Is the IEC Electronics story the comeback of the decade or a disaster in waiting? Some thoughts here.
Monthly Archives: August 2012
In Search of a Problem to Solve
It has been a while, let’s look in on Patty …
Patty had to admit that she was very fortunate. She had yet to turn 30 and she was a Senior Vice President at ACME. There was even a small article about her in Fortune magazine. But she had to admit that, at some level, she was bored. She missed the action of being out on the line and solving problems.
With these thoughts she headed toward the lunch room. She had avoided eating lunch with the execs and still ate lunch with the young engineers that were her age. No one thought it strange. Pete was occasionally the old-timer in the group, as he was approaching 45 years old.
As she sat at lunch with her friends, Patty also had to admit that she was jealous of all of the group’s talk about solving technical problems. She was now responsible for corporate strategies and seldom got her “hands dirty.” So she missed the technical challenges on the shop floor.
After lunch she stopped Pete.
“Hey, Pete, could you stop by my office?” Patty asked.
“Kiddo, for you anything … even that,” he answered and they both chuckled.
As Pete sat down in Patty’s office, she asked him, “How do you like your new job?”
“What’s not to like? Twice as much money and working with you!” Pete answered.
“But don’t you miss … ,” Patty stopped and struggled to gain her composure.
Peter helped her, “Working on the shop floor solving process problems?”
“Yes, so much so that I could almost cry,” Pete finished.
They were silent for awhile.
Then Pete suggested, “Why don’t I see if I can find us a problem.”
Patty smiled. Pete was always well connected.
A few days passed and Patty had just about forgotten about their meeting. There was a knock on her door and Pete stuck his head in.
“Hey kiddo, we have an assignment,” Pete shouted cheerfully.
Patty perked right up.
“What’s the scoop?” she asked.
“You know the new program that rewards cost savings?” Pete asked.
“Sure, I think it is a great idea,” Patty responded.
“There is a conflict in our plant in Santa Clara. Management wants to give a $10,000 reward and the senior purchase manager is blocking it,” Pete elaborated.
“Why?’ Patty asked.
“The engineer deserving of the reward purchased a solder paste that improved uptime,” Pete said.
“Sounds great, what is the issue?” Patty asked. “Let me guess. The better solder paste costs more?” she asked.
“Yep!” Pete responded, “One penny per gram.”
“Mike Madigan wants someone to negotiate the situation. Why not us?” Pete asked.
Patty quickly sent Mike an email offering to help. He gave her the go ahead shortly thereafter.
In a matter of days the arrangements were made and Patty and Pete were on a jet from Boston’s Logan Airport to San Jose, California.
Their flight had taken off and they were enjoying a snack, when Pete commented, “Let’s hope we don’t find someone there like the guy who wanted to assemble the boards without the boards,” Pete chuckled.
At this comment, Patty almost choked on her sparkling water. About four years ago, when Patty was just starting out, they were working on a critical project. The manager in charge wanted the boards to be assembled on a certain date. Unfortunately, the PWBs did not arrive on time, even though all other components, connectors, and the other hardware where ready. The manager, in frustration, came out to the line on the scheduled start date and was furious that the boards were not being assembled.
The manager asked the lead engineer, “Why aren’t the boards being assembled?”
The lead engineer responded, “The PWBs did not arrive from the vendor.”
To this the manager responded, “Aren’t you going to assemble them anyway?” (See note below.*)
This was their favorite story about the occasional comedy in electronics assembly.
It seemed like no time at all and Patty and Pete were sitting in the conference room that had been reserved for the meeting. They introduced themselves to a young engineer who was sitting in the room waiting for the meeting to start. His name was Dave Ferris.
“So Dave, you are the cause of this meeting, eh?” Pete teased.
“I guess so. I can’t believe how hard it is to sell productivity here. The amount of time the new solder paste saves enables us to produce 1,000 more units per year on each line. And these boards are super expensive, with high margins. Admittedly the solder paste costs $0.01 more per gram, but the additional profit is over $800,000 per year for each of our three lines,” Dave Ferris explained.
“How did you perform the calculations,” Patty asked.
“I went to a workshop run by this quirky, cheerful guy everyone calls ‘The Professor.’ He was amazing,” Ferris replied.
Pete and Patty both chuckled.
“We know The Professor well,” they chimed in unison.
“We assume you used ProfitPro for the calculations?” Pete asked.
“Yes,” Dave responded with a surprise in his voice that they would know about such things.
Will Patty and Pete save the day? Will Dave get his award? Stay tuned to see.
Cheers,
Dr. Ron
*As hard as it is to believe, the story about building the boards without the PWBs is true. Thanks to ITM.
