Safe Void Inspection with OptiCon X-Line 3D

Reposted with permission from www.goepel.com

Safe Inspection of Dangerous Voids
Wind energy, solar electricity, electro mobility … these catchwords are met continually and never before had such a global importance as today. In addition to all the advantages and
safety that were enabled by these development tendencies, they put high demands to the development of required electronic components. In particular in the area of electro mobility, there is the necessity of miniaturized power electronics complementing the actual control tasks for electronic and hybrid drives. Due to the economic production of large yields, the manufacturing technology faces new challenges. This also includes required test methods to enable a fault-free but efficient quality assurance. High level inspection technologies, e.g. 3D xray  analysis, are required and also face new challenges.

Required Production Technology
The direct mounting of dies (e.g. IGBT or diodes) on a basis substrate has established as
technology for producing integrated power electronics. The required electric connections are implemented by a large soldering area on the dies’ bottom sides and additionally by parallelised bond connections at their top sides. Very often, the basis substrate is soldered on a heat sink to lead away power dissipation, occurring during the regular operation of such modules. In the case of utilising such power control, e.g. for electronic drives of hybrid vehicles, the heat sink is additionally integrated in the vehicle’s cooling water circuit. Image 1 shows the schematic system layout of an integrated power module.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 1: System layout of an integrated power module (image provided by Indium Corporation

Open Doors for excess Heat
Power modules must be highly reliable and of long product life. That’s why maximum heat
transfer must be guaranteed from the soldered die to the heat sink. The required thermal
coupling is mainly achieved by a low thermal resistivity. Voids play a decisive role in this quality criterion within solder connections. Especially in large-scale solder joints, which may cover an area of up to 25cm², the development of enclosed gases is difficult. As a frequent result, voids of different sizes and positions remain within this connection. In terms of thermal coupling, they may lead to the module‘s malfunction or even destruction in the operation mode. Quality control during the production process therefore is imperative.

Making the Invisible visible
In the current state of technology, there are few opportunities to detect voids after the
soldering process. A 100% test within the production cycle even limits the selection of test
technologies. Acoustic microscopy as well as computer tomography by means of an x-ray
analysis system can be excluded for an efficient utilisation because of the time scales required for image capturing and subsequent evaluation.
In principle, the x-ray technology has proven to be effective for solder joint analysis on
electronic assemblies, and has widely been used for quality control in the inline production
process. But in the present case this inspection technology faces new challenges:
It’s quite easy to recognise that common 2D and 2.5D x-ray inspection systems are unsuitable for such test tasks.

Safe and high-res detection of voids in relevant solder joints
- Separation of voids in various layers
- Determination of quality affecting parameters for each solder layer (void, sum of all
voids, local distribution of voids)
- Inspection in mounted state (e.g. with heat sink)
- 100% inspection in the production cycleA view to an orthogonally or angularly radiated PCB makes it clear (image 2). In the taken pictures voids are visible but cannot be referred to a specific solder layer. But in particular this classification is of the highest importance because significantly different quality criteria are set for the thermal coupling of die and basis material as well as basis material and heat sink. Consequently, an evaluation of voids detected with a 2D or 2.5D method would lead to fault escapes or massively increased false rejects of the device.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skilful inspection bit by bit
The only remaining method for quality assurance is the 3D x-ray inspection technology by
complete reconstruction of the single layers. This methodology also faces particular challenges in the actual case, and not every system is able to solve this sophisticated test task. A critical reason is the already mounted heat sink that features structures for a possibly large contact surface with the cooling medium especially for the integration in a cooling water circuit. These structures cause different x-ray absorptions being visible as a fault in the reconstructed result image. Similarly, solder joint sizes as well as the undefined position and dimension of voids effect such artefacts when utilising standard reconstruction methods. Due to the mentioned requirements, the 3D x-ray inspection system OptiCon X-Line 3D (image 3) was enhanced to enable adapted image capturing and a layer-wise reconstruction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the mentioned opportunities, the AXI system OptiCon X-Line 3D suits for the inline inspection of double-sided equipped PCBs. In just one run all PCB layer information is available and can be individually reconstructed for automatic analyses. This characteristic provides the opportunity to break down critical solder joints (e.g. under BGAs) into single layers for detailed automatic analysis. Hence, a complete 3D x-ray inspection in the production cycle provides the basis for a comprehensive quality analysis and the highest production quality.

