Has the Economic Tide Turned?

2018 experienced a year of pump priming unlike any other during an economic growth period in our lifetimes. The US tax bill made significant revisions to the tax code, slashing taxes for (higher-income) individuals and corporations. The corporate rate alone was cut 14 percentage points, to 21%.

Moreover, taxes on profits held by US companies abroad were cut by 20 percentage points or more. That facilitated the repatriation of those cash reserves — estimated by Bank of America at $3.5 trillion, or more than 1/5th the size of the annual US GDP.

As those gains worked their way through the system, the effects included corporate buying sprees that topped anything we’d seen in at least a decade. Business capital investment budgets swelled, and suppliers’ bottom lines ballooned.

The bloom is off the rose, I’m afraid. While not a free fall, the economic reality today is that buyers are cooling off and budgets are returning to more conservative positions. Several EMS firms are guiding for slowing business conditions, and now fabricators are reporting the same. End-markets like automotive are leveling, which will have a ripple effect across the entire supply-chain.

No one likes a cynic, especially so close to the holiday season. But my advice is to go easy on the parties while aggressively going after market share. A large customer base is the best hedge against a slowing economy.



The Return of Patty and the Professor: Uptime Part 2


For the next few weeks I plan to repost some of the first Patty and the Professor episodes. As I visited several facilities, some of them in other industries, I found that uptime is as vital a topic as ever. Although these facilities were tracking a few metrics, uptime was not one of them.  I estimated they were little better than ACME in the following vignette. Let’s all be committed to measuring and improving our processes uptimes. Now on to Patty and the Professor.

Two weeks passed quickly and The Professor returned to ACME. Patty met him at the door. “Professor, it’s great to see you,” Patty said with enthusiasm. “We collected the uptime data in real time on a laptop, no one has seen that results yet. We wanted it to be a surprise,” said Patty. The Professor suggested that he go out on the shop floor to observe the manufacturing activities until shortly after lunch. He pointed out  that his observations may help to understand the uptime results.

The morning seemed to drag for Patty, she was very anxious to see the resets of the uptime data. She bet Pete a dinner for two that the uptime would not be more than 50%. If she wins, Pete and his wife will treat her and her boyfriend Jason to dinner at the restaurant of her choice.

Around 1:30 p.m. The Professor suggested that he was ready for the meeting. Patty had written a simple Excel macro to perform the calculations for the uptime. She only had to push a button and he whole room would see the result in a moment, as Patty connected her laptop to a projector. There was tension in the air, friendly wagers had been made, but the entire process team realized that their reputation was on the line.

When the number emerged on the screen, John, the manager’s face became ashen. Pete’s visage was redder than two weeks ago. John thought, “I should be fired. How could I manage this team for five years and not know that our uptime was only 9.7%.” Patty was thinking about her choice of restaurants.

“How can we be so bad?” John asked The Professor. The Professor responded, “The good news is that there are tremendous opportunities for improvement. After observing the operations out on the floor this morning, I think we can get the uptime to greater than 40%.” Pete shot back, “You’re kidding, only 40%?”

“I’ve only seen two operations that have greater than 45% uptime, and I’ve been to over 150 facilities worldwide,” answered The Professor.

“Where do we start?,” asked John.

“How about lunch?” beamed The Professor.

“We just had lunch!” Pete groaned.

“No, no Pete,” The Professor chuckled, “I mean how lunch is handled out on the line. Lunch costs the company more than 1½ hours of production in an eight hour shift. That’s nearly 20% of the entire shift.”

Now John was a little agitated. “Professor, lunch is only 30 minutes. We purposely have a short lunch period to avoid the line being down for a long time,” John said with a note of annoyance.

“John, this is true, but I watched what the operators did. Lunch is supposed to start at 12 noon, but the operators turn the line off at 11:40 a.m. They don’t get back to the line until 12:40 p.m. and it takes them more than 30 minutes to get the line running again. Today, the line was not running until 1:15 p.m. It was down for 1 hour and 35 minutes,” stated The Professor.