Passively Annoying
Passive components can be kind of offensive sometimes. I can understand them in analog circuits or charge pumps. But the fact that we need to put them all over our digital logic is just rude. Technically, I understand why they have to be there, but philosophically, they violate my basic principles of life.
Back in the early days of personal computers, there allegedly was a company that had its engineers remove bypass caps one by one until the motherboard stopped working. Then they’d add the last one back in and smile about the short-term cost savings. Well, that was a bad idea. The reality is that we need them.
I’ve written about some of the problems that can show up because of passives (or other small two lead parts like LEDs and other diodes). Like here, here and here. That last example has popped up recently and I have some more thoughts on it. Essentially, I’m talking about multiple two-lead components that have one lead tied together. That’s a pretty common scenario with bypass caps or LEDs (or the LED current limit resistor).
There are a couple of ways to do this. Some error prone and some not. First, the general rule of thumb for two lead passives is, if at all possible, to have the same amount of copper going into both sides. That means that if you have one 8 mil trace going to one pad, have one 8 mil trace going to the other. Also make sure that you have solder mask stopping the solder from going off pad.
Passively annoying bad way here is bad. It might just barely meet IPC standards, but it still is really not manufacturable. First, there are no thermals. That makes the solder melt much slower on the right side which can lead to unreliable solder joints or tombstoning.
Second, even though the theoretical solder mask openings don’t touch and the keep-out (it’s not shown but is just a hair narrower than the mask area) areas don’t touch, they are close enough that you might not have any mask between the parts on the thermal pad. That can lead to components shorting.
is also bad. You have your thermals in there so that’s good, but the parts are still so close together that you might not get any mask between them, leaving a path of bare copper between the parts that can cause them to drift around and mess things up.
Method B1, on the right here has the same issue. Likely no solder mask between the parts and a bare copper path between the parts.
Method C here is fine. The parts are still at risk of not having mask between them, but there isn’t bare copper running straight between them. There will be mask between the parts and the pad so there isn’t any way for solder to bridge or the parts to drift.
Method D here is also okay. You do need more room to spread the parts apart. That’s a bummer, but sometimes “bummer” is the cost of reliability. Here, there will be solder mask between the parts and there are thermals. Everything is happy.
Use method C if you have a little side to side room to play with or method D if you have a little top to bottom spare room.
Duane Benson
Prevent flanking maneuvers.
Don’t be like the Solders at Thermopylae
GHS: Gobs in the details
I recently attended a Environmental themed conference. Nearly 5000 professionals in Environmental, Health and Safety were there. I saw many things at the show, but nothing surprised me more than seeing standing room only — and a line out the door — for one event.
What was it? It was a talk on GHS, the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and labeling of chemicals. I mean — it was a general talk. Just a lay-of-the-land kind of talk.
Now, call me crazy, but I had to pull a high-level EHS association official aside and ask, “Really — are people really that confused about GHS? You add a couple of sections onto the MSDS and use slightly different pictograms. Why all the commotion?”
The official nodded slightly as if she understood the question. She said it was true that most companies may have a GHS solution built in with their current MSDS management system. But then she explained why there were lines out the door for general GHS information. So for those who — like me — are puzzled by the fuss over GHS, this one’s for you.
Understanding the new GHS. To help understand the fuss about the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) newly final Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), it’s important to realize that this rule is OSHA’s most comprehensive rulemaking in a decade. Of this I was reminded.
The updated HCS impact affects over five million businesses. These are manufacturers, and to some extent distributors, that use or store chemicals. Plus, the new HCS affects almost 100,000 chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors.
Because the new rule is a major revision of the HCS, OSHA is requiring employers to train all employees on the new rules. Training is expected to impose the bulk of the cost burdens on US businesses.
Software for GHS won’t be much different from the current MSDS vault type programs companies use today. So training there should not be required, except for label making differences. Outsourced and SaaS solutions pose few training challenges — because these can be adjusted anytime, in real time. (SaaS is like the cloud — but believed to be more secure.)
But if you don’t outsource MSDS and GHS already — now is a good time to start. Rather than accrue costs while piece-mealing SDS responsibilities under REACH, OSHA and now, effectively, GHS — some companies have found value in investing in a centralized, comprehensive, outsourced solution.
Billions of dollars at stake. While the big-picture changes aren’t so scary, the details of it will get cumbersome. Largely the folks lining up at conferences to learn more are the consultants. They have to know everything, in theory. There’s a lot of money at stake.
The new GHS introduces a set of criteria for classifying human health and physical hazards while identifying OSHA-defined hazards. It requires that companies classify substances and/or products to ensure the appropriate classifications are assigned. Chemical data and labels will often need revision — perhaps significantly — to conform to new document requirements as they emerge.
Achieving and maintaining compliance will be a complex and time-consuming undertaking for many companies. I’ve heard OSHA officials use the word “billions” when discussing total costs. (As soon as I can lock down a quotable source, you’ll hear about it here.)
