Collaborative research provides an economical avenue that fosters process innovation and new product development channels.

Collaborative research offers attractive potential for companies. In theory, it is a way to share and reduce the costs, risks and uncertainties of R&D. It can help eliminate duplication of efforts and leverage research dollars. In some cases, it is believed to improve efficiency and shorten research time. The ultimate goal is to encourage and enhance innovation.

Prior to 1984, there were only a few R&D consortia in the U.S. Fear of antitrust liability limited the formation of consortia to regulated industries, such as natural gas (the Gas Research Institute – GRI) and electricity (the Electrical Power Research Institute – EPRI), where government control of prices offset concerns about anti-competitive behavior¹. However, passage of the National Cooperative Research Act (NCRA) in 1984 relaxed antitrust regulations to allow the formation of “joint research and development ventures,” encouraging collaborative research at a “pre-competitive level.”

Since that time, numerous consortia have been formed in a wide variety of industries. There are the semiconductor and microelectronics consortia that are well-known within our industry, as well as consortia that focus on biotechnology, software engineering, petrochemical, transportation and more. According to a report on sustainable collaboration prepared for the Economic Assessment Office of NIST’s Advanced Technology Program, there were 350 U.S.-based R&D consortia registered with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission by 2006².

The NCRA was amended in 1993 to include joint ventures for production, and the name was changed to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act (NCRPA). Then in 2004 the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act extended the provisions of NCRPA to standards development organizations.

What role have research consortia played in the PCB industry? Have there been successful efforts? Do we need more consortia – or maybe fewer? This article will look at some of the industry consortia that have focused their efforts, or at least some of their efforts, on technologies and issues related to PCBs.

What is a Consortium?

The word “consortium” (or “consortia,” in the plural) has many different meanings. For the purposes of this article, we will refer to a consortium as a group of organizations that come together to achieve a common objective. The majority of consortia are corporate membership organizations, although many have associate memberships for universities and government agencies. R&D consortia emphasize basic or applied research, focusing on the early phases of innovation (i.e., pre-competitive).

In comparison, a trade organization or association is a group of individuals and companies in a specific business or industry that have organized to promote common interests. Trade organizations perform a number of services for their members, including lobbying, keeping members informed about important industry developments and promoting professionalism within the industry. The development and promotion of uniform standards and/or practices is also generally a trade organization activity.

Industry consortia sometimes develop out of existing working partnerships and sometimes out of need. Many R&D consortia have the goal of advancing industry. In order to succeed, however, they need to have a clear mutual goal. The aim of any consortium should be to deliver “more than the sum of the individual parts.”

As shown by Table 1 [PDF format] and Table 2 [PDF format], consortia vary in how they are staffed, the roles they play and how they are structured. Not all call themselves consortia; some choose “network,” “partnership” or “group” as a preferred description.

Many of the consortia described in these tables are focused on technology development – often creating new intellectual property – while others are concerned with technology deployment and/or infrastructure development. They may have their own bricks-and-mortar facilities with a full staff, or work may be done at member facilities, coordinated and administered by a handful of people on the consortium’s staff. Some consortia also utlize the concept of assignees – employees of member companies who work onsite at the consortium facility, the theory being that they will help assure technology transfer.

The industry make-up of the membership also varies. In some consortia, the membership is from only one segment of industry, while others involve members that represent the entire supply chain. A broad membership allows OEMs and EMS providers to work directly with vendors to define needs, and vendors get direct feedback and input for developing the solutions that the industry wants.

Sometimes, the infrastructure required to implement a new technology lags behind, affecting the ability to bring new products to market. New technologies often require significant investments in equipment, and suppliers are reluctant to make those investments until they are sure they have a market. At the same time, OEMs and EMS providers are reluctant to commit to suppliers that do not have proven production capability or the capacity to quickly ramp to volume production. When OEMs, EMS providers and suppliers work together in a collaborative environment it is often possible to solve this “chicken-and-egg” problem. Suppliers are able to develop capabilities based on what their customers tell them they need, and OEM/EMS providers have access to suppliers with proven capabilities.

PCB-Focused Consortia

There are/have been several consortia whose activities focus/focused solely on PCB-related technologies and issues (Table 1). Others have a broader focus that includes PCB-related programs and projects (Table 2).

The October Project was probably the first PCB industry consortium. It was formed in 1992 by Gene Hendrickson who, at that time, was CEO of the Tektronix PCB shop in Forrest Grove, OR, (now Merix) and was supported by Motorola, MacDermid, Morton and others. Although supported by top management, the organization was primarily run at the engineering level of these companies. In the few years it existed, several projects were conducted using the resources of the participating companies. When ITRI was formed (see discussion below), many of the members of the October Project were also members of ITRI and the October Project became a part of ITRI. The people who worked in the October Project were very supportive of its activities and convinced of its success, but were not at high enough levels in their companies to ensure continued support.

Also in 1992, Universal Instruments organized the first in a series of cooperative research efforts to fund external customer development requirements. The first project focused on ultra fine pitch (UFP) mass reflow components. The complexity and expense of this work, along with the technical risks, motivated Universal’s SMT Laboratory and 17 other corporations to participate in and fund the research.

The success of the UPF Consortium led to additional funded research projects: the Ball Grid Array (BGA)/Direct Chip Attach (DCA) Consortium (1994), the Chip Scale Packaging and DCA Consortium (1996) and several Area Array Consortia (1999-2007). These efforts were completely funded by the companies that participated in them, and results of the research are generally available only to the participating companies.

