Author Archives: Mike

About Mike

Mike Buetow is president of the Printed Circuit Engineering Association (pcea.net). He previously was editor-in-chief of Circuits Assembly magazine, the leading publication for electronics manufacturing, and PCD&F, the leading publication for printed circuit design and fabrication. He spent 21 years as vice president and editorial director of UP Media Group, for which he oversaw all editorial and production aspects. He has more than 30 years' experience in the electronics industry, including six years at IPC, an electronics trade association, at which he was a technical projects manager and communications director. He has also held editorial positions at SMT Magazine, community newspapers and in book publishing. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois. Follow Mike on Twitter: @mikebuetow

A Big ‘Yeah!’ for Yacoub

Posted on by
Congratulations to Advanced Circuits CEO John Yacoub, who has been named a finalist for the Denver Business Journal’s Entrepreneur of the Year.

From an inauspicious start — in his first week on the job, they told him the plant would be closed because of environmental reasons — John helped turn the company into one of the prime examples of American ingenuity and character.

The recognition is good for John and Advanced Circuits, of course, but it’s also vital for the printed circuit board industry to get this kind of positive press. Way to go!

The Free Flow of Fakes

Posted on by

While it’s true that counterfeit parts are pervading all aspects of the electronics supply chain (not to mention consuming all amounts of oxygen from industry pundits such as yours truly), is it possible our sense of fear is overblown?

By fear, I don’t mean “risk” — that’s the inherent chance of failure taken by, knowingly or not, using a fraudulent part. Rather, I mean the “if I do this I might get someone hurt and/or lose my job” feeling.

Yesterday, the SMEMA Council, a group of electronics assembly equipment OEMs, admonished customers to use only authorized channels for replacement parts and service. By using fake parts, SMEMA said, the risk (there’s that word again) users take is that the assembly equipment OEM could void their warranty. That’s a tough nut to swallow, considering the price tag of new placement machines, testers and screen printers.

The question I have is, why would SMEMA even feel compelled to issue such a statement? Faked parts (one old friend says in China, copyright means the “right to copy”) are ubiquitous and systemic. Two US senators this week accused China of blocking a probe into counterfeit electronics by refusing visas to investigators, but it’s hard to know whether the US is truly wants to stop the flow of knockoffs goods or just put pressure on China in order to exact other reforms or negotiating leverage. Indeed, so-called fourth shifts are not only common, they have been for years. So forgive me for being cynical when a few bureaucrats say they want to do something about it now.

In my opinion, there’s no end in sight to the free flow of fakes because, in fact, America and Europe don’t really fear the potential outcome. For a decade, manufacturing programs have been shuttled en masse to China. And while OEMs pay lip service to the notion that their IP is their livelihood, they aggressively seek out the manufacturing partners of their competitors, thus simultaneously ensuring their IP will be shared and that their products will be commoditized.

Let’s put it another way. If company ABC contracts to China and learns a few months later that every Chang, Wang and Li is walking around with a cheap duplicate of their widget, ABC may snort and snarl a few times, but will it fire the folks involved in outsourcing? Highly unlikely. But if that widget never gets built, or ships late because a machine is down or an oscillator is unavailable, heads will roll. Supply chain employee is thus naturally emboldened to take risks that they otherwise might be unwilling to contemplate. The wheel is set in motion.

SMEMA is trying to reorient customers as part of a much-welcome attempt to demand accountability, and I wish them luck, but I don’t think it will make much difference. The corporate buyer culture has changed.

Don’t believe me? Just go to the EMSInsider group on LinkedIn and look at all the listings by members looking for spare parts. Utilizing only approved vendors is nice and all, but when product needs to be shipped before the quarter’s up, the AVL is an industry anachronism.

Inside EMS

Posted on by

I attended a fascinating conference yesterday on the state of electronics outsourcing and supply chain management.

Set on the campus of Tellabs in the Chicago suburbs and produced by Charlie Barnhart Associates, speakers and attendees patiently dissected current trends and needs.

