Management device, implementation system, management method, and program

Abstract

The present invention provides a control device that can shorten the time required to verify the effectiveness of countermeasures implemented in response to errors in production equipment. [Solution] The management device 3 is a management device for managing a production device that produces circuit boards on which components are mounted, and includes an acquisition unit 110 that acquires production information of the production device after countermeasures have been implemented for items used in the production work, which are countermeasures for errors related to the production work of circuit boards, and a processing unit 3a that determines the effectiveness of the countermeasures based on the production information and a confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasures, which is set to be changeable according to the acquired information.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present disclosure relates to a management device, an implementation system, a management method, and a program.

Background Art

[0002] When an error occurs in an implementation line that produces an implementation substrate by performing an implementation operation of mounting components on a substrate, for example, measures are taken for the error generated by an operator. Since the content of the measures taken depends on the skills and experience of the operator, etc., it may be necessary to confirm how effective the implemented measures were against the error.

[0003] Patent Document 1 discloses a production line management system that can automatically and highly accurately confirm the effect of measures taken against work errors.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0004]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0005] If the measures against an error are ineffective, further measures are taken. Therefore, it is desired that the effect confirmation of the measures against an error be executed in a shorter time. However, Patent Document 1 does not disclose a technique for shortening the time required for effect confirmation.

[0006] Therefore, the present disclosure provides a management device, an implementation system, a management method, and a program capable of shortening the time required for effect confirmation of measures taken against errors in a production device.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0007] A management device according to one aspect of the present disclosure is a management device for managing a production device that produces a circuit board on which components are mounted, and comprises: an acquisition unit that acquires production information of the production device after countermeasures for errors related to the production work of the circuit board have been implemented for items used in the production work; and a processing unit that determines the effectiveness of the countermeasures based on the production information and a confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasures, which is set to be changeable according to the acquired information.

[0008] An assembly system according to one aspect of this disclosure comprises an assembly line having at least one assembly device for performing production work, and the above-mentioned control device.

[0009] A management method according to one aspect of the present disclosure is a management method performed by a management device that manages a production device for producing a circuit board on which components are mounted, the management device acquires production information of the production device after countermeasures for errors related to the production work of the circuit board have been implemented for items used in the production work, and determines the effectiveness of the countermeasures based on the production information and a confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasures, which is set to be changeable according to the acquired information.

[0010] A program relating to one aspect of this disclosure is a program that causes a computer to execute the above-described management method. [Effects of the Invention]

[0011] According to one aspect of this disclosure, it is possible to realize a control device, etc., that can shorten the time required to verify the effectiveness of countermeasures implemented in response to errors in production equipment. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0012] [Figure 1] Figure 1 is a diagram showing the schematic configuration of the implementation system according to the embodiment. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is a block diagram showing the implementation system according to the embodiment. [Figure 3]Figure 3 is a flowchart showing the operations performed by the management device according to the embodiment. [Figure 4A] Figure 4A is a diagram showing an example of a table illustrating the relationship between the confidence level and the number of implementation tasks according to the embodiment. [Figure 4B] Figure 4B shows another example of a table illustrating the relationship between the confidence level and the number of implementation tasks in the embodiment. [Figure 5] Figure 5 is a flowchart showing the detailed operation of step S60 shown in Figure 3. [Figure 6] Figure 6 shows an example of the determination data according to the embodiment. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0013] (Background leading to this disclosure) A control device is known that acquires information about errors that occur in a mounting line, which produces mounted circuit boards by mounting components onto a circuit board, and notifies the operator if there is a trend of increasing error frequency. Upon receiving the notification, the operator implements countermeasures for the notified error on the mounting line. For example, in conventional equipment management, if a component pick-up error occurs, the operator is notified, and the operator identifies the feeder, component, or head causing the error and implements countermeasures.

[0014] After implementing countermeasures, the effectiveness of those countermeasures is checked, and if they are not effective, the countermeasures are either reverted or alternative countermeasures are implemented. Since the effectiveness of countermeasures is highly subjective, it is necessary to verify the effectiveness of the countermeasures implemented for each error. For example, effectiveness verification is done by comparing the current situation (error situation before countermeasures) with the error situation after countermeasures.

[0015] However, in order to evaluate the error situation after countermeasures and determine the effectiveness, many implementation operations may be required. For example, for items with a low occurrence frequency of errors related to implementation operations (e.g., parts, feeders, nozzles, heads), items with a small number of implementation operations per substrate, etc., it takes a lot of time to collect data after countermeasures to determine the effectiveness. For example, since adsorption errors are errors with a low occurrence frequency in the first place, a very large number of component mountings may be required to determine whether the countermeasures are effective. In such cases, it is difficult to determine the effectiveness immediately after the countermeasures. That is, conventionally, it has been difficult to determine the countermeasure effect for errors with a low occurrence frequency in a short time. Also, if it takes time to confirm the effectiveness, it becomes difficult to implement the next countermeasure when the effect of the implemented countermeasure is low. Note that the low occurrence frequency may be, for example, a probability of occurrence of 1.00% or less, 0.1% or less, or 0.05% or less. 1.00%, 0.1%, and 0.05% are examples of a predetermined frequency.

[0016] Patent Document 1 discloses a management device including a countermeasure effect confirmation unit that compares the actual values of the error rate after countermeasures, but does not disclose a technique for shortening the time required for effect confirmation after countermeasures.

[0017] Therefore, the inventors of the present application have intensively studied a management device or the like that can shorten the time required for effect confirmation of countermeasures taken against errors in production devices such as mounting devices, and have created the following management device or the like. For example, the management device uses a statistical method based on the occurrence probability of errors to determine the effect of countermeasures. According to such a management device, for example, it is possible to efficiently assist in determining whether a countermeasure is effective after an adsorption error has occurred in equipment and the cause has been countered. As a result, it is possible to shorten the time (for example, to the minimum) until it can be determined that the countermeasures have improved, and shorten the time until the error is eliminated.

