Changing dynamics in the workforce are driving the need for an intuitive user experience. Are the tools up to the task?
The demand for electronics is surging globally, driven by the rapid pace of technological advancement and innovations in sectors like automotive, telecommunications, healthcare and consumer electronics. PCB design, the backbone of electronics hardware, powers everything from smartphones and medical devices to industrial machinery and aerospace systems. PCB design plays a critical role in enabling technological growth.
As the demand for advanced, high-performance electronics devices grows, so does the need for skilled engineers and PCB designers who can navigate the complexities of creating reliable and innovative circuits and board designs. The changing demographics of engineers and PCB designers reaching retirement, the growing talent gap and the limited pipeline supply of new talent have stirred up many discussions and debates on how to address this need.
The reality is fewer people will be available to do the work on both the engineering and designer sides. In the US, at least one in every three posted engineering jobs will go unfulfilled, per a Boston Consulting Group’s analysis published in 2023.
Impacts on PCB design teams and companies. While attending industry conferences, lecturing at college campuses and participating in many social media activities in 2024, several discussions I had seemed to converge on the talent gap and expertise shortage. The negative effect is already felt throughout the industry. Engineering teams are already stressed by having to do more with less while under reduced budgets, limited resources and shortened project schedules.
The talent gap is not merely a logistical concern; it has business implications. Companies are finding it increasingly difficult to meet market demands, leading to delays in product development and heightened competition for the few skilled professionals in the field. Moreover, the global nature of the electronics industry means that companies worldwide are competing for the same limited pool of experts.
Addressing this talent gap is critical for maintaining the pace of innovation. Without skilled designers, companies face increased time to market, higher production costs and potential reliability issues. Strategies to attract, train and retain talent in PCB design are urgently needed to ensure the industry remains agile and competitive in the face of growing challenges.
Let’s specifically dive into the talent shortage by looking at two primary challenges in this context:
- Skills gap. Attrition is one of the main factors contributing to the growing skills gap. With an aging workforce that is either retiring or leaving the industry, demand for trained specialists is at an all-time high and there is simply not enough available talent to go around.
Many professionals entering the market lack expertise. Most college graduates do not have sufficient knowledge or skills to be instantly productive. The industry continues to outpace educational programs, leaving a disparity between the skills graduates possess and the technical demands of companies. These college graduates typically lack the training, understanding and skill set necessary to successfully design even the most basic PCB. Yes, these are college graduates, but they require time-consuming training specifically regarding the core principles of PCB design and EDA tool usage to compensate for necessary knowledge that was not provided by their educational institutions. The sooner they can get up to speed and become productive contributors within their company, the faster their individual value increases, which has a direct positive impact to their company’s financial bottom line.
The second prong of this issue is related to veteran professionals re-entering the job market. Many of these professionals have experience but may lack specific knowledge of advanced technologies and domains such as flex, RF, high-speed, mixed-signal, HDI and UHDI. They also lack familiarity with advanced EDA tools, which offer features like automation and AI. They might also lack exposure and experience with cloud-based environments for collaboration.
This means companies may struggle to innovate or meet project deadlines due to insufficient expertise. This could lead to increased training costs, reliance on external vendors, product quality risks increasing or delayed product launches, affecting competitiveness.
- Competition for talent. Experienced engineers are in high demand, leading to fierce competition among firms, including startups, established companies and even nontraditional players in tech, like automakers. The global talent pool is limited, and companies are vying for the same small group of highly skilled professionals.
This means employers face escalating salaries, greater turnover and difficulties retaining talent. Establishing and maintaining attractiveness as a workplace is critical in such a competitive environment.
Together, these challenges require companies to rethink hiring strategies, invest in upskilling and collaborate with educational institutions to bridge the skills gap in the long term. But how can the issue be solved in the short term?
The shortage of talent has not only pushed engineering teams, but it has also pushed the EDA tool vendors to upgrade their solutions to compensate and fill the skills gap. Making EDA tools that are more intuitive and easier to master with shorter learning curves is the solution. Intuitive is the key word here, and what I mean by intuitive is this: Today’s tools, whether they are utilized daily or seldom, need to be instinctive for users to understand and use without prior or consistent experience, or without specialized, in-depth training.
Software evolution is the key to bridging the skills gap. For PCB designers, professional development has two aspects: mastering the craft (skillset) of printed circuit engineering and mastering the ECAD tool(s). These go hand in hand.
After three decades in the field, I can honestly say this is not an easy journey from either perspective. Obtaining education and knowledge on the core principles of printed circuit engineering, including the ever-evolving industry’s best practices, is an ongoing quest. Because of the lack of colleges and universities providing the necessary PCB design curriculum I needed, I was forced to rely heavily on industry conferences, tech summits and webinars to fill the educational gap. Acquiring the necessary knowledge and experience is only half the battle, however.