Posted in Test Solutions | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Avoiding Counterfeit Components is Sometimes a Matter of Asking Questions

If you Google “Counterfeit Electronic Parts” you will receive over 20 million results, with an array of articles as recent as yesterday and as old as the World War II era on this topic.  Needless to say, there is always someone willing to run a black market operation, whether it’s electronics or designer purses.

So, we must ask the question, if our own government struggles with keeping counterfeit parts out of their weapons and other systems, what does a small producer of electronics, microchips or semi-conductors need to do to assure the integrity of their product? Much of the answer lies inside simply being a smart consumer, doing a little homework and checking references.

Below are the top five questions to ask of your Electronics Manufacturing Service (EMS) partner before you start production.

1. Are you RoHS Compliant?

When you ask this question, the EMS should be able to share the initiatives they have taken internally to be RoHS compliant, how they train their employees in compliance and what actions they take to avoid black market components that may contain the below listed hazardous materials.

The RoHS Directive enforces an absolute prohibition against six hazardous materials — cadmium, polybrominated biphenyl flame retardants, lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants — in consumer products.

2. How do you determine if your suppliers are “trusted”?

Reputable EMS will be able to discuss their investigative process in order to qualify a supplier as a “trusted source”.  The criteria should include things such as; the number of years in a supplier has been in business, reference checks from past/present customers, verifiable counterfeit screening, tracking, and testing procedures, adherence to industry and government standards, membership in industry associations, how previous problems have been recorded and even the quality of warehouse/storage facilities.

3. Do you guarantee 100% traceability for every part and component you use?

A reputable EMS will be able to provide you with a detailed report which documents the traceability and origin of every part acquired for your project.  As a matter of routine, the EMS should have documentation for every step of the supply chain and the chain of custody of every part.  In addition, they will be able to document how inventory is stored to assure your parts are not compromised while in their custody.

4. Are your employees trained to inspect parts for common signs of counterfeiting?

While most EMS will answer “yes” to this question,  it’s important to dig deeper.  It might seem a bit awkward to ask a company about their employee turn-over. However, high and regular employee attrition can often be a “red flag” which indicates inconsistent or insufficient training.  The missing training could easily include how to identify counterfeit parts and the protocols of RoHS or other industry standards.  Long-term employees and documented training standards are a good indication that your EMS has done their due diligence.

5. Do you have clear procedures for employees when they suspect they have a counterfeit part?

Avoiding counterfeit components is only part of the challenge; employees must know how to spot counterfeit parts and have a clear path of action in the event they suspect a part might have compromised integrity.  Each EMS should keep a record of possible counterfeit parts they come in contact with and report the incidents the proper authorities, such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force or other industry associations.

While avoiding counterfeit electronic parts has been a challenge for more than 75 years, it is not common to find counterfeit components inside a reputable EMS. A solid EMS is armed with precautions, procedures, training and adherence to compliance standards.

Remember, there are no short cuts to simply being a smart consumer, ask question and question the answers.

Posted in Consumer Information | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

How to Select a Printed Circuit Board Assembly Supplier

If you are getting ready for your first time at the “rodeo”, there are some critical elements to keep in mind when selecting your PCB Assembly provider.

Know your project: Is your project simple or complex? Are there parts of your project that are already assembled or do you need the PCB provider to take full responsibility? Do you need a quick turnaround time or do you have some wiggle room in your schedule? Are you making a prototype first or do you need to order volume?  Before you begin conversations, have your information and questions at your fingertips.

Get to know the company: First timers, whether a large company embarking on a new project or the independent inventor just wanting to take a product to market, tend to be swayed by the lowest bid for PCB Assembly.  Keep in mind not all PCB Assembly companies are the same.  Ask questions; how long have they been in business? What kinds of work they do? Check out their certifications, the manufacturing process and training systems etc.  If you are considering someone local, ask for a tour of the facility.  Get to know the people who are going to help you take your product to market.