[0018] In addition, the number of implementation operations performed in the production of one substrate varies for each item. For example, for each of a plurality of different component parts and for each of a plurality of feeders with different positions, etc., the number of implementation operations in the production of one substrate is different. It is difficult to determine the effect with the same confidence level for a plurality of items with different numbers of implementation operations. For example, when using the error information that occurred within a predetermined time as data after countermeasures as the basis for determining the effect, since the number of implementation operations varies for each item, the confidence level for the determination result may vary for each item.

[0019] Therefore, the inventors of the present application have further been earnestly studying a management device capable of suppressing variations in the confidence level for determination for each item.

[0020] The management device according to the first aspect of the present disclosure is a management device that manages a production device for producing a substrate on which components are mounted, and includes an acquisition unit that acquires production information of the production device after a countermeasure against an error related to the production operation of the substrate and a countermeasure against an item used in the production operation has been implemented, and a processing unit that determines the effect of the countermeasure based on the production information and a confidence level that is set to be changeable according to the acquired information and is the confidence level for the determination result of the effect of the countermeasure.

[0021] As a result, since the confidence level is variable, by setting the confidence level to a low value, the number of production operations required to confirm the effect of the countermeasure can be reduced. In particular, by setting the confidence level to a low value for items with a low error occurrence frequency, etc., it is possible to efficiently determine the effect of the countermeasure. Therefore, it is possible to realize a management device capable of shortening the time required to confirm the effect of the countermeasure implemented against the error of the production device.

[0022] Furthermore, for example, the management device according to the second embodiment is the management device according to the first embodiment, wherein the production information includes information on the work results of each of the production operations performed consecutively after the countermeasure, and the processing unit may determine that the countermeasure is effective if no errors occur in the production operations a number of times corresponding to the confidence level, and determine that the countermeasure is ineffective if errors occur in the production operations a number of times corresponding to the confidence level.

[0023] This allows the effectiveness of the countermeasures to be determined by whether or not errors occur after the countermeasures are implemented. Since complex calculations are not required, the processing time of the management device can be reduced.

[0024] Furthermore, for example, the management device according to the third embodiment is the management device according to the first or second embodiment, and the processing unit may notify the result of the determination of the effectiveness of the countermeasures.

[0025] This allows the operator to be notified of the judgment result. For example, if the countermeasure is ineffective, the operator can be effectively instructed to implement the next countermeasure.

[0026] Furthermore, for example, the management device according to the fourth embodiment is a management device according to any of the first to third embodiments, and the processing unit may set the confidence level according to the input content from the operator from the operation unit for operating the confidence level.

[0027] This allows for a reduction in the time required to verify effectiveness by using a confidence level corresponding to the operator's input.

[0028] Furthermore, for example, the management device according to the fifth embodiment is the management device according to the fourth embodiment, wherein the input content includes a time limit for verifying the effectiveness of the countermeasures, and the processing unit may set the confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasures based on the time limit.

[0029] This allows for a reduction in the time required to verify the effectiveness by using a confidence level that allows for obtaining the judgment result within the time limit.

[0030] Furthermore, for example, the management device according to the sixth embodiment is the management device according to the fourth embodiment, wherein the input content includes the confidence level entered by the operator, and the processing unit may set the confidence level entered by the operator as the confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasures.

[0031] This eliminates the need for the control device to calculate confidence levels, thus reducing its workload. Furthermore, it allows for the use of the operator's desired confidence level, shortening the time required for effectiveness verification.

[0032] Furthermore, for example, the control device according to the seventh embodiment is a control device according to any of the first to sixth embodiments, and the processing unit may change the confidence level to a value lower than a predetermined value if the number of production operations corresponding to the predetermined confidence level is greater than the number of production operations scheduled until the model change of the production device, and determine the effect of the countermeasure before the model change.

[0033] This allows for a more reliable assessment of the effectiveness of countermeasures before switching to a new device.

[0034] Furthermore, for example, the management device according to the eighth embodiment is a management device according to any of the first to seventh embodiments, wherein the processing unit sets the same confidence level for a plurality of items, each having a different number of production operations per substrate, and determines the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each of the plurality of items based on information about errors that occurred in the production operations corresponding to the set confidence level.

[0035] This allows multiple items to be evaluated at the same confidence level, thus suppressing variations in confidence levels among multiple items.

[0036] Furthermore, for example, the management device according to the ninth embodiment is a management device according to any of the first to eighth embodiments, and the processing unit may use information on errors related to the production work before the countermeasure to determine the number of times the production work is necessary to satisfy the set confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasure by the processing unit.

[0037] This makes it possible to determine the number of production operations required for judgment that is appropriate for the error information (e.g., the error rate) before countermeasures were implemented.

[0038] Furthermore, for example, the control device according to the 10th embodiment is a control device according to any of the first to 9th embodiments, and the item may be any of the parts, feeders, heads, and nozzles whose frequency of occurrence of errors related to the production work is lower than a predetermined frequency.

[0039] This effectively reduces the time required to verify the effectiveness of items that take time to assess the effectiveness of countermeasures.

[0040] Furthermore, for example, the control device according to the 11th embodiment is a control device according to any of the first to 9th embodiments, and the item may be any of the components, feeders, heads, and nozzles for which the number of production operations per substrate is less than a predetermined number.

[0041] This effectively reduces the time required to verify the effectiveness of items that take time to assess the effectiveness of countermeasures.

[0042] The twelfth aspect of this disclosure relates to an assembly system comprising an assembly line having at least one assembly device for performing production work, and a control device relating to any of the first to eleventh aspects.

[0043] This will produce the same effect as the management device described above.

[0044] A management method relating to a 13th aspect of this disclosure is a management method performed by a management device that manages a production device for producing a circuit board on which components are mounted, the management device acquires production information of the production device after a countermeasure for an error related to the production work of the circuit board has been implemented for an item used in the production work, and determines the effect of the countermeasure based on the production information and a confidence level for the result of determining the effect of the countermeasure, which is set to be changeable according to the acquired information.

[0045] This will produce the same effect as the management device described above.