John thought again, “Yes, I should really be fired.”

Will John keep his job? What restaurant will Patty choose for dinner? What should be done about lunch? Where are all of the other hours lost? Stay tuned for the answers to these and other questions.


Dr. Ron

Guest Blog: The Future of Collaboration

Sawyer completes jobs quickly and accurately, works safely alongside co-workers and is an integral part of the workforce. However, Sawyer is not your average employee — he is a robot. Here, Jonathan Wilkins, marketing director at obsolete industrial parts supplier EU Automation, explains how advances in technology are changing the way that humans interact with robots.

Rethink Robotics’ robot Sawyer, is just one example of automated technology being introduced to factories. Increased automation in factories is optimizing productivity in manufacturing. While some people fear that the human workforce will ultimately be replaced by robots, manufacturers disagree as they are aware that both machine efficiency and human intuition are vital for optimum productivity.

So, how can manufacturers ensure that robots and humans can work efficiently and safely in the same workspace? Industrial robots are in the factory to complete either repetitive tasks or those that are too dangerous for human workers. Traditionally robots are heavy, simple and isolated to prevent humans getting too close.

There are now technologies that allow humans to work side by side in the factory with collaborative robots, otherwise known as cobots. But, what makes them collaborative?


Collaborative robots are specifically designed to work in direct cooperation with a human, in a defined workspace. There are also collaborative workplaces that are safeguarded spaces where the robot and human can perform tasks simultaneously. There are multiple reasons why robots like Sawyer are becoming more popular in factories.

Cobots are affordable, highly adaptable and easy to install. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are eager to adopt the technology and the manufacturing sector expects to see huge growth of cobots over the next few years.

Cobots also support the human workers themselves. Robots can complete the heavy lifting and repetitive jobs that can cause human strain. This gives human workers more time to complete more creative and intricate work.


The key consideration for manufacturers that want to benefit from human and machine interaction is how to keep workers safe. Cobots have features that prevent them from injuring any humans when in operation, because humans will be working in close proximity with the machine.

All cobots have rounded and soft surfaces to reduce the risk of injury if a human gets too close to the machine. They are also fitted with sensors that detect anything entering their proximity and have force-limited joints that will instantly stop if a human gets too close.

These safety features are vital in preventing injury, but there are other factors that manufacturers must consider when investing in collaborative robots.

There are regulations, such as ISO 10218-2:2011, that control how facilities integrate robotics into the assembly line to ensure all workers are kept safe. As part of this regulation, all manufacturers that use cobots will be required to implement safety protocols on site. However, the application will ultimately determine the safety requirements, rather than the robot itself. For example, if the robot has sharp knives attached to it then manufacturers should avoid human-machine interaction.

The Future

In the future, advancements in machine learning and artificial intelligence could increase the capabilities of cobots. If cobots become more intelligent, they will be able to complete more difficult tasks and remember previous work to help them in the future. Machine learning may also mean that cobots will be able to diagnose themselves and fix any technical issues to complete work more efficiently.

Cobots have the potential to radically change the manufacturing sector. However, there are still some skills that a robot has not been able to perfect. A robot may be able to complete a repetitive task with complete accuracy, but it is not as agile as a human. Cobots lack dexterity and therefore cannot complete more intricate tasks that humans can.

Unlike older, industrial robots, cobots have design features needed to keep workers safe. Facilities managers must combine the machine strength and precision of robots like Sawyer, with human ability to see, think and adapt for the perfect factory. So, if you find out you’ll be working next to a robot like Sawyer, you can sleep well knowing that he will be a safe, supportive and efficient colleague.


Ever Use a TI X2SON Packaged Part?

The name stands for extra small outline no-lead. It’s a newish package from Texas Instruments. In my experience, TI is one of the better companies insofar as testing and documenting manufacturability is concerned. The datasheet for this device is no exception.

The TI part is the five-lead thing above the grain of Jasmine rice, surrounded by a few 01005 ceramic capacitors. I’m selling the capacitors for $500 each. (Just kidding.)