Ask for referrals: Printed Circuit Board Assembly isn’t unlike any other service you use as a consumer.  Asking others who they use and about the reputation of companies you might be interested in can save you a lot of time and keep you from flying blind. However, referrals don’t alleviate your responsibility to ask questions and do some homework before making a final decision.

Once you find the company who can do the job for you, provides the extra level of service you need, stick with them and you created the ultimate win/win!

Posted in Cost Savings | Comments Off

JTAG/ BOUNDARY SCAN – WHAT CAN IT DO FOR YOU AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO?

Mario Berger, GOEPEL electronic GmbH

1    Testing in an Integrated Circuitry
Since the existence of integrated circuitries, there has been the necessity to check their functions. In the case of digital circuitries, a test is quite simple: all possible test vectors are applied in succession, and then the circuitries’ reactions at the outputs (actual value) are compared to the expected patterns (nominal value). If there are no differences the circuitry is correct.

The number of test vectors is manageable for a simple AND gate with two inputs. According to Moore and McCluskey the following formula calculates this number:
Q=2 (x+y)
Q = minimum number of test vectors
x = number of inputs
y = number of storage elements (for sequential circuits)

Because an AND gate normally doesn’t have storage elements, there are only four necessary test vectors – which is a manageable number. If this calculation is done for a circuitry with assumed 25 inputs and 50 storage elements, the problems in chip developments the engineers faced in the 1970s become obvious.

In the early 1970s, IBM gave birth to a path breaking idea: the invention of the first “Level
Sensitive Scan Design (LSSD)” method. For this purpose, existing storage elements in a chip are extended in their functions. They get four additional connectors: an input (IN), an output (OUT) and two clocks (A and B); see image 2. With these additional resources it is also possible to access the storage elements’ inputs and outputs.

In the beginning of the 1980s, the problem of “increasing complexity of the PCBs with higher packaging density” at board level was tackled. The “Joint European Test Action Group”, founded in 1985, was one of the first institutions that dealt with the topic. In those days, this group consisted of test engineers from the big European chip manufacturers. In 1986, additional North American companies joined, and the group was renamed “Joint Test Action Group (JTAG). JTAG engineered a methodology, which came close to the LSSD method developed by Ed Eichelberger. It also defines storage elements within a chip which are connected in a shift chain. The only difference was that the storage elements were additionally placed at the component’s peripheral, “at boundaries”.

For this reason, the developed method was named Boundary Scan. It was standardised as 1149.1 “Standard Test Access Port and Boundary Scan Architecture” by the “Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)” in 1990.

2    The Boundary Scan Standard IEEE1149.1
The Boundary Scan Standard IEEE1149.1 describes the static, digital interconnection test.
Talking about Boundary Scan or JTAG always means IEEE Std. 1149.1. The standard determines the architecture of a Boundary Scan component, and also the
description language “Boundary Scan Description Language (BSDL)”, which unveils the
Boundary Scan resources unique for each component.
The IEEE Std. 1149.1 defines the inner architecture of a Boundary Scan chip, which must
consist of four essential constituent parts:
-    one Test Access Port (TAP)
-    one TAP Controller
-    one Instruction Register
-    one or more data register(s)
Test Access Port (TAP) The “Test Access Port” represents the interface between the Boundary Scan logic within the component and the environment. Three inputs (plus an optional fourth) and an output are described. The inputs are:
-    Test Clock (TCK)
-    Test Mode Select (TMS)
-    Test Data Input (TDI)
-    Test Reset (/TRST)    optional
The output is:
-    Test Data Output (TDO)

Both signals TCK and TMS as well as the optional /TRST signal are broadcast signals,
whereby TDI builds a serial chain to TDO, the so called scan chain or scan path. On board
level one it is called test bus. Never more than four (optionally five) signal lines are required – regardless how many components are switched in the scan chain.

Image 2: Test bus wiring of two Boundary Scan Ics

In the Boundary Scan chip, “Test Clock”, “Test Mode Select” as well as “Test Reset” are
directly connected (statically) with the “TAP Controller”. The “TAP Controller’s” state is
exclusively defined by these signals. That means additionally that all Boundary Scan
components in a scan chain have the same TAP state. But it does not mean that all
components must have the same operation mode/instruction.