[0046] The program relating to the 14th aspect of this disclosure is a program for causing a computer to execute the management method relating to the 13th aspect.

[0047] This will produce the same effect as the management device described above.

[0048] These general or specific embodiments may be implemented using a system, method, integrated circuit, computer program, or a non-temporary recording medium such as a computer-readable CD-ROM, or any combination of a system, method, integrated circuit, computer program, or recording medium. The program may be pre-stored on the recording medium or supplied to the recording medium via a wide-area communication network, including the Internet.

[0049] The embodiments will be described in detail below with reference to the drawings.

[0050] The embodiments described below are all comprehensive or specific examples. The numerical values, shapes, components, arrangement and connection configurations of components, steps (processes), and the order of steps (processes) shown in the following embodiments are examples only and are not intended to limit this disclosure. Furthermore, any components in the following embodiments that are not described in an independent claim will be described as optional components.

[0051] Furthermore, each figure is a schematic diagram and not necessarily a strictly accurate representation. Therefore, for example, the scale may not necessarily match in each figure. Also, in each figure, substantially identical components are given the same reference numerals, and redundant explanations are omitted or simplified.

[0052] Furthermore, in this specification, terms indicating relationships between elements such as "same," as well as numerical values ​​and numerical ranges, do not represent only strict meanings, but also include substantially equivalent ranges, such as differences of a few percent (or about 10%).

[0053] Furthermore, in this specification, ordinal numbers such as "first," "second," etc., do not mean the number or order of components unless otherwise specified, but are used to avoid confusion and to distinguish similar components.

[0054] Furthermore, in this specification, when a value is described in contrast to, for example, a value exceeding a predetermined value or a value less than or equal to a predetermined value, it means that the value is distinguished at the predetermined value, and may mean that the value is greater than or equal to the predetermined value and less than the predetermined value, respectively.

[0055] (Embodiment) The implementation system according to this embodiment will be described below with reference to Figures 1 to 6.

[0056] [1. Configuration of the implemented system] First, the configuration of the implementation system according to this embodiment will be described with reference to Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 is a diagram showing the schematic configuration of the implementation system 1 according to this embodiment. Figure 2 is a block diagram showing the implementation system 1 according to this embodiment. Note that Figure 2 shows an exemplary functional configuration of the management device 3, and the functional configuration of the management device 3 is not limited to Figure 2.

[0057] The mounting system 1 is a system for producing circuit boards for electronic devices such as smartphones or personal computers, and produces circuit boards by mounting components such as integrated circuits (ICs), semiconductors, capacitors, and resistors onto the board.

[0058] The implementation system 1 comprises an implementation line L, a display unit 210, an operation unit 220, a communication network 2, and a management device 3.

[0059] The mounting line L is a production facility that produces circuit boards by mounting components onto a substrate. Specifically, the mounting line L mounts multiple different components (multiple types of components) onto a substrate. As shown in Figure 1, the mounting line L includes, for example, a substrate supply device M1, a printing device M2, a printing inspection device M3, component mounting devices M4-M8, a mounting inspection device M9, a reflow device M10, and a substrate recovery device M11. The mounting line L is an example of a production line.

[0060] In the assembly line L, for example, multiple production devices are connected in series. In the assembly line L, substrates are sequentially transported from the substrate supply device M1 located upstream to the production devices downstream, where components are mounted on the substrates. For example, component mounting devices M4 to M8 are equipped with a head (mounting head) that has multiple nozzles for picking up components and mounting them on the substrate. Component mounting devices M4 to M8 pick up components from the feeder using the nozzles and perform mounting work by mounting them on the substrate. Component mounting devices M4 to M8 mount components on substrates transported from the production devices located upstream and transport the substrates with components mounted to the devices located downstream. Component mounting devices M4 to M8 are just one example of an assembly device.

[0061] Each production device, consisting of a substrate supply device M1, a printing device M2, a printing inspection device M3, component mounting devices M4-M8, a mounting inspection device M9, a reflow device M10, and a substrate recovery device M11, is connected to a management device 3 via a communication network 2. Each production device transmits performance information to the management device 3, such as the progress of its processing and any errors that occurred in its device. This allows the management device 3 to monitor the production status of the mounting line L. The performance information, also known as a production log, includes information such as component names, units, the number of mounting operations, and whether the mounting operations were successful or unsuccessful (mistakes). The performance information is an example of production information.

[0062] The production equipment described above for assembly line L is merely an example. For example, assembly line L may consist of at least one assembly device. Furthermore, the production equipment for assembly line L may optionally include any known production equipment used in known assembly lines.

[0063] The display unit 210 is a display for displaying various types of information. When the display unit 210 acquires information from the control device 3 and each production device on the mounting line L, it displays the acquired information. For example, the display unit 210 displays images of information based on priority (for example, the judgment data 162 shown in Figure 6, which will be described later).

[0064] The implementation system 1 may have one display unit 210 or multiple display units 210. For example, the implementation system 1 may have a display unit 210 for each production device in the implementation line L. For example, a display unit 210 may be placed near each production device. This makes it easier to notify each operator operating each production device of information from the management device 3.

[0065] The display unit 210 may be implemented by a fixed device such as a monitor, a portable device such as a smartphone or tablet, or a wearable device such as a smartwatch or smart glasses.

[0066] The control unit 220 is a device such as a touch panel, buttons, keyboard, or sound collection device, and accepts operations (inputs) from the operator. The control unit 220 accepts operations from the operator to set or change the confidence level, at least. The control unit 220 may be installed in the production equipment, for example, or it may be implemented by a portable terminal held by the operator. The input content that the device accepts from the operator may be the confidence level (first confidence level) for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasures, or it may be the time limit for confirming the effectiveness of the countermeasures. The input content is an example of the information acquired.

[0067] The control device 3 is a device that manages each production device in the mounting line L, and in this embodiment, it manages at least the mounting device that performs the mounting work of mounting components onto a substrate. For example, the control device 3 monitors the effectiveness of countermeasures taken by operators against errors that occur in the mounting line L (for example, mistakes in component mounting). The control device 3 also transmits data to each production device to control the operation and processing of each production device in the mounting line L.

