Current Issue

Mike Buetow

Munitions are cool again.

Well, maybe they always were. But the emphasis by North American manufacturers on procuring defense contracts has perhaps never been greater.

In the throes of the dotcom meltdown of late 2001 to early 2003, when China and Taiwan hoovered up the vast majority of the Western PCB market, forcing those hardy remaining souls to repurpose their business plans, the Pentagon became an unwitting savior. Manufacturer after manufacturer pivoted from the “3Cs” (computers, communications, consumer) to CET&I (military communications, electronics, telecommunications, and intelligence technologies). They eschewed past complaints of onerous red tape and sprung for the certifications to elbow their way into the Pentagon supply chain.

There wasn’t much choice at the time. It was military or bust.

Going back to 2001, the United States made about 45% of the world’s electronics equipment. Defense and related high-rel sales made up less than 10% of the US domestic fabrication market, which at the time was coming off a record year at around $11 billion in production output spread across 650 or so facilities.

We all know what happened.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Read more: In Defense of Diversity

Mike Buetow

What do you do when the very thing for which you’ve been asking, nay, begging for years actually materializes?

That would be US government support for the printed circuit board industry. And it’s coming in the form of real dollars, not just platitudes.

As we report in our digital edition this month, the US Partnership for Assured Electronics (USPAE), a subsidiary IPC formed last year to give it room to lobby on behalf of US members without running afoul of its international cohort, has as of late January garnered more than $42 million in taxpayer dollars to manage joint industry-academia programs to tackle electronics-related challenges.

How we’ve waited for this.

Going back to the 1990s, when I worked at IPC, we spent thousands of hours (and countless more dollars) vainly waving our hands in front of Congress’s collective face. And once a year, we would gather in Washington and run from office to office on Capitol Hill telling anyone and everyone how important the industry is. After, we would retreat to our hotel bars and pat each other on the back for a job well done. After many years of this, Congress even passed a resolution. “The PCB industry is important!” they said. “Hallelujah!” we rejoiced. Our souls were saved. Or so we thought. Then the OEMs packed up and moved their orders to Taiwan and China. Poof.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Read more: An Electronics Holiday?

Mike Buetow

We speak so often of the maturing (“graying”) of the engineers and operators who work in the printed circuit industry, we sometimes overlook whether the same term applies to the companies that employ those individuals.

And yet that matzah ball is hanging out there, particularly when it comes to printed circuit design software.

The textbook definition of a mature market is when it has reached a “state of equilibrium.” This is characterized by “an absence of significant growth or a lack of innovation.”

It goes on: “In a mature market, companies have excess inventory or capacity, products become more homogenized (less differentiated), and there is pressure on prices and profits.”

Can you think of anything in our corner of the world that applies to?

Bare board fabrication comes to mind. Even as the volume and frequency of electronics are exploding, growth at the manufacturing level is nominal, year in, year out. A relative handful of customers, such as Apple, Samsung and Intel, often dictate the winners and losers.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Read more: Floating in the Mainstream

Mike Buetow

Twenty years has passed since the US was a world leader in printed circuit board fabrication production. And not just in revenues, which tended to run neck-and-neck with Japan. The US also had the capability and capacity to build the largest-format boards in volume.

That was 2000.

I remember talking with Jack Fisher, then the technical director of the tech consortium ITRI, about the coming year. We were reviewing the latest bullish industry forecasts, in which some of the major fabricators were quoting lead-times of six to 12 months(!).

That unbridled optimism prompted Jack to observe that any hope of the US investing in HDI technology would be pushed out at least another year. Since order books were full for large boards, fabs saw no need to invest in next-generation technology.

Or so they thought. Because, as we all know, then the dot-com crash occurred.

It’s hard to believe that was 20 years ago. But we might be edging toward history repeating.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Read more: ‘Future Factories’ Require Thinking ‘Smart’ Today

Page 46 of 257