Printed Circuit Design & Fab - August 2008 - (Page 14)

The Perfect Fit Choosing the right strategic partner can reduce your time-to-market and minimize costs. No ToPIC IS MoRe highly debated than design for manufacturability. Early in my career, I worked for a large OEM where I attended a weekly product development meeting. As the junior person, I was scribe and kept meeting minutes. Every week I would dig into the minutes archive to remind someone that one of the key pEtEr objectives with a particular “in trouble” BigEloW program had been to make it manufacturable. A decade later the computer industry began using terminology such as “an elegant design” to convey the message that a product not only worked as designed but was robust because it was highly manufacturable. Today, with PCBs, the challenges are no less than they were back then. In fact, the challenges are far greater as vertical manufacturing is all but extinct, and the supply chain is truly global. However, one thing that has not changed is the grumbling that takes place between manufacturer and designer as both deal with trying to get a new product to market quickly and on budget while exceeding design expectations. In our quest to get a product from concept into production, we deal with many challenges. One of the biggest issues is the decreasing number of technically competent people available to help throughout the design process. Lean organizations stretch excellent people who simply do not have the time to focus on all the details for all their projects. Second, geographic and language barriers have developed as globalization of the supply chain has quickly grown. It is tough for anyone to fully understand everything a colleague may be trying to communicate when he is half-a-world away and speaking a different language. The biggest issue, however, that continues to plague the ability to smoothly get a design from concept through prototype and into full production is choosing who to partner with for the various aspects of the product development process. In short, there truly is no one-stop shop for everything. Efficiency today requires fully understanding if your partner fits and, if so, into which aspect of the product development cycle. That being said, many companies have the capability to do many things and, at least on paper, look like they can operate as a soup to nuts supplier to an active OEM or innovative design firm. But capability is just one aspect of that perfect fit. I know that my small company can produce prototype through production product, can turn on a dime and still handle scheduled production runs. But equally, I know that there are some types of applications that fit us well and that there are many that are tough for us to swallow without 14 burping – badly. The difference between the “winners” and the “losers” is not the volume but the technology. Technology does not necessarily mean the technical statistics of what our equipment and people can handle but really means the application that is being designed: where it goes, what it does and who it's for. This technology factor is important. If you tend to do a lot of work for consumer electronics companies, you most likely understand the end applications you are producing for, the materials that are needed, and the cost-point and time constraints that the designers are working under. Equally, if you supply to the military, you may be working with a very different business model requiring a very different aptitude. Here, the ability to produce many variations of a similar design on exotic materials with often minimal “data” may mark the difference between being a valued supplier and failing miserably. As a supplier, you really need to understand the difference between what you do and what you do well. You may also need to be able to communicate that succinctly to prospective customers. For over 50 years, many in the circuit board industry have not focused as much on what they do well as they have on doing anything and everything for anyone. Trying to be all things to all customers may not build the solid customer base and stellar reputation that you are working hard to achieve. As a designer, you really need to know if your supplier is focused on what you do and how you do it. It’s great to try to use the same supplier for everything, but maybe the best way to get the job done quickly and with minimal pain is to have several suppliers based on the technology, application and price point that you are trying to hit. Working strictly online or with a self-proclaimed one-stop shop may not get you efficiently where you want to go. When it comes to picking the partner that will provide the highest probability of success, you need to invest the time to do the due diligence necessary to really understand if the supplier is best qualified for your needs. I estimate that 25% to 50% of product development costs could be reduced if suppliers focused on what they do well and designers sought out the best fit in a supplier for the given application. Significant reductions in time to market and cost are compelling reasons to rethink how we choose our strategic partners. If that is not enough, think about the added bonus if everyone focused on what he does best: a dramatic reduction in griping between different segments of the supply chain! pcd&f PEtEr biGElow is president and Ceo of IMI (imipcb.com); pbigelow@imipcb.com AUGUST 2008 printEd circuit dEsign & faB http://imipcb.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Printed Circuit Design & Fab - August 2008

Printed Circuit Design & Fab - July 2008 Contents Our Line Market Watch Around the World Happenings ROI Tip Jar Software Performance Interconnect Strategies Final Finish Forum Product Development Challenges in a Global Market Innovative Modeling Supports Co-Design of the Power Supply Chain, Part 2 Low-Loss Fluoropolymer Copper Clad Laminate Qualifying PCBs Outsourced in Asia Copper Plating and Microvia Fill for Advanced PCBs Off the Shelf Marketplace Ad Index BGA Bulletin

Printed Circuit Design & Fab - August 2008

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.