Mastering an ECAD tool is an entirely separate challenge. It simply takes time in the form of many hours engaged with the tool. Many engineering tools are not user-friendly, with steep and lengthy learning curves.
When I entered the industry, it was acceptable and even tolerated for EDA tools to have lengthy learning curves. It was a challenge to get up to speed quickly, to say the least. It was not a priority for the EDA vendors to focus on ease of use because most tools were used by a specialist with in-depth training and experience. Times have changed, and EDA tools need to keep pace with other software designed to facilitate a smooth and frictionless user experience.
Software you don’t use regularly is especially challenging. You may go through initial training on a particular tool, but if not used regularly, trying to recall exact process steps or how to manipulate the interface takes up much time, regardless of whether you received formal training.
As I grew in my profession, maintaining the highest optimization potential was always a goal, yet not always achievable due to the learning curve of new tools. I spent valuable project time going through this repeated learning process. It may not seem like a long time per project, but it adds up – and the cost is real!
It’s especially tough when getting up to speed on a tool outside of one’s main layout tool, such as simulation, analysis or DfM tools. Like many today, I took on responsibility and tasks outside my realm due to the lack of in-house expertise. With such specialized tools that I did not use regularly, mastery was a challenge. For example, when getting refamiliarized with a user interface, figuring out how to manipulate specific features, functions and the next logical process steps can sometimes be very tough.
At the start of a new project, I would often find myself putting my own project tasks on hold for a short time to assist a fellow team member who was new to the tool, or to retrain an individual on the software to get them up to speed due to the lack of the tool’s intuitiveness. This training/retraining process happens regularly, taking up the time of both designer and team manager, and is an inefficient way of functioning, especially when we talk about the “true cost” of engineering.
This happens frequently, especially in large enterprise companies, where engineers in large, specific ecosystems may only use a tool once or twice throughout the year. The daily repetitiveness and knowledge retention of wielding a specific tool are simply not there. This leads to a repeated learning process, with an indirect cost to the employer.
This non-productivity has a direct effect on innovation as well, potentially reducing it. A designer’s direct value to the company as a high return on investment (ROI) employee is lessened during those non-productive times due to the time being directed at lengthy learning or relearning of a tool, rather than dedicated to innovation.
Today’s tools for the next generation of electronic systems design need to address this steep and lengthy learning curve. They need to empower users and lower the barriers to adoption. Engineers cannot be burdened with nonproductive time and tasks.
Shifting from seeking experience to high ROI. In the struggle to acquire engineers, most companies typically search for specialists familiar with a particular ecosystem or software experience. As mentioned however, this pool of experienced talent has shrunk. Per PCD&F’s 2024 designer and design engineer salary survey regarding “job satisfaction,” on a scale of 1-7, with one being completely dissatisfied in their position and seven being highly satisfied, 65% of respondents rated their satisfaction as a 5 or higher, with 21% giving the highest rating of 7. That means many are content and not so eager to jump ship.
So, companies must adapt. We see this from engineering teams that do more with less simply because they have no other choice. Engineers are upskilling and cross-pollinating between disciplines. This can be challenging, but with intuitive software, companies can shift their focus to obtaining candidates that are aligned with the company culture and values, and more importantly – are trainable, eager to learn and adaptable, versus trying to acquire that hard-to-find specialist trained on a specific EDA tool.
As I finished my industry conference tour of 2024, which consisted of attending PCB West, PCB East, PCB Carolina and a few tech summits, I can say the industry is characterized by inexperienced engineers. So, with intuitive software tools, companies don’t have to struggle to bridge the gap. By utilizing such software tools, they can onboard an engineer with less experience or upskill existing engineers, maintain high productivity and, of course, be more innovative.
The global talent shortage in the PCB design industry is a pressing issue that threatens innovation, time-to-market goals and competitiveness. As advanced technologies demand increasingly sophisticated designs, the scarcity of skilled professionals has created challenges beyond traditional hiring practices.
The industry cannot rely solely on experienced specialists to bridge the gap; instead, it must cultivate adaptable talent and create environments that empower engineers through advanced, user-friendly software solutions.
Stephen Chavez is a senior printed circuit engineer with three decades’ experience. In his current role as a senior product marketing manager with Siemens EDA, his focus is on developing methodologies that assist customers in adopting a strategy for resilience and integrating the design-to-source Intelligence insights from Supplyframe into design for resilience. He is an IPC Certified Master Instructor Trainer (MIT) for PCB design, IPC CID+, and a Certified Printed Circuit Designer (CPCD). He is chairman of the Printed Circuit Engineering Association (PCEA); This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