The part is 0.8 x 0.8mm, with the five leads. TI suggests either a 4 mil (0.102mm) trace coming out of the center pad, or a 4 mil via in the pad (the via must be filled and plated at the fabricator ) to escape the center pad. They also do a nice job of detailing out the solder paste stencil layer, as in the following image:

You’ll most likely need a custom CAD footprint for one of these. Either very carefully do it yourself, or go to a solid source like SnapEDA. If they don’t already have it in their library, they’ll make it for you.

These small packages aren’t going away. We’re only going to see more of them. They may seem intimidating, but with a good footprint and a competent manufacturer, they aren’t so bad.

Duane Benson
“A ruler of follows”? That makes no sense.
How about ” a rule of followers”?


The Return of Patty and the Professor


I teach a course at Dartmouth on manufacturing processes: ENGM 185. In this course, I use many of the chapters from “The Adventures of Patty and the Professor.” This book started as a series of posts on this blog and the posts ended up being gathered into the book. It’s hard to believe that the first post was nearly 10 years ago.

I think most students that have read “The Adventures of Patty and the Professor” have a sense that the vignettes in the book are exaggerated, even though I point out that I have attempted to make them as close to real events as possible. Recently, one of my grad students, Amritansh (Amro) Varshney, had a chance to see some of the real world of manufacturing. After Amro returned to Dartmouth, we chatted and he shared that not only do the stories convey the sense of how poor some manufacturing operations are run, but, in some cases, the realities are worse!

In light of this epiphany, I decided to repost some of the original episodes from the book for a new generation of readers. As you share Patty and the Professor’s experiences, remember they are strongly based on real events. I hope you enjoy the “Adventures!”

Business was good at ACME. Even in these challenging times, the company’s three assembly lines could not keep up with demand. John, the manager of the assembly lines, decided to request the funds for an additional assembly line. A member of his team, Patty, suggested he might want to consult “The Professor,*” before getting a new line. The Professor taught a course on line balancing that Patty took at the SMTAI conference last summer. Line balancing is an important part of optimizing productivity in electronics assembly. A balanced line ensures that the component placement process, usually the “constraint,” is the fastest possible by assuring that each placement machine spends the same amount of time placing components. If any machine is waiting for the others, assembly time is being wasted. In a sense, line balancing is an application of Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints. John remembered that when Patty applied what she learned from The Professor, throughput increased 25%. Unfortunately, Patty did not attend The Professor’s other class on “Increasing Line Uptime.”

John decided to have a chat with Patty about The Professor. “Patty, why do you think I should consult with The Professor, about getting a new line?”

“Well John, perhaps with some effort to improve our uptime, we wouldn’t have to buy another line,” said Patty.

“Patty, that’s a good point,” said John.

Patty contacted The Professor and he agreed to fit ACME into his busy schedule. Upon his arrival, The Professor was given a tour. As part of the tour he was shown the process that ACME used to minimize changeover time between jobs. The Professor appeared to be impressed. After the tour, The Professor asked if a brief meeting could be held with the engineers and managers to discuss the situation.

“What is the average line uptime?” The Professor asked the assemblage. There was some hemming and hawing, finally Pete, the senior process engineer replied, “I’d say at least 95%, we work our fannies off out there.” There was a murmur of agreement from the 9 or 10 people in the room. Finally John spoke up, “Professor, what is your definition of uptime?” The Professor responded, “Simply the percent of time an assembly line is running.” Pete again responded that 95% was the right number.

The Professor asked for some production metrics and performed some calculations on his laptop. In a few moments he commented, “From the data you gave me, I estimate that your average line uptime is about 10%.” Upon hearing this, Pete became red in the face, especially after Patty whispered in his ear, “I told you so.” The noise in the room became so loud that John was concerned he might have a riot on his hands. The Professor asked to speak and John, in a booming voice, asked for calm.