TAP Controller
The “TAP Controller” is responsible for the entire control of the Boundary Scan logic in the
chip, i.e. it is responsible, among others, whether a Boundary Scan cell (see chapter
Boundary Scan Cell ) is activated or deactivated and if it is to measure or drive.
At the heart of the “TAP Controllers” there’s the “TAP state machine”. Contained states have different influences on the control of the internal Boundary Scan logic.

Instruction Register
The “Instruction register” decides on the operation mode of the Boundary Scan IC, which in turn influences the Boundary Scan cells’ control as well as the selection of the data register switched in the actual scan chain (register between TDI and TDO). The IEEE Std. 1149.1 defines three mandatory instructions:
-    BYPASS
-    SAMPLE/PRELOAD
-    EXTEST

For each instruction there is a respective instruction code (bit code). It can be freely defined by each chip manufacturer (exception is the BYPASS instruction that must completely consist of digits 1). The length of the command register can be defined arbitrarily . An example arrangement is shown in Table 1. Thereby, the instruction register’s length was defined to two bit.

Table 1: Example for an instruction register definition

Data Register
A Boundary Scan component may contain several data registers. They’re used to file or read out information in the component. The IEEE Std. 1149.1 describes minimum two mandatory data registers:
-    bypass
-    boundary scan
Additional registers are possible as well, e.g. the “device identification” or colloquially called “idcode” register. The “bypass” register is the opportunity to liberate a component from an interconnection of Boundary Scan ICs, or to “bypass”. Its minimal length is just one bit. The bit’s value is unchangeable and defined with 0. The “boundary scan” register, which expresses the succession of the single Boundary Scan cells, is much more interesting for later testing. Because each chip has a different number of Boundary Scan cells, the register length is variable.

Boundary Scan Cell
The Boundary Scan cell is the essential element of the Boundary Scan Test methodology. All described constructs’ functions are only for the correct control of the respective Boundary Scan cells.
The Boundary Scan cell is the ingenious opportunity to control a component pin disengaged (?) from its normal functionality, i.e. to drive or measure a particular level. For this purpose, the Boundary Scan cell is situated between the component’s core logic and peripheral (output driver, input driver). Because of the functionality similar to the physical contact nails of the In Circuit test technology, which implement access to the test points on a board, the Boundary Scan cells are also called “electronic nails”.

Image 3: Comparison of the test methods ICT and Boundary Scan

A Boundary Scan cell’s internal architecture can be highly different. In its version from 2001, the IEEE Std. 1149.1 describes ten different cell types (BC_1 to BC_10). The cell may have individual structures, whereby the arrangements are very often very similar.

Boundary Scan Description Language (BSDL)
Each Boundary Scan component has a specific Boundary Scan structure, this is decisive for test engineers or test software to work usefully with such a component. IEEE Std. 1149.1 mandatorily dictates core requirements, but leaves scope for individual developments. This is necessary – as will be seen for the example of structure/number of Boundary Scan cells: an IC with 20 pins has a lower number of cells compared to an IC with 1,500 pins. The “Boundary Scan Description Language (BSDL)” was developed to describe this individuality. It is the exchange platform between chip manufacturer (only they can can know the interior of their chips) and test engineer (who wants to use the interior of their chips). The BSDL file is a data that provides specifications about:
-    available test bus signals (particularly information about the existence of an optional
/TRST signal and maximum TCK frequency, up to which the component can be
operated)
-    possible “compliance” pins
-    instruction register (available instructions incl. bit code; instruction register length)
-    data register (available data register incl. Possible predefined values, e.g. IDCODE of
the chip)
-    Boundary Scan cell structure (number, type, function, assignment to IC pin)

