CircuiTree - December 2008 - (Page 28) IPC Issues and Answers By Denny McGuirk The Road to Qualification T here’s an apparent disconnect between what OEMs say is the quality of PCBs they’re getting from fabricators and the efforts fabricators say they’re making to improve the quality of their products. So much so that it has prompted IPC to study implementing a qualification process that would assure purchasers of capability levels and periodic testing conformance. OEMs sourcing PCBs often report encountering suppliers that claim to be “IPC-6012-certified” when, in fact, no such certification exists. On the other hand, fabricators report burdensome audits and visits from customers—up to 50 or 60 annually. Visits, particularly audits, tie up technical personnel needed to design and produce PCBs. In addition to hampering productivity, audits cost money. To resolve the disconnect, which is growing as technologies for fabricating PCBs become more complex, the IPC Technical Activities Executive Committee (TAEC) commissioned a Blue Ribbon Committee to explore a performance-based qualification process that would certify suppliers as being able to meet certain requirements within the IPC-6010 series. With a standardized qualification process, individual audits could become unnecessary. Some individuals believe the main problem is PCB sourcing that often relies on AABUS (as agreed upon between user and supplier) terms because a standardized qualification process does not exist. AABUS terms can take many forms: lengthy documents with fine print, complex work processes, and more. And, while IPC-6010 series specifications provide for specific lot acceptance testing, its position on PCB supplier qualification has not changed—it still follows AABUS terms. The Blue Ribbon Committee, headed by Don Dupriest of Lockheed Martin Corp. along with IPC Base Materials Committee chair Dewey Whittaker of Honeywell Aerospace, has surveyed IPC members who use the IPC-6012 specification for PCB manufacturing to ascertain support for a qualification process (see Figure 1). ciation adopts a qualification program. (The committee currently believes that once rules are established, simply removing a noncompliant supplier from the QML would suffice as proper enforcement.) The committee also raised the question of whether IPC should become a primary auditing agency; however, it concluded this is not an appropriate activity for IPC. Another crucial issue raised on the survey was program funding. Who should bear the costs: the OEMs using the QML, the fabricators being audited, or IPC members? Most respondents felt fabricators should bear the costs, but, as many members have pointed out, the resources saved by having fewer audits should outweigh the costs. Figure 1 Qualification Flow Chart Survey Feedback Issues under discussion by the Blue Ribbon Committee are whether a qualification process should apply to all three classes of PCBs or just select classes; qualification steps; and adding an audit component. The goal is a qualified manufacturers list (QML) that OEMs could reference, along with report cards for individual suppliers on their capabilities and demonstrated performance. After discussing the survey results, the committee is currently studying a model that includes auditing by independent labs, in accordance with the IPC-QL-653 standard, and some variant of the IPC PCQR2 (Printed Board Process Capability, Quality, and Relative Reliability) program. An issue raised in survey comments is whether a qualification program broad enough to apply across the industry could be specific enough for the needs of individual OEMs. Or, would some still need their own audits? Another issue was whether IPC should become a regulatory agency, as respondents thought could happen if the asso28 December 2008 • circuitree.com Any such IPC qualification would need to have some teeth in the form of statistical data that eliminates some of the subjectivity present in other qualification programs if it’s to be of any value to the industry. The next step in the process for the committee is to determine the scope of the qualification program: What kind of test vehicles will it require? How long will an initial qualification last? Will we employ any initial onsite auditors or strictly Web-based audits for initial and periodic qualification? This is still very much a work in progress. The committee welcomes comments from IPC members on program funding; the qualification process applying to all classes of PCBs; and, most importantly, if such a program would help minimize the auditing burden for suppliers or add to the burden. I hope you will join us in taking the high road to solving the disconnect and share your thoughts with IPC staff representative John Perry at JohnPerry@ipc.org. Together, I’m sure we’ll get to the place we need to be. ■ Dennis P. McGuirk is the President of IPC—Association Connecting Electronics Industries. He can be reached by phone at 847-597-2841 or by email to DMcGuirk@ipc.org. For more information, visit www.ipc.org. http://www.ipc.org http://www.circuitree.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.