In September, we asked a select group of Printed Circuit Design & Fab
fabricator subscribers to tell us about their technology capabilities.
As part of the survey, we asked them to highlight their plans for
technology upgrades over the next 12 to 18 months. I will cover the
entire survey in December, but as many of us enter the final phases of
planning for 2008, I thought it advantageous to highlight here some of
the technology upgrades planned for next year.
In
response to the survey, we received feedback from over 75 companies
representing all regions and company types. More than 50% of
respondents were engineers from the production, fabrication, product,
quality and test disciplines. The remaining respondents were equally
split between management, and sales and marketing. Just under half –
47.1% – said their companies built medium-to-low volumes, and 19.1 %
indicated their companies focus on quickturn. High-volume producers
represented 32.1% of respondents. Not surprisingly, 47.1% of
respondents were North American fabricators; 27.9% were Asian; and
17.4% were European. The remaining 7.4% were from elsewhere.
Most
of those responding from North America (69.8%) and Asia (65.1%)
indicated their companies had multiple locations. Of the European
companies, 48.8% had multiple locations. Overall, the demographic and
volume characteristics of the respondents indicated that we achieved a
reasonable mix of our global readership.
In the area
of technology upgrades and planned new equipment purchases, the survey
was broken down into the following process areas: imaging, drilling and
wet process/plating.
The topic of imaging was
approached by first defining the line and space minimums for inner- and
outerlayers. As a follow-up to establishing the minimum line/space
capability, we asked about average yield. The two technology areas
included in this section were LDI imaging and inkjet printing.
For
me, one of the surprising bits of data this survey revealed was that
half the respondents reported LDI capabilities, and the half without
plan to purchase LDI equipment in the next 12 to 18 months. In support
of this technology direction, 36.7% of the respondents indicated that
their innerlayer line/space capabilities were 50 microns or lower, and
the majority – over 75% – reported average process yields after etch
below 90%.
LDI has well-demonstrated capabilities
in the area of yield improvement. On a positive note, the companies we
surveyed are making equipment investments to support the technology
demands of finer lines and spaces. The investment will yield a double
return, increasing their capabilities and improving yields, which, in
turn, should improve long-term profitability. As we know, more waste
equals less profit.
Subscribers were also asked about
current inkjet capabilities and procurement plans for the coming year.
Only 26.5% of respondents indicated they had inkjet capabilities. (The
applications were outside the scope of the survey.) Of the respondents
that indicated they lacked capability, 22.6% indicated they had plans
to purchase this equipment in the next 18 months.
Another
piece of equipment common to Asia but less so in North America is the
laser drill. Our survey indicated that 51.5% of the companies had
lasers. In the next 18 months, 35% of the companies that currently do
not have laser-drilling capability in-house plan to acquire it.
It
was good to see that so many of the companies that participated in the
survey are investing in the future. As the technology level increases,
the manufacturing equipment set needs to change. Tools such as laser
drills, LDI machines, laser trimmers, inkjet applicators and
specialized plating lines are required to ensure reasonable yields.
Yields are a key component in the profitability equation. If a company
is wasting 10% or more of its innerlayer laminate material due to poor
yields, it’s easy to justify the purchase of a tool designed to improve
yields.
But what about the less-direct ROI
propositions? Investment in equipment upgrades and advanced technology
tool sets should be the holy grail of our industry, but all too often
companies are making do with substandard tools and outdated processes.
As part of a 2005 study I was involved in, “Manufacturing Trends in
Electronics Interconnect Technology,” authored by The National
Academies, it was determined that an average of $3 million needs to be
spent annually to maintain the technological competence of a mid-sized
(annual sales of $20 million to $50 million) PCB facility, or somewhere
between 6% to 15% of sales. The return on these types of investments is
often not easily calculated, but the results of not maintaining
technology capabilities are written in the epitaphs of companies that
no longer serve the market. PCD&F