“Let’s not become angry, perhaps my calculations are off. Why don’t we measure the uptime for a few weeks to be certain.”

“How do we do that?” asked Pete, his face still crimson.

“Each day one process engineer will go out to the lines every 30 minutes. If the line is running, he will put a 1 in an Excel® spreadsheet cell, if the line is not running a 0 will be entered,” responded the professor.” It was agreed that this will be done and The Professor will be back in two weeks.

Will Pete’s red face return to normal? Will the line uptime be 95%? Will Patty and Pete ever be on speaking terms again?  Stay tuned on May 27 for the next episode.


Dr. Ron

* The Professor, as he is affectionately called by his many students, is a kindly older man who works at a famous university. Few know his real name. The Professor is an expert in process optimization.

Don’t Sweat, Taiwan: Apple is Still Yours

Forbes today offers an interesting take on Apple, specifically, that Taiwan would feel the crunch of a major shift in the supply chain back to the US.

If Apple scales back contracts in Asia, at least a half-dozen core suppliers and assemblers in tech hardware hub Taiwan would face a loss in orders, analysts forecast. But those corporate heavyweights might be able to retain Apple’s business by moving their China-based production back home to Taiwan, if not to the U.S., and using automation for lower costs.

Let’s consider the various angles to this.

First, Forbes is right: A shift by Apple to somewhere outside China (it doesn’t have to be the US) would absolutely affect Taiwan’s major electronics ODMs. That precise outcome occurred when Cisco, AT&T, Motorola, Alcatel, Tellabs, Lucent and many, many others moved their manufacturing to suppliers outside North America. How much laminate is now manufacturing in the US? How much solder mask? Process equipment? Components? How many merchant fabricators and assemblers still do volume production in North America?

But let’s be straight here: Just who will be affected? Key Apple ODMs such as Pegatron, Compal, Wistron, Zhen Ding, and of course Foxconn would be directly impacted. They would have to spend tens of millions to rebuild elsewhere. But … they can afford it. Can anyone else?

Keep in mind, Taiwan doesn’t operate factories in China as a favor to the Chinese. It does so because it has to. Taiwan is a small nation with a population of less than that of New York City and roughly 16 to 17 million people of working age. The unemployment rate is 3.7%. It has no available domestic workers to hire into engineering and manufacturing. China has ample population resources, not to mention the stark differential in labor rates. (Taiwan’s national minimum wage is more than twice that of Shanghai’s, which is the highest in mainland China, and could be five times higher than that of China’s less developed areas. The fully burdened rates are equally disparate.) Taiwan has every incentive, financial or otherwise, to introduce more automation. If it could, it would. If Apple were to bail, China stands to lose much more than Taiwan.

Second, if not Taiwan, where would Apple go? The US doesn’t have the spare workers either. The unemployment rate is 3.9% and has been under the benchmark 6% rate for more than four years. Immigration is at a post-WW II low, further straining the labor pool. Wages are rising as businesses compete for a smaller available workforce.

Third, how long would it take? Building a supply chain in a new region takes time. Granted, the US has the processes in place to bring industrial parks online, but space in key areas is at a premium and local, state and federal regulations often impede quick progress. Many other nations have various issues (graft, corruption, lack of educated or trained workforce, lack of infrastructure, little or no IP controls, etc.) that also prevent a mass exodus. Businesses, especially public ones, cannot afford disruptions in getting products to market. They tend to be risk-averse, for good-reason.

Fourth, not all manufacturing plants are the same, a fact Forbes downplays.

Some Taiwan tech firms, most notably Foxconn, already operate factories in the US and could feasibly move final assembly of Apple’s gear to the US after some initial work at their cheaper China bases, says Tracy Tsai, research vice president with tech market analysis firm Gartner in Taipei.

If only it were that easy. An LCD panel plant is not the same as an SMT placement plant. It would be nearly as expensive to convert a plant as to greenfield one. And final assembly tends to be more labor intensive that upstream processes, which means higher costs. Putting that work in the higher (highest?) labor rate nation —  the average manufacturing labor rate in the US is now close to $39/hr. — makes little sense.

