials so it wasn't the same unit sent back out), and it was identical with a cut warranty sticker. I contacted Scan again, who checked their stock and found all units were the same. They contacted the supplier who informed them that the seal had been cut at the factory to make a modification. Scan issued me a written warranty by letter acknowledging that the seal was cut and that the warranty would be honoured should it ever be needed (I'm sure they would have offered me a credit or refund had I wanted that instead). Throughout the process I was kept informed by email at all times.

I really can't fault that level of customer service.

Oh, and I wouldn't buy any memory other than Crucial - again their returns policy is "no questions asked" and first rate (I've had 2 returns with them out of many purchases).

One final one that WAS a surprise to me was Microsoft. I had a faulty webcam, and rather than fork out for return shipping to Amazon, I just phoned up Microsoft and after taking the serial no they just sent me a replacement free of charge, plus I must have had at least half a dozen emails from them asking if I was satisfied with the service I received. Like I said, a real surprise and again first rate!

[iranu]

Things have changed in the last 5 years.
The reliability of the components hasnt but the QA/QC procedures have.

I have been in the electronics industry on/off for the best part of my civilian working life (around 10 years) and here's why things have changed.

The 'fall-out' in production has nearly always been at around 9%. Not the PCB's or the seperate parts. Its the finished product boxed and ready.

Thing is, with the Far Eastern markets, they only have a AQL (Acceptable Quality Level) test. This means, depending on the standard followed, that maybe only 1 out of every 30 units is tested in a 500 units batch. This keeps manufacturing costs down but inevitably leads to higher failures in the field.

THIS is the price you pay for buying abroad.

In the UK manufacturing the AQL would be, on a 100 batch, usually 15-20 per 100 tested. So, although not fool proof, it will usually spot errors more frequently.
Unfortunately though, to have any chance of competing with the foreign markets, we too have had to drop our batch testing levels to bring the costs down.

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

I went to South Korea in 2002 to a VERY well known electronics manufacturer which is based there.
When i was on the plant tour, the Manufacturing Director told me that they have a 100% pass rate leaving their factory.
We all know that its impossible to get 1st time right every time.

This is how they achieved a 100% success rate upon finished goods leaving.........they had a manufacturing floor about 4 times the size of an aircraft hangar and there was faulty units/parts EVERYWHERE.
The other side of the plant they had another building that was at least 5 times the size of the manufacturing unit.
Know what it was??????

The rework station.....all the scrap (mustve been 30-40% of all manufactured product), ended up there to be reworked and shipped.

Rework is damn expensive because it's labour intensive, however the far east pay peanuts so I guess they can afford to do it. Getting the process right first time is extremely important in the UK because any rework can severely reduce profits. I've seen cases whereby the firm has made a loss on a contract due to requiring rework on a load of cast aluminium gearbox casing because of the huge penalty for being late with the delivery. Damn bean counters chose the cheapest casters and the company paid the price.

Your quote of 9% "fall-out" reminds me of the issues RR has with their single crystal turbine blade foundry in Bristol. They were getting 9% yield per batch! Yep 91% scrap.

[peterb]

The Op (Agent) referred to components, but really they are sub-assemblies - but the QC process starts before then at the 'true' component level. The transistors/ICs?resistors/capacitors are all made in their millions, and generally (at that level) the performance of each component in a batch is repeatable - so those components undergo some form of batch testing to ensure the batch has conformaty to the device's specification. Nothing wrong with that, except that there will usually be some devices that fall outside that or will fail prematurely, which batch testing probably won't pick up.

Those components then go to a sub-assembly - like a computer PSU. These 'commodity items' are generally built down to a price. The design should take into account component tolerances, but anything outside that may cause latent problems later on. Electrolytic capacitors are a relatively common failure item. A component filtering a 12 volt rail must be adequately rated to carry the ripple current and have a voltage rating commensurate with the steady state voltager. For a 12V rail, I'd probably specify a (say) 20V component - but a builder building down to a price might use a 15V rated item. Result - risk of premature failure.

Fimnally testing - again one of the more expensive parts of the mfr process. A cheap builder might test 10% of a production line output - and that will probably only be a cursory test. The cost of replaceing the odd failure is more than offset by the saving in testing. A more reputable mfr might test every PSU - with some going through an extended test process. Result - they cost more but the product will probably be more reliable. In these case - cheap commodoty items, any failures probably won't be re-worked - as Iranu says, it is very expensive.

Compare that with an industry where safety is critical - nuclear, perhaps, or aerospace.