So as not to inhibit discussion, I promised not to reveal any specific remarks or details prior without getting the individual speaker’s signoff, so for now I will stick to generalities.

Attending were representatives from about 10 EMS companies and a like number of OEMs, some from Fortune 100 companies. There were also various analysts and other talking heads/pundits. I was the only media person in attendance.

Topics ranged from the concrete to the speculative. Tellabs spoke at length on how and why the telecom gear maker decided to outsource its electronics assembly, and was refreshingly upfront not only about the pros and cons but about the mistakes it made along the way.

Researcher Matt Chanoff noted the startling success of the Apple iPad and wondered whether the reason it has managed to capture a 95% share of the tablet market despite more than 80 competing products has to do more with the “ecology” of Apple vs. the form, fit or function of the iPad itself. He also pointed to a few distinct trends in the electronics design and manufacturing space, noting an unprecedented product platform commoditization is underway, while at the same time a newish breed of hobbyists (“prosumers”) has emerged and created a niche market for very expensive, semi-retro (read: electromechanical) products like cameras.

CEO Cary Wood laid out the turnaround of 118-year-old Sparton, which came thisclose to bankruptcy before righting the ship. The current metrics are an impressive display of refocusing and rebalancing. He said that the bulk of Sparton’s EMS customers two years ago were money losers, and Sparton had to either cancel the programs or renegotiate terms. But the bigger issue was convincing the sales team to jettison bad customers. Wood was forthcoming about the specific policies they put into place, including standardizing templates for pricing and quoting, and installing a sales and incentive program based on profits. He also noted that given Sparton’s exceptionally long history in Michigan, they effectively had to relocate the headquarters because they were the big fish in that small pond, and after all the local layoffs and shutdowns, they would have been tarred and feathered. He also said they made the decision to separate HQ from a manufacturing site so as not to get too emotionally attached to a particular business.

Time and again, OEMs and EMS companies said it was advantageous for competitors to place programs with a single EMS and that IP concerns didn’t really factor into the equation. The EMS companies said that OEM competitors are attracted by the knowledge that the EMS knows how to build products for the target market and that the EMS would also know what the appropriate prices would be. (That latter point was made several times.) In short, IP concerns take a backseat to the hope that the EMS would ensure the build price remained consistent with their competitors’ products (which also hints that OEMs accept the commodity nature of most of their products).

Another speaker asserted that no EMS is too big to fail, Flextronics and Foxconn included. He pointed to the disruption such an event would have on supply chains, pricing and capacity.

The good folks at CBA put me to work moderating a panel made up of two OEMs (Tellabs and Eaton) and three EMS companies of varying size and geographical reach (Plexus, Morey and Creation Technologies). I’ll have more on that in a bit.

 

 

Terry Gou’s Latest Obsession

Posted on by

There is no doubt Foxconn founder and megabillionaire Terry Gou is a smart man. But he’s also a master manipulator.

Take a look at his comments at Foxconn’s recent shareholder meeting. As reported by Business Insider, Gou had sharp words for fellow gazillionaire Warren Buffett, who has invested in BYD, which is engaged in litigation with Foxconn over IP infringement claims.

Here’s Gou calling out Buffett:

If Warren Buffett really believes in BYD’s electric car technology, then why doesn’t he drive a BYD car instead of an American car? Doesn’t that tell you something about what he really thinks of BYD?

It should be noted that Buffett spent $26.5 billion last year to acquire the second-largest US railroad. By Gou’s twisted logic, Buffett shouldn’t be driving at all — he should be taking a train everywhere. But then again, Gou didn’t get so rich by being a generous soul.

Live, from Chicago!

Posted on by

I’ll be at Charlie Barnhart Associates’ Outsourcing Navigator Council meeting next week in Chicago. Old friends Eric Miscoll and Jennifer Read have invited me to moderate a panel looking at the future of outsourcing.