3    Possibilities and Limitations of IEEE Std. 1149.1
The static, digital interconnection test compliant with IEEE Std. 1149.1 enables everything
that is situated in the digital area and is not time critical. Thus, it is possible to test resistors (for presence), crystals, driver ICs, logic gates, reset ICs and even RAM ICs or Flash ICs (parallel as well as serial). For example, for the latter the necessary write and read protocols are simply imitated via the Boundary Scan component pins. This is the same functionality as a functional test, but slower because of the serial Boundary Scan chain. And that’s the test methodology’s limitation: the maximum possible switch/measuring frequency at the IC pins. It is the result of the number of Boundary Scan cells (therefore the “boundary scan” register length) and the “Test Clock” frequency. It doesn’t matter whether the signal level of one or several component pins should be changed – in each case it must be shifted through ALL cells.
The shift process in a medium sized Boundary Scan component with 500 Boundary Scan cells and a typical frequency of 10 MHz takes 50 s. However, one shift process can initiate a single signal change at the IC pin. For the opposite edge another shift process is required
which results in a maximum achievable frequency of 100 s1, hence 10 kHz.

4    What advantages do modern tools bring?
Due to contemporary knowledge, there are some basic requirements to a Boundary Scan
test system. The user doesn’t want to bother the correct switching of the “Test Mode Select”signal to access the right graph in the “TAP state machine”. Furthermore, he doesn’t want to bother with a “TAP state machine”. At most, he wants to define the operation modes for the Boundary Scan ICs. Fortunately, modern tools effectively relieve this tiresome labour.

What does the term Boundary Scan tool generally mean?

A Boundary Scan test system consists of hardware and software. The hardware has “only” to be able to control the TAP signals. Each Boundary Scan hardware worldwide features this basic functionality (but there are partly important differences in performance, real throughput and flexibility).

 

Image 4: Hardware – Boundary Scan Controller from GOEPEL electronic (SFX TSL1149.x) Boundary Scan vendors differentiate in the software, and that’s why usually software is meant when talking about Boundary Scan tools. Modern Boundary Scan Software is expected to automatically generate necessary test vectors and probably lead the operator quickly to the fault area on a test object, i.e. a best possible diagnostic. If the integration of Boundary Scan test in a production line or other test system is considered, there’s the demand that a modern Boundary Scan tool must provide respective interfaces.

5    Design for Testability (DFT)
The best Boundary Scan test systems with the most powerful Automatic Test Program
Generators (ATPG) are helpless if particular design rules were not observed during schematic design or even a step earlier during component selection. The following criteria show a narrow selection of the arguably most important “design for testability” rules:
Compliance Pattern Using Boundary Scan components, it is common to share the TAP pins with other functions, e.g. debugging. For that reason, such a component usually has a pin that determines the function. Such a pin could be named e.g. JTAG#/DEBUG, and would activate the debug mode with a high. In this example, a low must be applied at the pin, so that it can be tested with Boundary Scan.

Test Bus Termination
A good test bus termination is essential for a fast test execution. As guiding principle, test
time is proportional to the “Test Clock” frequency.
Modern test systems are able to process the TCK signal with 80 or even 100 MHz. It’s critical to take reasonable care during TAP signal wiring.

Image 5: Test bus termination

Flexible Scan Chain
It is common practice to produce boards in different assembly variants. Caution is advised if such an assembly variant is on the Boundary Scan components. It may happen that an IC is missing in the scan chain, i.e. the serial path (TDI   TDO) is broken. The result would be a complete failure.

5.1    Access = Success
“Access = Success”; this “Design For Testability” key rule is valid for the Boundary Scan test technology as well as the classic In Circuit test method. Only the implementation is different in both cases. Applying the In Circuit Test means to set test points where possible. On the contrary, in the case of Boundary Scan they are “sleeping” partly unused in the Boundary Scan components in terms of unwired IC pins. Normally, these are pins (especially in terms of programmable logic chips) not required during the “normal” function of a PCB. Two typical examples are to show how the unused “test points” can be applied to significantly increase test coverage.

Image 6: RAM bank with PLL

As the first example, image 6 shows a RAM bank whose clock is distributed by a PLL. But a
static access to all IC pins is required to test the RAM components with Boundary Scan. This is not given for the clock signal by the PLL, which leads to a higher loss in test coverage.

Image 7: …

Image 7 also shows how decisive access to a single IC pin is for the testability of a complete
component. The image shows a component with integrated NAND tree test. It could
optimally be tested per Boundary Scan, provided that the NAND tree test must be activated with a specific signal level at a predetermined IC pin (in image 7 it is named “TEST”).