All in all, Forbes is waxing hypothetical, but it’s not a realistic notion.

Now Hear This: Micro Headset Technology

One of the perks of this job is the occasional invitation to take a close look at a range of products. Usually the device is something I would never consider using, rendering the review moot. So it was a pleasant surprise this week when a pair of wireless earphones arrived at the door.

The K True Wireless Headphones (Kfit) are designed by KuaiFit, which insofar as I can tell is a web-based sports training outfit that offers personal training and related apps and devices to get you moving. It’s the first venture into wireless by KuaiFit, although they do offer wired micro-headphones and other sensor-based products related to personal fitness.







At first blush, there are small but sturdy. I don’t think dropping them repeatedly will have any effect on reliability. KuaiFit tells me they weigh only 4.1 grams and have 3-6 hours of play time. Charging is done via a standard USB (included).

I tested out the earphones on a range of songs, from rock to country to classical. (Jazz lovers, find another reviewer!) I streamed the following tracks using Amazon Music:

  • Mozart, “Serenade in G K.525”
  • Beethoven, “Piano Sonata 14 in C Sharp Minor”
  • Travis Denning (“David Ashley Parker from Powder Springs”)
  • Eric Church, “Desperate Man”
  • Zebra, “Whose Behind the Door”
  • Rush, “The Spirit of Radio”
  • Pete Yorn, “Strange Condition”

With any micro headset, audio quality is going to be compromised somewhat. I would characterize the sound as clear albeit a bit tinny, with some loss on the low-end. No real surprise there. Streaming wasn’t perfect; there were occasional dropouts. Not so much to be a deal-breaker, but enough that I must disclose them here. The music softens when a text alert is incoming; a plus.

Because these are intended as sport headphones, I took a short run with them in. (Imagine the annoyance if one fell out on a run, especially in dim light.) They are really comfortable and — just as important — do stay in place. They also passed the comfort test of my 12-year old son, who was notably impressed. They come with various eartip sizes, which are simple to switch out.


Since KuaiFit specializes in sports fitness, there are also downloadable apps which can be tied to KFit for custom training plans (running, cycling, gym, triathalons, etc.) I haven’t explored those yet.

All in all, Kfit is a cool innovation. They are funding the new device through Kickstarter. See below for details:

Profits or Politics: Where’s Your Company’s Focus?

On paper, Bryce was a rock star.

In person, Bryce was a costly mistake.

When Bryce strolled through his company’s headquarters sipping his gourmet triple latte and waving to the little people (as he dubbed them), every front line employee noticed. They snickered at his confident strut leftover from his days fronting a band. They recognized his disdain for real work. And they were appalled by his self-serving power plays. Sure, Bryce flashed plenty of smiles. He slapped high fives and offered up empty promises like a candidate running for mayor. But poor follow-through was Bryce’s legacy. He seldom kept his word. In short, Bryce was a leadership disaster!

How does one spot an emerging “Bryce” before his decisions crater your company?

Here are five ways to detect a political player like Bryce in the making.

1. Political players fixate on the wrong numbers.

Take our buddy Bryce for instance. Bryce kept “real-time stats” on the total number of employees who reported into his organization. Bryce frequently boasted that a significant portion of the operation reported to him or one of his people. That’s how Bryce boosted his shaky self-esteem. He added people while he talked a great game and tried hard not to mess up in front of his boss. Bryce figured as long as he had an adequate number of people to throw under the bus at the opportune moment, he would be too big to fail. Bryce fixated on employee count, not profitability.

2. Political players recruit, hire and promote people like themselves.

It’s true. Birds of a feather flock together. Self-absorbed power junkies are obsessed with protecting their titles at all costs. Consequently they try to hire people who are singularly loyal to them. Often they find themselves at odds with an underling more loyal to the company. When they do, they will quickly take any measure imaginable to rid their team of those who are looking out for the good of the whole.