Among my panelists are executives from Plexus, Creation Technologies, Morey Corp.,  Eaton Corp. and host Tellabs. I’m really looking forward to it, and hope to have some good notes to share with you next week.

 

The ‘Hole’ Truth about Drilling PCBs

Posted on by

Okay, here we go, blog number 3; but first allow me to do a quick review of what we’ve covered so far:

1.) Not everyone who says they can make RF/MW PCBs really can.
2.) High performance substrates act NOTHING like FR-4 in the fabrication process, and a qualified supplier must be a “Material Guru.”
3.) Just as RF/MW engineering is a specialty, so is RF/MW PCB fabrication.
4.) Don’t be hasty in starting relationships with RF/MW PCB suppliers. Do your homework and ask important questions.

Now, moving along. Let’s talk about drilling holes. Automated drilling machines are incredible, when you think about it. The X-Y axis accuracy of hole placement, the throughput, and the speed of the spindles are all truly amazing! When drilling FR-4 material, the bits cut through material like a hot knife through butter. When you throw some Rogers PTFE, or Taconic in the mix, however, a dramatic shift occurs. The drill operators start throwing back Red Bulls, and all that mindless trust in the drill’s amazing technology vanishes.

Again, remember the Material Guru analogy: for every substrate brand, composition, thickness and copper weight, there is a specific recipe—in this case a drill recipe. (Thankfully, these recipes are supplied by the substrate manufacturers.) The speed of the spindles must be adjusted to keep them from tearing up the softer materials and leaving behind chewed up hole walls. The drill bits must be changed frequently to ensure optimal sharpness. The feed speed must be altered as well, to ensure a clean entry and exit of the drill bits. If you don’t have cleanly drilled holes with smooth hole walls, you will be in deep water once the boards hit plating (no pun intended).

In addition to these adjustments, talented design engineers continually delight us with their ever-so-complex designs that require multiple drill operations (due to buried and blind vias). Sometimes, back drilling or controlled depth drilling is required. All these factors serve to compound the, already complex, challenges. (Yes, there is laser drilling, but that comes with another set of unique challenges — and requires a separate post!)

Needless to say, drilling is a critical step in the manufacturing of RF/MW boards. If you mess it up in drilling, expensive laminates end up on the scrap pile, along with any hope a supplier may have of making a profit. So, here is what I hope you will take away from this brief post: Drilling RF/MW PCBs is dramatically different than drilling standard FR-4 boards. It requires knowledge, skill and experience. It naturally costs more (due to drill bit usage and added labor) and is far more risky, from a profit standpoint, for the supplier. It can be risky for you too, but only if you have inadvertently partnered with an unqualified supplier.

For all these reasons, when you get an opportunity to visit an existing or prospective PCB supplier, keep these things in mind as you ask questions about their drill operations. If you see wide-eyed drill operators, a heap of drill bits and Red Bull cans … you are probably in the right place!

Judy

Are You Living in a ‘Material’ World?

Posted on by

When discussing RF/MW PCBs, starting with base materials seems like a logical place to start. However, the topic of advanced circuit materials is … well … complicated, especially for a single blog post. I’m sure this is obvious to you, but it took me the better part of this week to come to this conclusion with the help of Dale Doyle of Rogers Corp. and Denis Boulanger of Ventec. (Thank you both for your help, and graciousness!) In the end, I have resolved to leave the “heavy lifting” to the experts. Rogers, Taconic, Arlon, and Isola all have information-rich websites and employ amazing professionals like Dale and Denis who are invaluable resources (as are certain industry blogs).

Nevertheless, I did discover that I have a thing or two to contribute when it comes to this subject, as it is related to printed circuit boards.

There are a wide variety of high performing substrates on the market ideally suited for RF/MW applications. At Transline, we use all of them — because you specify them on your blueprints. In fact, we stock almost every part number of Rogers material, and many of Taconic and Arlon and a few Isola. We do this to shorten lead times and because approximately 60% of our business is in the RF/MW industries. Due to our fluency with these materials, I feel qualified to give you a snap shot of what happens after your order hits our shop floor.