Interconnect and Technology Research Institute (ITRI) was formed in 1994 by the IPC and several PCB companies. It was organized as a modified October Project with a small staff and all of the development activity being done by members in their own facilities. At its peak, ITRI had more than 60 members and 20 active projects. The consortium model and many of the procedures developed by ITRI/October Project have been adopted by other consortia. Test vehicles designed in ITRI projects and many reports from ITRI activities are still available today through IPC.

Measuring and Predicting Success

Determining success of any consortium is always challenging. The EAO’s sustainable collaboration study mentioned previously² notes that several factors have been used to try to quantify success, such as counting patents, articles or technology, but these have “only limited value in determining the benefits derived from the consortium.” Similarly, it is often difficult to place a value on, or even track, transferred technology. Members are understandably unwilling to divulge how and where a specific technology might be used.

Given the difficulty of measuring or quantifying success, and looking at the history of the various consortia, it is almost impossible to identify which factors lead to success or failure. For every attribute, it is possible to point to a success – and also a failure.

Consortium size, level of funding/cost of membership, visibility in industry (high-profile vs. low-profile), scope, even operational structure (central facility vs. work distributed among participants) – none of these seems to either guarantee success or doom a consortium to failure.

The large number of consortia, and the persistence of them over time, indicates that they do serve a need. They are clearly businesses, but because most are non-profits, one cannot use the typical financial measures of success and growth that are used by for-profit companies. As non-profits, consortia do not have access to venture capital, stock sales, etc.; therefore, their survival, particularly through economic downturns and the periods where they must re-invent themselves, depends on the presence of a paternal organization or companies that have a vision and strong belief in the value of the consortium.

If we look at the consortia that have survived over the years, we can clearly identify the visionary groups that formed and maintained the organization. In the case of SEMATECH, for example, it is the major semiconductor companies like Intel, TI and AMD that have remained members and supporters throughout the organization’s history. For the Universal Instruments Consortia, Universal has obviously been the driving force in organizing and maintaining these efforts. As long as its core group remains faithful, a consortium can continue to survive as other members join and leave.

Despite the difficulty in predicting success, there do seem to be some traits common to successful consortia:

• The consortium addresses a common shared need with a focused, well-defined mission, and members buy into a common agenda rather than their own agendas.
• There is a genuine target – a defined need for the product of the consortium. The group has a far better chance of success if the end product is an enabler, one that will enhance the sales of the individual contributing partner’s main product lines.
• Academic involvement seems to be beneficial but it is not required for success. The university perspective provides a unique alternative to the industry point of view and can be advantageous for some activities.
• It seems that the consortia organization is stronger if the individuals from their supporting companies are higher-level executives. If the executive is intimately aware of the consortium’s activities it is much easier to get him or her to sign off on future activities.

Sustained growth of the PCB industry requires development of disruptive technologies, innovative products and advanced manufacturing processes. However, industrial research continues to downsize year after year, a trend that we have seen for nearly 20 years.

OEMs have actually increased their investments in R&D in recent years but, as they have outsourced most of their manufacturing capabilities, their R&D focus has shifted from physical technology to products, software and systems. The material suppliers have taken on some of the R&D, but not nearly at the levels once funded by OEMs because their margins are much smaller. The fabricators and EMS companies are working on even smaller margins and have little to invest in R&D.

In this environment, collaborative R&D is perhaps the most viable solution available, meaning that consortia are here to stay. However, the model most likely will change slightly. With the evolving marketplace, the biggest change will be in membership criteria. Consortia need to find ways for smaller companies – and even individuals – to participate. If they cannot participate as full members all the time, then perhaps they can on specific projects where their knowledge and proficiency will benefit all participants. Small companies with specific know-how and even small design groups or individual designers have expertise needed in some projects or activities.

Another aspect of membership is international recruiting. The consortia discussed in this article are predominantly U.S.-based. Although several have international members, and most of the large OEM and EMS members are operating globally, the core membership is still located in the U.S. or North America. As the industry becomes increasingly global, so must the solutions.

Environmental activities are a good example of where international participation in consortia is evolving. Many of the changing regulations are internationally driven and the internationally-based OEMs are important players. Yet, due to their organizational structure and, sometimes, even their culture and language difficulties, getting Japanese, Korean or Chinese OEMs to participate on projects with the same level of participation as do North American-based OEMs may be difficult.

Additionally, there needs to be greater interaction among consortia, possibly even cooperative projects. This is happening already, but on a limited basis. Many OEMs are participating in consortia on a project-by-project basis and want to make sure that there is no duplication of effort by consortia and that the resources they invest are providing them with a payback. If they see an advantage in two consortia joining forces for more return, they are pushing for that.

Finally, it would help to have some sort of “clearinghouse” where consortia activities are listed and interested companies can see who is doing what in order to participate in those activities that are most relevant and will yield the greatest results. PCD&M

John T. (Jack) Fisher is president of Interconnect Technology Analysis Inc., located in Georgetown, TX. ITA is a PCB consulting company that specializes in roadmapping. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

REFERENCES

1. How do Consortia Organize Collaborative R&D?: Evidence from the National Cooperative Research Act, Suzanne E. Majewski, Harvard Law School, August 2004.

2. Sustainable Collaboration: A Study of the Dynamics of Consortia, Irene J. Petrick, Ann E. Echols, Susan Mohammed and Jesse Hedge, Pennsylvania State University, a report prepared for the Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, NIST, August 2006.

3. The National Academies Press: R & D Consortia and U.S.-Japan Collaboration Report of a Workshop (1991) National Research Council (NRC).

4. National Academies Press: Government-Industry Partnerships for Development of New Technologies, Charles W. Wessner, Editor, National Research Council 2002.