Who’s attending “about GHS” forums? Attending is anyone who has an eye on the money, basically. No, that’s not fair. Also attending are folks really trying to learn as much as they can. Groups and their motivations include:
- Industry professionals seeking to understand / react to implications of the new HCS rule, so they can competently and strategically manage resources, budget, training, and compliance
- Leading regulatory compliance experts and industry representatives who provide strategic advice to a broad spectrum of industry clients relative to regulatory standards, rule-making, and compliance.
- Journalists trying to distill key insights and analysis of the OSHA HCS adopting GHS
- Folks seeking discussions the multiple impacts, risk factors and estimated costs to be incurred by employers and manufacturers
- Individuals looking to refine and discuss definitions for “substance,” “mixture,” and hazard “classification,” among other critically important new terms
- Executives analysing strategic planning considerations and potential compliance/risk exposures
Audience by professional role? Well, look out, here comes everybody:
- Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Managers
- Product Marketing/Safety/Packaging & Labeling Professionals
- Human Resource Managers
- Fire Services Professionals
- International Marketing Professionals
- Compliance and Training Staff
- Environmental and Process Engineers
- Engineering and Plant Services Professionals
- Facility/Energy Planning Professionals
- Environmental Compliance and Reporting Management
- Monitoring/Environmental Resource Managers
- Environmental Health and Safety Management
- Production/Operations/Engineering/Environmental Management
- Environmental Consultants and Attorneys
- Environmental Risk Management Professionals
- Environmental/Corporate Counsel SVP/VP/Director
- SVP Finance/Engineering/Operations Management
- Power Plant Chief/Supervisor/Managers
- Physical Plant/Facility Management
If the question you ask yourself is, “Is this much ado about nothing?” then you’re probably all set. If you really do have questions about GHS solutions, sign up for a seminar or webinar soon, before it’s too late! I say that and am not even promoting such a thing. Just don’t get left out in the corridor like I did: people are hot on this trail right now and it’s standing room only.
Cheers, and, as always, happy compliance.
Must the SDS be in French?
Someone wrote in to our company recently with a question. “I need to know if Canadian law states that the MSDS or SDS has to be in French if requested,” the writer asked. The answer is yes.
Ours is a software company, not an advice column (!) — so typically folks write to request a demonstration of the latest software for GHS, SDS or REACH or supplier management. That kind of thing.
We don’t often get a straight up regulations question like this one. But why not answer it? It’s always good to check back over basics, when “the basics” change so often these days.
“Does Canadian law state that the MSDS or SDS have to be in French if requested?”
Yes, Canadian (M)SDS must have French versions So the answer is yes, in Canada you are required to have English and French versions of the (M)SDS. In Europe, the SDS must be authored in the official language of the country where you are selling or plan to sell your product. This applies if you’re selling in Asia, too.
Online there is a great case study about SDS in a global market—how one company solved the problem of creating MSDS documents in local language, in the 11th hour no less. Very dramatic, but they made it happen. Actually, that case study won an award from IDG ComputerWorld for its “forward thinking” aspects—take a look.
WHMIS is Canada’s national hazard communication system The prime objective of WHMIS is to provide relevant safety and health information to Canadian workers, the idea being, like most safety initiatives, to avert injury, illness and premature death. The key elements of WHMIS are cautionary labelling, MSDSs and worker education and training programs.
Labels The precautionary information, including hazard symbols, which must be disclosed on a WHMIS supplier label are prescribed in section 19 of the Controlled Products Regulation or CPR. The information must be disclosed in both English and French, and it must look nice, that is, it must be enclosed within a “hatched” border as depicted in Schedule III of the CPR.
Note: There are software solutions for GHS SDS management and authoring, in any language.
Also note: There is a website reference for all things WHMIS and GHS. And this page is helpful: a FAQ.
The Canadian Hazardous Products Act is available online and may be of interest. Hope this clarifies things.
If the Printer Fitts
Longtime readers and designers who remember Mike Fitts might wonder what’s he’s been up to of late.
As it turns out, Fitts is part of a Colorado company that has developed a low-cost 3-D plastics printer aimed at hobbyists, business owners and entrepreneurs.
No word on whether he can someday mold his own drum set.
Whose Fault Is It, Anyway?
The change in administration at IPC will inevitably dredge up lots of the past as various factions position themselves for a seat at the table.
Those whom hew to the line that IPC’s emphasis over the past decade has shifted to the assembly market are correct: IPC followed the money, and since the massive shift of printed circuit board fabrication to Asia starting in late 2001, assembly has where the North American money has been.
But that assessment just as inevitably turns to anger and blame — fingers get quickly pointed at IPC for somehow failing the domestic PCB market. I’m not sure that’s justified.