[0068] For example, the number of errors over a predetermined period may be tallied, and if the total number exceeds a threshold, countermeasures may be taken by the operator. The number of errors may also be tallied for each equipment element of the mounting device. Equipment elements are various units for producing circuit boards, such as, but are not limited to, feeders, nozzles, nozzle changers, and spindles, which are units for component mounting. Equipment elements may also include component data, such as the size and shape of the components. Equipment elements are just one example of items used in production work.

[0069] In the control device 3, the equipment elements for which effectiveness verification is performed using the number of mounting operations based on the confidence level may, for example, be any of the components, feeders, heads, and nozzles whose frequency of errors related to mounting work is lower than a predetermined frequency under normal circumstances, or any of the components, feeders, heads, and nozzles whose number of mounting operations (trials) per substrate is less than a predetermined number. The predetermined frequency and predetermined number are thresholds for determining whether to perform effectiveness verification using a number of mounting operations corresponding to the confidence level of this disclosure or using a fixed number of mounting operations as in the conventional method. Examples of predetermined frequencies include 1.00%, 0.10%, and 0.05% as described above, but the numerical value is not limited thereto. Also, examples of predetermined numbers include any natural number between 1 and 10, but the numerical value is not limited thereto.

[0070] The management device 3 is implemented as a computer that includes, for example, a communication interface for communicating with the implementation line L, a non-volatile memory for storing programs executed by each processing unit, a volatile memory which is a temporary storage area for executing programs, input / output ports for sending and receiving signals, and a processor for executing programs. The communication interface may be implemented as a connector to which a communication line is connected for wired communication, or as a wireless communication circuit for wireless communication.

[0071] The management device 3 includes an acquisition unit 110, a setting unit 120, a sample size determination unit 130, a countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140, an output unit 150, and a storage unit 160. For example, the processing unit 3a is configured including the setting unit 120, the sample size determination unit 130, and the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140.

[0072] The acquisition unit 110 is a processing unit that acquires various types of information. For example, the acquisition unit 110 acquires performance information for the mounting line L. The performance information includes error information related to errors that occurred on the mounting line L. The error information includes at least one of the following: suction errors (suction errors) that occur from the time the feeder supplies a component until the nozzle picks up the component; recognition errors (recognition errors) related to the suction posture when the camera recognizes the suction posture of the component in order to calculate the mounting position correction amount; and mounting errors (mounting errors) related to the mounting point of the component. Mounting errors include errors such as chip misalignment where the mounting position of the component is off by more than a predetermined value, chip standing where the mounting orientation of the component is incorrect, and missing parts where the component is not mounted. Note that mounting errors can be detected, for example, based on the inspection results of the mounting inspection device M9. The inspection results may be included in the performance information. Component loss occurs due to suction errors, recognition errors, mounting errors, etc.

[0073] The setting unit 120 is connected to the operation unit 220 and is a processing unit that acquires the operator's input received by the operation unit 220 and sets a confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasures based on the acquired input. The setting unit 120 may, for example, set one confidence level for one countermeasure.

[0074] The confidence level is a numerical value that indicates the reliability of the judgment result regarding whether or not an effect is present. If the confidence level is 70%, it means that the judgment result regarding the presence or absence of effect, based on the results (actual information) of the number of implementation tasks determined using that confidence level, will be correct with a 70% probability. For example, if the probability of error occurrence is 0.5%, setting the confidence level to 70% (for example, lowering it from 95% to 70%) means that if there are no errors in all 250 implementation tasks after the countermeasure (250 consecutive tasks starting immediately after the countermeasure), it can be calculated from the binomial distribution that there is a 70% probability of improvement. The method for setting the confidence level using the setting unit 120 will be described later.

[0075] The sample size determination unit 130 is a processing unit that determines the number of samples required to evaluate the effectiveness of countermeasures after implementing countermeasures against errors. The sample size determination unit 130 determines the number of samples based on a confidence level set by the setting unit 120, rather than a confidence level commonly used in statistics (e.g., 99.5%). The number of samples may be, for example, the number of circuit boards produced, or the number of times a component mounting operation is performed.

[0076] The Countermeasure Effectiveness Determination Unit 140 is a processing unit that determines the effectiveness of countermeasures implemented by the operator. After the countermeasures are implemented, the Countermeasure Effectiveness Determination Unit 140 acquires actual production information for the sample number determined by the sample number determination unit 130 via the acquisition unit 110, and determines the effectiveness of the countermeasures based on the acquired actual information (e.g., error information). The actual information includes information on the work results of each production operation performed consecutively after the countermeasures. For example, the Countermeasure Effectiveness Determination Unit 140 determines the effectiveness of the countermeasures using only the error occurrence status after the countermeasures, without comparing the error occurrence status before and after the countermeasures. For example, the Countermeasure Effectiveness Determination Unit 140 determines that the countermeasures are effective if no errors occur during a predetermined period after the countermeasures, or if no errors occur consecutively during a predetermined period after the countermeasures.

[0077] Furthermore, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 is not limited to using only performance information after the countermeasure; for example, it may also determine the effectiveness of the countermeasure using performance information before the countermeasure.

[0078] The output unit 150 is a processing unit that outputs various types of information. For example, the output unit 150 outputs information based on the results of the verification of the effectiveness of the countermeasures determined by the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 to the display unit 210 via the communication interface provided by the management device 3. In this way, the output unit 150 displays the information based on the results of the verification of the effectiveness of the countermeasures on the display unit 210. The information based on the results of the verification of the effectiveness of the countermeasures includes, for example, the judgment data 162 shown in Figure 6, which will be described later, but is not limited to this. The output unit 150 may also output the information based on the results of the verification of the effectiveness of the countermeasures to a computer used by the operator or an external server, etc.

[0079] The processing units, such as the acquisition unit 110, the setting unit 120, the sample number determination unit 130, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140, and the output unit 150, are implemented, for example, by a memory that stores the control program executed by each processing unit, and a processor that executes the control program.