Fortunately, oil and water don’t mix. Employees and leaders who are truly concerned about the welfare of the whole are turned off by those who seek to play the system. Case in point. Bryce’s demise began when his peers became as disillusioned with him as his front line employees were. Bryce’s hiring and promoting of other politically minded employees initially went unchecked because his colleagues were immersed in their own immediate concerns.

3. Political players manage up and cover up.

After all, the Bryces of the world tend to perform for an audience of one. Their boss! Political players will often freely (and unnecessarily) sacrifice their team’s welfare for the sake of keeping the boss happy or shielded from the truth. This is not always a reflection on their boss. He or she may have been misled about the details two or three levels down. The political player likes vagueness and fuzzy business practice. Transparency is not typically part of their game plan. They operate in the shadows where almost no one has insight to their treatment of the people.

4. Political players encourage a zero sum mentality.

Some got to win, some got to lose. That’s the chorus to every song for a corporate politician. In their world, there is no such thing as a win-win outcome. And their department heads also propagate this win-lose mindset. The political player seldom takes the time to seriously evaluate a balanced option. They want to win at all cost.  And their politically-motivated direct reports know instinctively not to cross the boss. It wouldn’t be prudent. Political players win by short-changing the organization.

5. Political players come with plenty of hidden costs.

As I later met with the CEO’s management team, we inventoried the true cost of having Bryce in power. It became apparent that he had made dozens of unnecessarily costly decisions. Bryce built a division that could never reach profitability. He pushed technology that he preferred versus exploring for new IT solutions that would best serve the company. Bryce delegated all authority to managers who were either asleep at the switch or pandered for his favor. As a result, the company was paying extraordinary sums for expensive logistics initiatives that delivered a poor customer experience. Bryce’s salary and benefits were only a tiny fraction of his real cost to the company.

Sooner or later the results speak for themselves. The results of Bryce’s self aggrandizing moves were draining the company’s balance sheet and delaying success. Once realized, Bryce was given a fair severance package and hustled out the door.

Avoid the heartache, headache and howling that political players bring to their companies. Ask yourself these five questions about each member of your management team:

  1. Does _____ fixate on the wrong numbers?
  2. Does _____ overlook or ignore loyal company employees who do good work?
  3. Does _____ recruit, hire and promote individuals who pander to them?
  4. Does _____ quickly adopt the easy solution that best serves their self-interest?
  5. Does _____ make costly decisions because s/he is self-absorbed?

If any of your leaders (or employees for that matter) cause you to answer “yes” to three or more statements, you have an opportunity to lower your operating cost substantially. Consider replacing that person with a competent leader who really cares about your company. If you must, look outside your company. Remember… hire for character and train for skills.

Ironically, Bryce’s follow-up gig gave him the spotlight to swagger like an actual rock star. You can catch Bryce and his new band playing weekends on the Jersey Shore. At least now the only cost for watching Bryce perform is the cover charge.

Don’t let a political player on your payroll. Today is the day to shine the spotlight on each of your leaders and objectively evaluate their performance.

Keith Martino has a passion for helping engineering executives achieve stellar results. Martino authored the book Expect Leadership in Engineering. In addition, the team at Keith Martino has designed and launched Leadership Institutes at multiple engineering firms across the US. Martino is quoted in Young Upstarts, Entrepreneur Magazine, NewsMax Financial, the FedEx Worldwide Manager’s Pak, and several metropolitan business and industry trade journals. For more information visit keithmartino.com.

New Podcast with Marc Benowitz of iNEMI

Our latest podcast features Marc Benowitz, the new CEO of iNEMI. Before joininh the electronics consortium, he spent nearly 40 years at AT&T, Lucent, Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia Bell Labs, where he began as a member of the technical staff in the interconnect technology lab, and ultimately worked his way up to senior director of the reliability, hardware test and eco-environmental engineering organization.

He speaks with me about the transition from the private sector to fulltime consortia work, and his goals and priorities for iNEMI at pcbchat.com.