IPC’s interest in programs for fabricators has waned; of that, there is no doubt. But it has waned in large part because fabricators themselves stopped supporting those programs. The PWB Presidents Meetings and the TMRC are shells of their former selves, it says here, because the members stopped forcing the issue. Keep in mind, IPC has long followed a “build it and they will come” model. That’s not a good strategy for a trade association. But fabricators who abdicated leadership over the IPC share much of the responsibility for what it’s become. It’s not that the IPC board of directors no longer reflects the needs of small guys so much as it’s that the board no longer reflects the needs of the private owner, large or small. No one complained IPC wasn’t doing enough for fabricators when representatives from large fabs like Photocircuits were on the board.
Could IPC provide better direction for the North American fabrication industry? Yes. But the Chinese have done just fine without the help of a strong domestic association. Given that, it’s hard to argue that IPC was the cause of the decline. Back in 2000, when the forecasts for high layer count boards were staggeringly optimistic for the foreseeable future, old friend Jack Fisher lamented that it would keep the domestic industry from investing in HDI for another couple years. He was right: none did. Then the bottom fell out, and none of them had the cash to invest in the newer technology, thus relegating them to third tier status. As one who participated in the IPC Technology Roadmap going back to its first incarnation, I can say microvias were clearly expected to take hold. In that respect, the IPC did its part; the industry just didn’t follow.
It’s uncomfortable to admit we got beat, and no, the playing field with China has never been level, and yes, IPC’s lobbying and related activities have been confused and ineffective, but there’s plenty of blame to go around, and not all of it was a trade group’s fault. We’d all be better off, I think, to focus on the needs of the future rather than the sins of the past.
Dark Cloud
Cloud computing advocates beware: Apple’s cofounder thinks you’re nuts.
Holding forth in Washington last week, Steve (Woz) Wozniak said, ” ‘I really worry about everything going to the cloud. I think it’s going to be horrendous. … With the cloud, you don’t own anything. You already signed it away’ through the legalistic terms of service with a cloud provider that computer users must agree to.”
I will admit to not being familiar with all the various cloud IP agreements. But if the Woz is correct, this does suggest a serious wrinkle for those who see the cloud as a panacea.
Robots on Mars!
And the Curiosity Rover has landed! People can be so cool when we set our minds to it. Touchdown at 10:14:39 Earth Pacific Daylight Time.
Duane
One small step for A robot. One giant leap for the rocket that got it there.
Cause for Pause
India’s third major grid loss in a short period this month has left 600 million without train service, running water and electricity to operate A/C systems or even factories. One must wonder how carefully OEM, EMS, and fabricators evaluate infrastructure when seeking the “lowest cost” for production sites. I can clearly remember the chairman of an EMS client company pass on India for just this reason. His concern was that of potential component supply chain problems due to lack of sufficient local infrastructure as well as a dearth of sufficient local volume inventories and JIT deliveries capabilities for the hundreds of different components used each day.
Offshoring lesson learned: The lowest cost of labor or factory construction is not necessarily the lowest, best, or most reliable source for manufacturing products in the global marketplace.
A recycled idea
Some first-tier Taiwanese motherboard players are reported to be cooperating with second-tier players to jointly purchase components to lower their costs and counter rising raw material and labor expenses.
Weak global PC demand, rising costs for key components such as PCBs and IC chips, as well as increasing wages in China are all impacting motherboard makers’ profitability.
With the cooperation on component purchasing, sources believe that the players will be able to save an additional 5%, as costs for IC chips to see significant drops.
DigiTimes reports that the joint purchasing is mainly handled by the first-tier motherboard players with volumes of each order to be at least one million units. After acquiring better prices, the first-tier players then re-sell the components to their partnered second-tier players.
We tried a similar program in the US with board fabricators (modeled after a “neutral” buyer’s co-op) a few years ago, but could not overcome the lack of trust between potential participants.
Change
We need a radical change to ensure the future of our electronics industry – and our nation. The president of a leading electronics trade association said that he noticed a domestic dearth of young people in the association as well as in our industry. He asked if I noticed this and had any ideas as to how to attract young engineers and scientists to our field.
The timing of this discussion was amazing. Just a few days later there was a news story in the Washington Post about education citing the fact that 1 in 4 college students in South Korea are engineering majors versus 1 in 20 in the US. Korea also has tough national standards in their public schools. We have regional, uncoordinated standards. According to the Post, South Korea also far outpaces the United States in the percentage of young adults with college degrees—63 versus 41%—and its K-12 students routinely outperform US children on international assessments.
Do you have any ideas as to how to solve this problem and arrest the decline in our electronics industry? Short term? Long term? Please send your comments and ideas to me at [email protected]