[0080] The memory unit 160 is a storage device that stores various types of information. The memory unit 160 stores various types of information for determining the effectiveness of countermeasures against errors. For example, the memory unit 160 stores production management information 161, judgment data 162, etc. Production management information 161 and judgment data 162 will be described later. Note that production management information 161 is information based on actual performance data. The memory unit 160 can be implemented using, for example, flash memory or HDD (Hard Disk Drive), but is not limited to these.

[0081] [2. Operation of the implemented system] Next, the operation of the implementation system 1 configured as described above will be explained with reference to Figures 3 to 6. Figure 3 is a flowchart showing the operation (management method) performed by the management device 3 according to this embodiment.

[0082] As shown in Figure 3, the setting unit 120 sets a confidence level for the effectiveness of the countermeasure (determination of the effectiveness of the countermeasure) according to the input from the operator via the operation unit 220 (S10). If the input includes a confidence level, the setting unit 120 sets that confidence level as the confidence level for determining the effectiveness of the countermeasure. For example, the confidence level included in the input may be the lower limit of the confidence level that the operator allows. The setting unit 120 may also set the same confidence level for multiple items with different numbers of mounting operations per board, or it may set different confidence levels for each item.

[0083] The timing at which the setting unit 120 sets the confidence level is not particularly limited; it may be set before the countermeasure is implemented, after the countermeasure is implemented, before an error is detected, or after an error is detected.

[0084] In cases where operator input is not obtained, the setting unit 120 may set a pre-set confidence level as the confidence level for determining the effectiveness of the countermeasures. Alternatively, step S10 may be a process to change the pre-set confidence level to a confidence level corresponding to the operator input. If the confidence level is changed from the pre-set confidence level, the operator may be notified of the changed confidence level. The pre-set confidence level is, for example, 95%, but is not limited to this.

[0085] Next, the sample size determination unit 130 determines whether or not the countermeasures have been implemented (S20). For example, the sample size determination unit 130 determines that the countermeasures have been implemented if it receives confirmation from the operator via the operation unit 220 that the countermeasures work has been completed, or if it detects that the countermeasures have been implemented based on the sensing results of various sensors on the mounting line L.

[0086] Examples of measures that operators may take include, but are not limited to, replacing equipment components and cleaning.

[0087] Next, if the sample size determination unit 130 determines that the countermeasure has been implemented (YES in S20), it obtains the adsorption success rate before the countermeasure (S30). The sample size determination unit 130 may, for example, read the actual information obtained before the countermeasure from the storage unit 160 and calculate the adsorption success rate based on the read actual information, or if the adsorption success rate before the actual is stored in the storage unit 160, it may read the adsorption success rate from the storage unit 160. The sample size determination unit 130 may also obtain the adsorption success rate before the countermeasure from the operator via the operation unit 220. This makes it possible to obtain, for example, the adsorption success rate when an error is detected. In the following, an example in which the adsorption success rate before the countermeasure is 99.5% will be described. The adsorption success rate here is an example of error information related to the implementation work before the countermeasure.

[0088] The adsorption success rate is calculated by dividing the number of successful adsorptions during a predetermined period before the countermeasure by the number of adsorptions during that predetermined period.

[0089] Furthermore, if the sample size determination unit 130 determines that the countermeasure has not been implemented (NO in S20), it returns to step S20 and waits until the countermeasure is implemented. The sample size determination unit 130 may also output information to the display unit 210 prompting the implementation of the countermeasure if it has not been implemented.

[0090] Next, the sample size determination unit 130 determines the number of implementation operations based on the adsorption success rate before the countermeasures, relative to the set confidence level (S40). The sample size determination unit 130 determines the number of implementation operations as the sample size based on the following equation 1. Hereafter, the number of implementation operations will also be referred to as the number of trials.

[0091] p n =α (Equation 1)

[0092] Here, p represents the probability that no error occurs, and the adsorption success rate before the countermeasure is used. Also, n represents the number of trials (number of implementation operations) until the confidence level is reached, and α is the confidence level at which improvement (effectiveness) is considered acceptable, and the value set by the setting unit 120 is used. The sample size determination unit 130 calculates the number of trials n by substituting 99.5% for the probability p that no error occurs, substituting the confidence level setting value obtained from the operator's input for the confidence level α, and solving Equation 1. In other words, the sample size determination unit 130 calculates the number of trials n using the confidence level set by the setting unit 120, rather than using the 99.5% confidence level that is generally used in statistics.

[0093] For example, if the confidence level α is 30%, the sample size determination unit 130 determines the number of trials n to be 250 using the following equation 2.

[0094] n = ln(0.3) / ln(0.995) = 250 (Equation 2)

[0095] This means that if a problem where adsorption was successful 99.5% of the time before the countermeasure (i.e., there was a 0.5% chance of adsorption failure) does not result in 250 consecutive failures after the countermeasure, there is a 30% probability that the countermeasure is effective. For example, if no failures occur in 250 consecutive implementations from the point in time when you want to measure the effect, it is determined that the countermeasure is effective. Conversely, if at least one failure occurs in 250 consecutive implementations from that point in time, it is determined that the countermeasure is ineffective.

[0096] Here, the relationship between the confidence level and the number of implementation operations will be explained with reference to Figures 4A and 4B. Figures 4A and 4B are diagrams showing examples of tables illustrating the relationship between the confidence level and the number of implementation operations according to this embodiment.

[0097] As shown in Figures 4A and 4B, the table includes production management information 161, confidence level, and number of implementation operations.

[0098] Production management information 161 is, for example, information compiled from actual performance data and is stored in the storage unit 160. Production management information 161 includes machine number, table number, part name, spoilage rate before corrective action, number of errors before corrective action, and number of implementation operations before corrective action.

[0099] The machine number indicates the identification information of the multiple production devices (in this case, the assembly devices) provided by the assembly line L.

[0100] The table number indicates the identification information of the equipment table used to produce circuit boards from among the multiple equipment tables provided by the production equipment.