6    Future Standards
The success of the JTAG/ Boundary Scan standard IEEE1149.1 has inspired and encouraged all participants to improve the test technology, making it more boundless. Two out of numerous newly developed ad partly passed standards are shortly introduced in this chapter.

IEEE1149.4
The breakthrough of standard IEEE1149.4 would possibly mean the end of the classic In
Circuit Test, because it is a “mixed signal” or also analogue interconnection test.
The method is very simple. In addition to the four (optionally five) TAP signals two
“Analogue Test Access Port (ATAP)” signals “Analogue Test 1 (AT1)” and “Analogue Test 2
(AT2)” are required. These additional pins can be internally switched independent from each other per test bus instruction to any pin of a component that is IEEE Std. 1149.4 compliant. One might say that an IEEE1149.4 component has an internal relay matrix, which can be switched to any pin via test bus. If the ATAP is connected with some external methodology, a classical In Circuit tester is built (with limited functions).

IEEE1149.6
The standard IEEE1149.6 enables testing of serial, digital high speed connections. It
describes the “Advanced Digital Network” interconnection test. To work with the existing TAP signals is its biggest advantage. The standard requires a few extra instructions, a slightly extended Boundary Scan cell and an integrated test pattern generator. The principle again is very simple. Some pins of the IEEE Std. 1149.6 compliant IC are connected to a new type of Boundary Scan cell. In contrast to the “old” cell types, this new cell has a special input, which is connected to the internal test pattern generator. Per instruction, the Boundary Scan cell switches to the new input and the test pattern generator sends the test pattern to the Boundary Scan cell, thus to the component pin, independently from the “Test Clock” signal. This applies for sending.
At the same time on the receiver side, the test pattern is read in and written in a buffer.
Afterwards, the test pattern from the sender is compared und a Pass/Fail statement is made. This statement is filed in a Boundary Scan cell as 0 or 1, and can be read out and evaluated by the test system.

7    Summary
JTAG/ Boundary Scan is the most ingenious test technology. It is the jump from physical access to a board’s conductor tracks (necessary for the In Circuit Test) with all its physical limitations to an electric and, therewith, unlimited access. JTAG/Boundary Scan only requires four control lines and only a fistful of important “Design for Testability” rules.

Talking about JTAG or Boundary Scan, one refers to the IEEE Std. 1149.1 – thus the static,
digital interconnection test. Its limitations are to be found in the analogue area as well as
high speed area. But brand new approaches and solutions referring to the standards IEEE
1149.4 and 11149.6 have extended the utilisation of JTAG/Boundary Scan in these areas.
A Boundary Scan test developer doesn’t have to deal with each and every detail of the
technology since modern tools, based on component models, execute the greater part of his tasks.

Posted in Test Solutions | 5 Comments

Low Bid = High Risk

The fact of the matter is being a savvy consumer is simply a smart way to do business, no matter what the economy.

Anyone who has ever obtained RFQs from several sources knows there is a “competitive range” in which most bids fall.  However, it seems a tempting, rock bottom, low bid always makes its way into forecasting the costs of new projects or when evaluating current sources for design or manufacturing of existing or ongoing projects.  

Below are the top five competencies which might be at risk when contemplating that, too-good-to-be-true, low bid.

  1. Rule of thumb:  If any one bid is 15% lower than the middle group of bids, it simply isn’t an apple-to-apple comparison. Something was missed, underestimated or miscommunicated if there is an excessive gap between bids. It’s also possible the lowest bidder isn’t of the same caliber as the middle group.
  2. Compliance. In an industry where compliance and credentials are critical, a suspiciously low bid can be an indication of a lack of compliance, training, certifications or ability to track a project from start to completion.   
  3. Experience.  While many businesses expand into new areas of service, an unusually low bid can be indication of lack of experience in a particular project or niche service.   
  4. Turn time. A comprehensive project bid will always include the turn time on the project. The low bid could be an indication of how costs are being made up in other areas, such as turnaround times.
  5. The low ball.  In many industries there are suppliers and vendors who low ball as part of their business model.  They simply want the business in the door and then have a policy of overcharging in other areas to make up for the loss leader used to secure the business.