In that case the components that go to make up the PSU will have tighter specifications, and be conservatively rated. They will be more expensive. The final sub assembly - say a PSU - will be individually inspected, and probably soak tested and 'burnt in'. That is they will be run at full load for a period of time - perhaps 24 hours. This will weed out the premature failures on the 'bath tub' curve. Consequently the assembly can be put into service with a high degree of assurance. If goes into store, it may have a shelf life, after which it has to be retested. (Those electrolytic capacitors again!) That again pushes up costs - which is why (in this example) a switched mode PSU for use in an aircraft might cost a several hundred punds, while its ostensibly identical specification counterpart slots into the back of your PC for about £30.

But which one would you fly with? (and which one would you buy for your PC?)

[Pob255]

One other thing is that computers have moved into the consumer market now, with ever increaseing speeds and newer versions to sustain a steady consumer demand.
where as a few years ago a product could have an expected running life of 5-10 years, now within 3 years it'll be obsolete and would of probably been replaced anyway.
Also as it moves into the consumer market prices are dropped to sell more units and corners are cut to reduce costs.

How often do we shop around or sugest alternative suppliers because they are cheaper?

[Blitzen]

Fimnally testing - again one of the more expensive parts of the mfr process. A cheap builder might test 10% of a production line output - and that will probably only be a cursory test.

Not always...and not as a rule either.

All parts manufactured, especiall here, have to be CE marked for approval.
In order to gain CE Marking it has to be rigorously tested (golden sample usually i grant you).
THis will also entail a specified AQL for the end manufacturer.

If the manufacturer changes ANY component this must also be part of a submission to the accreditation body and the part may not be changed until it has been certified.


I have been involved with this for quite a long time. Not just through CE Approval but also FCC Approval (USA version) and ATEX Approval.
Although all 3 are slightly different and obviously ATEX is more rigorous.
(If something is FCC Approved though it is automatically qualified for CE Approval)

[GSte]

So please, how do SCAN rate for sending out reliable parts, and how good is their RMA system?

regards

acro666

I have been sent quite a lot of dodgy parts by them, but to be fair their RMA service is good, although refunds can sometimes be very slow.

[Agent]

In order to gain CE Marking it has to be rigorously tested (golden sample usually i grant you).

Problem with the CE mark is that anyone can issue it them self, with no high / governmental body checking up on them
It's only when people start to complain that issues arise.

In reality this means that a company (like Q-tec) can CE mark their products, blow up a few systems, and disappear overnight

Really good write up: HEXUS.net - Review :: HEXUS PSU (Power Supply Unit) Roundup - Taoyuan 2005 : Page - 23/26

I wish they would do more spot checking on people with CE marks.

[acro666]

Please allow me to explain just how reliable SCAN equipment is. I bought my first video-recorder from Scan many years ago, it is the SC-2500. It is still set up in my lounge and is in permanent use, it plays ALL regions and so far has never let me down.

I hope that I will be renewing my present computer set-up sometime in the near future and will certainly buy from Scan.

My question in this forum of two days ago was asking about scan was to ensure they are still utterly reliable!

One further question please, I note that my user name on my previous (two days ago) is now a very bright red. Is this significant, or has my machinery gone loopy?

regards

acre666

[2Cold Scorpio]

I lucked out with my last build in December (well, my only self-build, actually); everything worked, or worked well enough (I can't get my RAM timings down to the advertised 4-4-4-12, but instead have them at 5-5-5-16), and sometimes Windows doesn't recognise my optical drives properly (or do, but certain functions will be flaky - Vista especially does this) but even many of my games in XP only see the DVD drive, not the CD one. But the components do 'work' (though for the past few days I thought i had a problem with my sound card, but it somehow fixed itself).

But judging by reviews on NewEgg and such, it does seem like product QA has gone to the crapper...

[Agent]

Can we keep retailer comments to the retailers section please, it really has nothing to do with QA of parts

[Blitzen]

Problem with the CE mark is that anyone can issue it them self, with no high / governmental body checking up on them
It's only when people start to complain that issues arise.

In reality this means that a company (like Q-tec) can CE mark their products, blow up a few systems, and disappear overnight

Really good write up: HEXUS.net - Review :: HEXUS PSU (Power Supply Unit) Roundup - Taoyuan 2005 : Page - 23/26

I wish they would do more spot checking on people with CE marks.

True.....so very true.

There was one manufacturer (which shall remain nameless in case they sue me) in 2003 that put 150,000 security devices onto the European market without CE Approval.

They were fined a 7 figure sum. They actually had the nerve to plead ignorance in court even though they have been manufacturing in the UK (and Europe) for over 24 years.

[Agent]

As much of a git it may make me sound, I have little sympathy for them

24 years.....ignorance....classic