First off, RF/MW materials act NOTHING like FR-4 materials in our manufacturing process! They don’t even behave like each other or one part number to another, or one material supplier to another. That is because they are all made differently and have unique compositions: Teflon, ceramic, duroid, PBD, hybrid mixes, and so on. Further, some are reinforced, some aren’t. Some are reinforced with crushed fiberglass, some with woven fiberglass. The highest-performing materials, with no reinforcement, can have dimensional stability issues so severe that they make your board fabricator want to start parking cars for a living.

A capable, qualified RF/MW PCB manufacturer must be a virtual guru when it comes to materials. They must be experts at knowing how each substrate brand, each composition, each part number, at each copper weight and thickness responds to … (taking a big breath) … etchant, plating chemicals, heat, lamination, moisture, and a whole host of processes met in fabrication. These laminates can be moody and fragile … nothing like good old predictable, robust FR-4. So, just as a good RF/MW engineer brings some art and magic to the science of their design process, so it is with the board manufacturer.

Why is this important to know? Because many an excellent PCB fabricator has made the innocent, though faulty, assumption that because they can make extremely complex boards with FR-4, that this RF stuff will be a cake walk. They may have even enjoyed success with some RF boards made on a specific material, but unable to succeed on another. (Shortly thereafter is when you get that embarrassed phone call informing you that they can’t make your boards after all.)

What I am proposing here is that RF/MW PCB manufacturing is a specialty, just as RF/MW engineering is a specialty within the general discipline of electrical engineering. Far too many PCB suppliers and engineers appear to lack this awareness. Why do I believe this? Because I work with RF engineers daily who have the scars to prove it! I believe this because after having 16 years of experience working with very complex FR-4 boards, and a one year working with RF/MW boards–I still feel like a rookie when it comes to RF boards. I also hear evidence from materials suppliers and buyers. I hear it from engineers on LinkedIn. It is for these reasons that I was compelled to create this blog.

So, here are a few possible solutions I hope may be helpful:

When you evaluate a new RF/MW board supplier, consider asking what percentage of their business is RF/MW, and how long they have been doing RF/MW PCBs? Which materials are they accustomed to working with? Ask questions about their quality and test records that verify their ability to successfully hold the tough impedance tolerances you may expect. Ask for RF/MW customer references. Ask your substrate rep for recommendations — in some ways, I think they have the best seat in the house, often offering some much-needed objectivity.

My advice is this: Don’t rush, headlong, into a relationship with a new supplier because they can save you 10%, because by doing so they may, unwittingly, cost you far more — like the loss of an important customer. Think more along the line of long courtship and marriage, rather than one-night stand in Vegas (a tall order when we are all so price driven!). Finally, look and listen for signs of true expertise. Look for that rare mix of knowledge, skill and experience mingled together with a twist of art and magic.

Blogs are designed for dialogue, so please offer your feedback and comments. If you have more ideas or input on this topic, please share it. We have much to learn from one another and I look forward to hearing from you!

Best wishes,
Judy

Will Cancer Warning Hang Up Cellphone Use?

Posted on by

Yet another body is warning of links between cellphone use and deadly brain cancer.

The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) today announced it would classify radio frequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans, based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use. Glioma made up 2/3ds of the new cases of brain cancer identified worldwide in 2008, the WHO/IARC said.

With some 5 billion cellphone subscriptions in use worldwide however, the question is, will the decision change anyone’s behavior?

On one hand, it could lead to an increase in use of hands-free devices that keep the RF antenna away from the user, as recommended by IARC. That would mean a corresponding increase in business for electronics manufacturers.

On the other hand, most users are likely to consider this warning with the same mock seriousness they give to sunscreen. It is highly unlikely that the emerging markets, few of which have built out landline infrastructure, will reverse course and spend the billions (or more) needed to offer an alternative to cellphones.