The hallmark of a comprehensive bid by a high caliber, reputable company is the thoroughness of the intake process and a strong mix of plain old fashioned common sense.  Always do your homework with new vendors, learn about their history in the industry and with projects such as the one you are proposing.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Five Ways to Save Money When Procuring Components

When taking a project from design, engineering, to testing and manufacturing there are many ways to save money and just as many ways to run up cost if you are not educated on the process.

1. Ask questions of your suppliers.

If you are new to the procurement process and working direct with suppliers, find out how long they have been in the business.  Do they have long term relationships? Are they able to locate hard to find or obsolete components? What is their history with similar projects?  Do they have the appropriate licensing to ship the components to your manufacturer?

2. Protect your time and let experts do the leg work.

Often the design or manufacturing firm will have the supplier network to get what is needed for your project.  While you might save a few bucks on the actual invoice to do the leg work of procuring parts on your own, your time has value.  Using a Turn Key firm may allow you to save thousands in your labor or the labor of your team.  When your designer or manufacturing firm does the procurement, odds are they are buying for several customers and thus can negotiate better pricing based on the frequency of orders.

3. Before you procure, find out if someone has it in store.

Time and time again we see customers jump through the hoops of procuring components based on engineer or design specs. After that they send the specs and the parts to a manufacturing, never realizing some of the components may be part of Electronics Manufacturing Service (EMS) provider’s regular inventory.

4. Collaborate with your vendor instead of just placing an order.

If you are concerned a discussion regarding the various stages and needs of your project will compromise an honest RFQ, then simply put, find a different vendor. When you work in collaboration with a vendor who wants the best for you, not only do you have an expert looking how to cut costs for you, but you have someone who is looking out for your best interest.  Never choose a vendor just based on the price . . . look at the entire organization to determine if their values and standards are a match for yours.

5. Understand procurement is a process.

Expert procurement firms know there are stages to effective procurement that require different skills.  From the planning, administering, managing and closing.  Often the expert team can work through the process twice as fast for half as much as an infrequent procurement agent.

Understanding how to get the most out of the procurement process and partnering with vendors who have a shared interest in providing you with outstanding service is the best way to assure your projects are delivered on-time, on-budget and with a commitment me to your satisfaction overall.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Advice About The Flying Probe Test

According to Wikipedia

Flying probe test systems are often used for only testing basic production, prototypes, and boards that present accessibility problems. Flying probe testing uses electro-mechanically controlled probes to access components on printed circuit assemblies (PCAs). Commonly used for test of analog components, analog signature analysis, and short/open circuits. They can be classified as in-circuit test (ICT) systems or as Manufacturing Defects Analyzers (MDAs). They provide an alternative to the bed-of-nails technique for contacting the components on printed circuit boards. The precision movement can probe points on PLCCs, SOICs, PGAs, SSOPs, QFPs and others, without any expensive fixturing or programming required.

While the technical definition and usage is true, the definition omits one very powerful component to using the Flying Probe test . . . that is the expertise of the test engineer conducting the test.

The Flying Probe test is the shiny object on the engineering and testing frontier.  Before you engage with a company to conduct the test be sure they have the expertise to interpret results, make recommendations and use the test to create solutions.

We have all heard the phrase, “knowledge is power” yet the reality is “the proper application of knowledge is power.”  The Flying Probe test is complex and requires a high level of expertise to gain results that lead to solutions.   The proper application is everything . . . .

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

ITAR Registration and Licensing

In a word, compliance. There are no short cuts, no options and no ethical standards which justify a short-cut in compliance.

There is a lot of information on line regarding ITAR, from Tool Kits to Seminars.   However, the bottom line of using an ITAR Licensed manufacturer or supply chain is flexibility and compliance for the customer.

The ITAR Standards are filled with complicated legal language and covers everything from Firearms standards to Exporting regulations. In fact, our favorite definition resource, Wikipedia, defines ITAR as:

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is a set of United States government regulations that control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML).[1] These regulations implement the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act, and are described in Title 22 (Foreign Relations), Chapter I (Department of State), Subchapter M of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department of State interprets and enforces ITAR. Its goal is to safeguard US national security and further US foreign policy objectives

MJS Designs is one of a very limited number of companies in the Southwest with ITAR Registration and Licensing.