[0101] The part name is identification information that identifies a part. The part name may be, for example, the model name or the serial number.

[0102] The spoilage rate before countermeasures indicates the probability of spoilage occurring before countermeasures were implemented (e.g., at the time the problem was discovered). The spoilage rate may also be, for example, the error rate. The error rate is calculated by dividing the total number of errors (the sum of the number of attachment errors and the number of recognition errors) by the number of implementation operations (e.g., the number of attachments). The spoilage rate before countermeasures may also be, for example, 100% minus the attachment success rate obtained in step S30.

[0103] The error count before the countermeasure indicates the number of errors that occurred during a predetermined period prior to the countermeasure. This predetermined period is, for example, the period including the time immediately preceding the implementation of the countermeasure.

[0104] The number of implementation tasks performed before the countermeasures were implemented indicates the number of times the implementation tasks (in this case, the adsorption tasks) were performed during the specified period before the countermeasures were implemented.

[0105] The confidence level indicates the value of the confidence level set by the setting unit 120 for each defect (problem).

[0106] The number of implementation operations is the number determined in step S40 by the sample size determination unit 130. The number of implementation operations is calculated using production management information 161 (for example, the spoilage rate before the countermeasure) and a confidence level, and is the number of operations required for the judgment result by the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 to satisfy that confidence level. The number determined in step S40 is the number of operations in which, if no errors occur for each implementation operation, it is determined that the spoilage rate has improved before and after the countermeasure. In other words, in step S40, the sample size determination unit 130 can also be said to be determining the number of consecutive successful operations after the countermeasure.

[0107] As shown in Figures 4A and 4B, the table provides a one-to-one correspondence between combinations of machines, parts, and error types, and between confidence levels and the number of implementation operations. For example, for the contents of the first row, the sample size determination unit 130 substitutes 99.5% (100% - 0.5%) for the probability p that no error occurs, substitutes 95% set by the setting unit 120 for the confidence level α, and solves Equation 1 to calculate the number of trials n = 600.

[0108] Furthermore, as is clear from comparing the contents of the third row in Figures 4A and 4B, the number of implementation tasks will vary depending on the defect rate and confidence level before the countermeasures are implemented. Also, as is clear from comparing the contents of the second and third rows in Figure 4B, for example, the number of implementation tasks can be varied according to the defect rate before the countermeasures are implemented, while keeping the confidence level fixed. By making the number of trials variable in this way, the effectiveness of the countermeasures can be judged with fewer trials if the error rate at the time of problem discovery is high, without changing the confidence level. Therefore, it is possible to prevent performing more trials than necessary without degrading the quality of the improvement judgment.

[0109] The tables shown in Figures 4A and 4B may also be notified to the operator. For example, the tables shown in Figures 4A and 4B may be displayed on the display unit 210.

[0110] Referring again to Figure 3, the next step is for the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 to acquire error information regarding the implementation work after the countermeasure (S50). Based on the post-countermeasure performance information acquired by the acquisition unit 110, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 acquires as error information the number of times errors occurred during the number of implementation operations determined by the sample size determination unit 130, or whether or not errors occurred during the number of implementation operations determined by the sample size determination unit 130. The error information here can also be said to include information on the implementation results of each implementation operation performed consecutively after the countermeasure. The implementation results are an example of work results.

[0111] The countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 performs a countermeasure effectiveness determination process (S60) to determine the effectiveness of the countermeasures implemented for the errors, based on error information regarding the implementation work after the countermeasures are implemented.

[0112] Figure 5 is a flowchart showing the detailed operation (management method) of step S60 shown in Figure 3.

[0113] As shown in Figure 5, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 determines whether or not an implementation work error occurred in the determined number of samples (for example, the number of implementation work operations shown in Figures 4A and 4B, determined by the sample number determination unit 130) (S61). If no error occurred, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 determines that the countermeasure has improved (S62). In other words, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 determines that the countermeasure is effective. If an error occurs, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 determines that the countermeasure is ineffective (S63). In other words, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 determines that the countermeasure is ineffective.

[0114] Thus, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 determines whether or not the countermeasure is effective based on whether or not errors occur during the number of implementation operations determined by the sample size determination unit 130. For example, if even one error occurs during the number of implementation operations determined by the sample size determination unit 130, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 determines that the countermeasure is ineffective. In other words, if the implementation operations performed after the countermeasure are unsuccessful a number of times in a row determined by the sample size determination unit 130, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 determines that the countermeasure is effective if the implementation operations performed after the countermeasure are successful a number of times in a row determined by the sample size determination unit 130.

[0115] Furthermore, if the same confidence level is set for multiple items with different numbers of mounting operations per board, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 will determine the effectiveness of the countermeasure for each of the multiple items based on the error information that occurred during the number of mounting operations determined by the sample size determination unit 130 relative to the set confidence level. In other words, the effectiveness of the countermeasure can be determined for multiple items using a common confidence level.

[0116] Referring again to Figure 3, the next step is for the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 to notify the result of the countermeasure effectiveness determination (S70). The countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 notifies the result of the countermeasure effectiveness determination to the display unit 210 via the output unit 150. This allows the operator to be notified whether or not the countermeasure is effective.

[0117] Figure 6 shows an example of the judgment data 162 according to this embodiment. Figure 6 shows a list of the judgment results of the effectiveness of the countermeasures. The judgment data 162 shown in Figure 6 may be displayed on the display unit 210, for example. Also, Figure 6 shows the judgment data 162 of the effectiveness in the case of the spoilage rate and confidence level before the countermeasures shown in Figure 4A.

[0118] In Figure 6, for part name EEEE, with a confidence level of 95%, the number of assembly operations after the countermeasure was performed was 600, and as a result of these 600 operations, the number of errors after the countermeasure was 7, resulting in a judgment that the countermeasure had no effect. Also, for part name FFFF, with a confidence level of 70%, the number of assembly operations after the countermeasure was performed was 250, and as a result of these 250 operations, the number of errors after the countermeasure was 0, resulting in a judgment that the countermeasure had improved. Furthermore, for part name GGGG, with a confidence level of 80%, the number of assembly operations after the countermeasure was performed was 350, and as a result of these 350 operations, the number of errors after the countermeasure was 2, resulting in a judgment that the countermeasure had no effect.

