

Setback: A $58,000 lesson in mid-volume manufacturing - schappim
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1516846343/microview-chip-sized-arduino-with-built-in-oled-di/posts/959475

======
bradfa
It seems like the root of their problem is that they didn't spend enough
time/effort/experience on creating the test system.

Using things like cap-sense buttons would be very much frowned upon by most
contract manufacturers, you can't use cap-sense buttons with dirty hands,
gloved hands, and there's no tactile feedback to show that you actually pushed
the button. This is OK for a consumer end-user mode of operation, especially
if you can have haptic feedback or the screen light up or something, but in
manufacturing seconds count and the operator will be doing this same motion
thousands of times, making it very clear that they pushed a button is
critical.

That the unit would overheat if left in the test jig for too long is a huge
oversight. The functional test jig should never have this kind of issue.

That critical portions of the product were not actually tested in the test
jig, it sounds like they didn't test the serial interface at all, is a huge
oversight as that's a critical interface that customers will notice if it
fails.

Making a functional tester for a contract manufacturer to use in mid or high
volume is not an easy problem to solve. It takes almost as much effort as
making the actual product work correctly in the first place.

I'm glad they found out after only 2000 units went to customers and it sounds
like they're fixing the problem for their customers in a very classy way.
Kudos.

~~~
rasz_pl
"they" had no problem, they contracted manufacturing and shipping to Sparkfun.
It was sparkfun that had a huge problem and paid for it (shipping replacements
for free).

~~~
double0jimb0
I didn't get a warm fuzzy from this mea culpa. There is cognitive dissonance
in the way the CEO accepts responsibility: "We are really sorry to have messed
up... SparkFun are going to make it right..."

Going out on a limb here, but I bet "they" (MicroView) were the root of the
problem. It's never mentioned in the article, but I'm guessing MicroView is
eating the $58K bill.

There was a production test procedure that should have been performing 'ship-
ready' verification of test-able requirements, along with an engineering
deliverable (containing analysis, software compilation records, etc) that
covered everything else that couldn't be tested. Between these two docs,
verification of all requirements (physical, functional, non-functional, etc.)
via 1 of 4 verification methods (inspection, test, analysis, or demonstration)
should be documented. And the lead engineer from MicroView should have
ultimately been responsible for ensuring all requirements of his (MicroView's)
design were adequately verified. He should have been signing off that the
product delivered is as-was designed. (Unless Sparkfun owned the whole
shebang, but I doubt that is the case...)

If Sparkfun is smart (and I'm guessing they are), it should be written in the
contract that they are only responsible for delivering a product that meets
what MicroView's lead engineer ultimately signed on. And what was ultimately
signed on was a verification method that clearly missed checking the correct
software components were loaded into the HEX mix. Hence, the miss was with
MicroView, so they eat the bill.

source: test and verification engineering and 3yr subcontract manager for
world's largest defense contractor (ugh... _shiver_ )

~~~
rasz_pl
Marcus Schappi was on theamphour some time ago, and from what I understood the
deal with Sparkfun is a complete takeover of a project - SP handles EVERYTHING
and gives you a cut of the profits. [http://www.theamphour.com/189-an-
interview-with-marcus-schap...](http://www.theamphour.com/189-an-interview-
with-marcus-schappi-kit-ketch-kenophobia/)

My bad for calling them contract manufacturers, they are more of a whole
package deal.

------
userbinator
It's a little disappointing that most PCs don't come with parallel ports these
days - they're extremely versatile for when you need a few PC-controlled GPIO
pins, like when flashing firmware on a microcontroller, or a bricked
motherboard/tablet/smartphone/etc's BIOS, or reading some EEPROMs on hardware
you want to hack, etc...

[http://www.arduino.cc/en/Hacking/ParallelProgrammer?from=Mai...](http://www.arduino.cc/en/Hacking/ParallelProgrammer?from=Main.ParallelProgrammer)

But I like that they give the instructions on how to flash the firmware on it
- and are encouraging people to fix these themselves.

~~~
jdboyd
I am sad that serial ports are disappearing from PCs, but I am glad that
parallel ports are gone. They were such a horrifying GPIO interface, and yet
their presence meant that every open project used them by default, and if they
didn't then they used high priced tools instead. Now that parallel ports are
dead, we have an abundance of affordable USB GPIO devices to choose from, from
Arduinos to FTDI devices (and many others of course). And best of all,
numerous devices can be connected at once via a cheap USB hub, unlike parallel
port devices.

------
retroencabulato
The same article, but with images:
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1516846343/microview-
ch...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1516846343/microview-chip-sized-
arduino-with-built-in-oled-di/posts/959475)

Despite their mistake, I particularly like testing jig with capsense buttons
(although I wonder why?)

~~~
karmicthreat
You get capsense free with some microcontrollers. Like the Teensy 3.1. So why
add a switch?

~~~
duskwuff
And it's easy to add to a PCB -- zero part count!

------
raverbashing
Yeah, they just learned a valuable manufacturer lesson: YOU do the QA, not the
manufacturer

"The test procedure correctly tested the Microview’s functionality (display
graphics, toggled GPIOs, etc) but did not test the upload functionality (minor
detail...)"

True, but they can test for the presence of the bootloader ;)

I'm not blaming them really, manufacturing something and shipping is hard

~~~
iheartmemcache
In larger cities like Shenzhen, there are companies that specialize in
ensuring your components are properly sourced (i.e., not counterfeit[0]),
assembly, programming, testing, boxing, and shipping logistics are all taken
care of. You pay a premium for the services but it's not necessarily "you" who
has to do it.

[0]
[http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=1022](http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=1022)

~~~
eitally
Even in the US you can outsource test engineering. A plethora of little
companies have been created -- mostly by ex-engineers from big OEMs and EMS --
to provide exactly these kinds of services. Here's a pretty spiffy test
management & parametric data analysis offering created by a couple of ex-
Flextronics guys: [http://maintainable.com/](http://maintainable.com/)

~~~
raverbashing
Ah let me try to be more specific.

A good QA process is complex. Most manufacturers will offer/do a basic QA
(usually with a test/simplified firmware)

However, a lot of times, this is not sufficient.

On second thought, their problem (in the article) is not necessarily a
production/QA issue (as in, a defect in producing), but in assembling the
image to be saved. The (incorrect) image was saved correctly.

------
biot

      > Can I fix the bad unit once I get it?
      > Yes you can, but it’s not easy.
    

Given that it's a fixable problem, I'm wondering why they don't ask users to
return the product for a free repair/replacement. There could be a couple
reasons I can think of for this. First, the headache and hassle of dealing
with thousands of incoming packages they have to track, fix, and ship back...
it quite possibly cheaper (parts, manpower, opportunity cost) just to send
another out. Second, from a customer service perspective, immediately sending
out new units is just the Right Thing to do.

~~~
shalmanese
Two reasons:

1) It's a slick PR move and a gesture of goodwill to provide instructions for
how to unbrick the device 2) For a $30 product, the cost of shipping a unit
back would be approximately equal to the BOM so it's almost as cheap to just
throw it away.

------
brentm
I wonder how much the attention to crowdfunding debacles will negatively
impact it's long term future as a platform for innovation (e.g. We want to
make this awesome thing but can't get funded, if you really want it we'll make
it) vs just a pre-order / viral sales channel. It's a shame but it's also
somewhat expected since the creators are figuring it out as they go. There is
no need to cover successful on time deliveries on blogs / HN but plenty of
dramatic reasons to cover the troubles.

------
jordanbaucke
SparkFun was born out of a class I took at CU Boulder, and the CEO came and
spoke to our class mid-semester about growing SparkFun (at the time close to
100 employees) out of his college apartment & classroom experience.

Good to see they're doing right by their customers, I think they're a real
standup company.

------
adeptus
Looks like a good article, I read about 1/2 of it and skimmed the rest. Would
have been better if in the opening couple of paragraphs you actually explained
wtf a "microview" is. Cheers.

~~~
leoc
The title at the top of the page covers it.

------
Joeboy
Seeing as their $25,000 Kickstarter project got $573,760 worth of pledges, I
guess $58,000 is not too much of a setback.

~~~
bitJericho
Uh well that does mean they have more people they have to ship product to, ie,
more expenses. They're not making 550k in profits...

~~~
Joeboy
Indeed, but unless the economics of their project are weird, it means it's
easier for them find the money to rectify the problem. Not every project would
be able to do that.

~~~
double0jimb0
Maybe, but a one time charge that is 10% of your entire budget and hits at the
very very end of a months/years long financial burn down plan. That's a full
semi-truck broadside type hit. I'd guess those funds are coming from future
order inventory or bank loans.