[0119] The results of each judgment are output to the display unit 210 each time a judgment is made.

[0120] Furthermore, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 may check in real time the occurrence of errors during the implementation work for the number of times determined by the sample size determination unit 130, and notify the operator of the countermeasure effectiveness determination result, including whether the countermeasure was ineffective, when an error occurs. In other words, if the countermeasure is ineffective, the countermeasure effectiveness determination unit 140 may notify the operator of the countermeasure effectiveness determination result before the implementation work for the number of times determined by the sample size determination unit 130 is completed. This makes it easier for the operator to implement the next countermeasure.

[0121] The above section described an example where the confidence level itself is included in the input. Below, we will explain how to determine the confidence level and the number of trials when the input includes a time limit. Although there is no particular limit to the time limit, we will use 10 minutes as an example below.

[0122] If the input includes a time limit, the setting unit 120 sets a confidence level based on the time limit. The setting unit 120 does not fix the confidence level, but dynamically adjusts it so that the number of trials stays within a predetermined time limit. If the number of trials can achieve a predetermined confidence level (e.g., 95%), the setting unit 120 maintains the predetermined confidence level. If the number of trials is too high and exceeds 10 minutes, it lowers the confidence level and reduces the number of trials so that it stays within 10 minutes. The setting unit 120 may set the confidence level using a table showing the correspondence between the number of trials and the confidence level, or it may calculate the optimal confidence level (e.g., the highest confidence level) within the time limit using a calculation algorithm.

[0123] For example, if the probability p that no problems occur is 99.5%, and the confidence level α that is acceptable for improvement is 95%, then the number of trials n required to reach the confidence level is calculated to be 597 using the following equation 3.

[0124] n = ln(1 - 0.95) / ln(0.995) = 597 (Equation 3)

[0125] Here, assuming a time interval t of 1 second between each trial and a time limit of 10 minutes, it will take 9.95 minutes (1 second × 597 trials = 597 seconds) to perform 597 trials. Since this is within 10 minutes, the setting unit 120 leaves the confidence level α at 95%. In other words, in step S10, the setting unit 120 sets the confidence level α to 95%. Also, in step S40, the sample size determination unit 130 determines the number of implementation operations (number of trials n) to be 597.

[0126] Furthermore, if the time interval t between each trial is 2 seconds and the time limit is 10 minutes, it will take 19.9 minutes (2 seconds × 597 trials = 1194 seconds) to perform 597 trials. Since this exceeds 10 minutes, the setting unit 120 lowers the confidence level α from 95%. The setting unit 120 lowers the confidence level until the time required to perform the trials is within 10 minutes. Here, lowering the confidence level α to 78% will bring it within 10 minutes, so the setting unit 120 sets the confidence level α to 78%. In other words, in step S10, the setting unit 120 changes the confidence level α to 78%. The confidence level α is set to be the highest possible while still satisfying the time limit.

[0127] Furthermore, if the time interval t between each trial is 10 seconds and the time limit is 10 minutes, it will take 99.5 minutes (10 seconds × 597 trials = 5970 seconds) to perform 597 trials. Since this exceeds 10 minutes, the setting unit 120 lowers the confidence level α from 95%. The setting unit 120 also determines that it will take 40 minutes even at the lower limit of the confidence level, which is 70%, so it sets it to the lower limit of 70%. In other words, in step S10, the setting unit 120 changes the confidence level α to 70%. The lower limit of the confidence level α may be set by the operator.

[0128] The time interval t at which each trial is performed is calculated by estimating the time interval of the mounting work for the target component from the production cycle time, but the calculation method is not limited to this. For example, the time interval t at which each trial is performed may be set in advance and stored in the memory unit 160.

[0129] The time limit may be the period between the time the countermeasure is implemented and the time the specified event is scheduled to take place. The specified event may be an automatic model changeover that automatically changes the production program or the configuration of the production equipment according to the board in order to enable production according to the board, or it may be the scheduled departure time of the operator. If the specified event is an automatic model changeover, the time limit may be automatically obtained from the production plan.

[0130] In other words, the setting unit 120 may set a confidence level that allows for the determination of the effectiveness of the countermeasures before a predetermined event. Furthermore, if a confidence level is set in advance, the setting unit 120 may change the confidence level to a higher value if the number of implementation operations determined by the sample size determination unit 130 is less than the number of implementation operations scheduled for the implementation device before a predetermined event. In other words, the setting unit 120 may set the confidence level so that the number of implementation operations is maximized before a predetermined event.

[0131] (Other embodiments) The above describes one or more embodiments of the control device 3, etc., but this disclosure is not limited to these embodiments. Without departing from the spirit of this disclosure, various modifications that a person skilled in the art could conceive of are also included in this disclosure, as well as forms constructed by combining components from different embodiments.

[0132] For example, in the above embodiment, the sample size determination unit 130 was described as determining the number of implementation operations using error information related to the implementation work before the countermeasures were taken, but it is not limited to this. The sample size determination unit 130 may, for example, use a pre-set value as the probability p that no errors occur, or other values ​​may be used.

[0133] Furthermore, although the above embodiment describes errors occurring in the mounting device, errors occurring in the mounting line L are not limited to errors occurring in the mounting device, but may also occur in other production equipment. For example, the other production equipment may be a printing device M2, and if printing errors such as smudging occur during printing, the effectiveness of countermeasures against printing errors may be judged using a sample size determined based on the probability of printing errors occurring and the confidence level. Printing errors can be detected by a printing inspection device M3. Also, the production line does not necessarily have to include a mounting device.

[0134] Furthermore, the management device 3 according to the above embodiment may be applied only to items in which the number of mounting operations performed per board is small. For example, the management device 3 may determine whether the number of mounting operations performed per board is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, and perform the operation shown in Figure 3 only for items in which the number is less than the predetermined value.

[0135] Furthermore, the division of functional blocks in the block diagram is just one example; multiple functional blocks can be implemented as a single functional block, a single functional block can be divided into multiple parts, or some functions can be moved to other functional blocks. In addition, the functions of multiple functional blocks with similar functions can be processed in parallel or time-sharing by a single piece of hardware or software.

[0136] Furthermore, the management device 3 according to the above embodiment may be implemented as a single device or as a plurality of devices. When the management device 3 is implemented as a plurality of devices, the individual components of the management device 3 may be distributed among the plurality of devices in any manner. When the management device 3 is implemented as a plurality of devices, the method of communication between the plurality of devices is not particularly limited and may be wireless communication or wired communication. In addition, wireless communication and wired communication may be combined between the devices.

[0137] Furthermore, in the above embodiment, each component may be implemented by dedicated hardware or by executing a software program suitable for each component. Each component may also be implemented by a program execution unit such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) or processor reading and executing a software program recorded on a recording medium such as a hard disk or semiconductor memory. Also, for example, each component may be a circuit (or integrated circuit). These circuits may constitute a single circuit as a whole, or they may be separate circuits. Furthermore, these circuits may each be a general-purpose circuit or a dedicated circuit.

[0138] Furthermore, one aspect of this disclosure may be a computer program that causes a computer to perform each characteristic step included in the management method shown in either Figure 3 or Figure 5.

[0139] Furthermore, for example, the program may be a program to be executed by a computer. Also, in one aspect of this disclosure, such a program may be recorded on a computer-readable non-temporary recording medium. For example, such a program may be recorded on a recording medium and distributed or made available. For example, by installing the distributed program on a device having another processor and having that processor execute the program, it becomes possible to have that device perform the above-mentioned processes.

[0140] Furthermore, one aspect of this disclosure may be implemented as a method for manufacturing a circuit board, including a control method shown in either Figure 3 or Figure 5. The method for manufacturing a circuit board includes a production process in which a circuit board is produced by a plurality of production devices performing predetermined operations on the board, and a determination process in which, if multiple problems occur in the production process, the effectiveness of countermeasures against the problems is determined using the control method shown in Figure 3. The predetermined operations are, for example, component mounting operations, and the production process is an example of a manufacturing process. [Industrial applicability]

[0141] This disclosure can be used in management devices and the like for managing implementation systems. [Explanation of symbols]

[0142] 1. Implementation System 2. Communication Network 3 Management device 3a Processing Unit 110 Acquisition Department 120 Setting section 130 Sample size determination unit 140 Countermeasure effectiveness evaluation unit 150 Output section 160 Storage section 161 Production Management Information 162 judgment data 210 Display section 220 Operation section L Implementation Line M1 board supply device M2 printing device M3 Print Inspection Machine M4, M5, M6, M7, M8 component mounting equipment (mounting equipment) M9 Mounting Inspection Equipment M10 Reflow System M11 Circuit Board Recovery Device

Claims

1. A control device for managing production equipment that produces circuit boards with components mounted on them, An acquisition unit that acquires production information of the production apparatus after countermeasures for errors related to the production work of the substrate have been implemented for items used in the production work, The system includes a processing unit that determines the effectiveness of the countermeasures based on the production information and a confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasures, which is set to be changeable according to the acquired information. Management device.

2. The aforementioned production information includes information on the results of each of the production operations performed consecutively after the countermeasures were taken. The aforementioned processing unit, If no errors occur in the production process for a number of consecutive times corresponding to the aforementioned confidence level, it is determined that the countermeasures are effective. If an error occurs in the aforementioned production operation a number of times corresponding to the aforementioned confidence level, it is determined that the aforementioned countermeasures are ineffective. The control device according to claim 1.

3. The processing unit notifies the result of the determination of the effectiveness of the countermeasures. The control device according to claim 2.

4. The processing unit sets the confidence level according to the input from the operator via the control unit that controls the confidence level. A control device according to any one of claims 1 to 3.

5. The input content includes a time limit for verifying the effectiveness of the countermeasures, The processing unit sets the confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasures based on the time limit. The control device according to claim 4.

6. The aforementioned input content includes the confidence level entered by the operator. The processing unit sets the confidence level input by the operator as the confidence level for the determination result of the effectiveness of the countermeasure. The control device according to claim 4.

7. The processing unit, if the number of production operations corresponding to the pre-set confidence level is greater than the number of production operations scheduled before the changeover of the production equipment model, changes the confidence level to a pre-set value and determines the effectiveness of the countermeasures before the changeover of the equipment model. A control device according to any one of claims 1 to 3.

8. The processing unit sets the same confidence level for multiple items, each with a different number of production operations per substrate. Based on information about errors that occurred in the production work a number of times corresponding to the set confidence level, the effectiveness of the countermeasures is determined for each of the multiple items. A control device according to any one of claims 1 to 3.

9. The processing unit uses information on errors related to the production work before the countermeasure to determine the number of times the production work must be performed so that the result of the processing unit's determination of the effectiveness of the countermeasure satisfies the set confidence level. A control device according to any one of claims 1 to 3.

10. The aforementioned item is any of the parts, feeders, heads, and nozzles in which the frequency of errors related to the production work is lower than a predetermined frequency. A control device according to any one of claims 1 to 3.

11. The aforementioned item is any of the components, feeders, heads, and nozzles for which the number of production operations per circuit board is less than a predetermined number. A control device according to any one of claims 1 to 3.

12. A mounting line equipped with at least one mounting device for production work, A control device according to any one of claims 1 to 3, Implementation system.

13. A management method performed by a control device that manages a production device for producing circuit boards on which components are mounted, A countermeasure against errors in the production work of the aforementioned substrate, wherein production information of the production apparatus is obtained after the countermeasures for the items used in the production work have been implemented, The effectiveness of the countermeasures is determined based on the production information and a confidence level for the determination of the effectiveness of the countermeasures, which is set to be changeable according to the acquired information. Management method.

14. A program for causing a computer to execute the management method described in claim 13.

Images