Before you outsource – ask about ITAR Compliance.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

TOP 10 REASONS TO OUTSOURCE

Reposted from www.offshorexperts.com

1. Accelerate Reengineering Benefits
Reengineering aims for dramatic improvements in critical measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed. But the need to increase efficiency can come into direct conflict with the need to invest in core business. As non-core internal functions are continually put on the back burner, systems become less efficient and less productive. By outsourcing a non-core function to a world class provider, the organization can begin to see the benefits of reengineering.

2. Access to World Class Capabilities
World class providers make extensive investments in technology, methodologies, and people. They gain expertise by working with many clients facing similar challenges. This combination of specialization and expertise gives customers a competitive advantage and helps them avoid the cost of chasing technology and training. In addition, there are better career opportunities for personnel who transition to the outsourcing provider.

3. Cash Infusion
Outsourcing often involves the transfer of assets from the customer to the provider. Equipment, facilities, vehicles and licenses used in the current operations have value and are sold to the vendor. The vendor then uses these assets to provide services back to the client. Depending on the value of the assets involved, this sale may result in a significant cash payment to the customer. When these assets are sold to the vendor, they are typically sold at book value. The book value can be higher than the market value. In these cases, the difference between the two actually represents a loan from the vendor to the client which is repaid in the price of the services over the life of the contract.

4. Free Resources for Other Purposes
Every organization has limits on the resources available to it. Outsourcing permits an organization to redirect its resources, most often people resources, from non core activities toward activities which serve the customer. The organization can redirect these people or at least the staff slots they represent onto greater value adding activities. People whose energies are currently focused internally can now be focused externally — on the customer.

5. Function Difficult to Manage or Out of Control
Outsourcing is certainly one option for addressing this problem. It is critical to remember that outsourcing doesn’t mean abdication of management responsibility nor does it work well as a knee jerk reaction by a company in trouble. When a function is viewed as difficult to manage or out of control, the organization needs to examine the underlying causes. If the requirements expectations or needed resources are not clearly understood, then outsourcing won’t improve the situation; it may in fact exacerbate it. If the organization doesn’t understand its own requirements, it won’t be able to communicate them to an outside provider.

6. Improve Company Focus
Outsourcing lets a company focus on its core business by having operational functions assumed by an outside expert. Freed from devoting energy to areas that are not in its expertise, the company can focus its resources on meeting its customers’ needs.

7. Make Capital Funds Available
There is tremendous competition within most organizations for capital funds. Deciding where to invest these funds is one of the most important decisions that senior management makes. It is often hard to justify non-core capital investments when areas more directly related to producing a product or providing a service compete for the same money. Outsourcing can reduce the need to invest capital funds in non-core business functions. Instead of acquiring the resources through capital expenditures, they are contracted for on an “as used” operational expense basis. Outsourcing can also improve certain financial measurements of the firm by eliminating the need to show return on equity from capital investments in non core areas.

8. Reduce Operating Costs
Companies that try to do everything themselves may incur vastly higher research, development, marketing and deployment expenses, all of which are passed on to the customer. An outside provider’s lower cost structure, which may be the result of a greater economy of scale or other advantage based on specialization, reduces a company’s operating costs and increases its competitive advantage.

9. Reduce Risk
Tremendous risks are associated with the investments an organization makes. Markets, competition, government regulations, financial conditions and technologies all change extremely quickly. Keeping up with these changes, especially those in which the next generation requires a significant investment, is very risky. Outsourcing providers make investments on behalf of many clients, not just one. Shared investment spreads risk, and significantly reduces the risk born by a single company.

10. Resources not Available Internally
Companies outsource because they do not have access to the required resources within the company. Outsourcing is a viable alternative to building the needed capability from the ground. New organizations, spin-offs, or companies expanding into new geography or new technology should consider the benefits of outsourcing from the very start.

Reposted from www.offshorexperts.com


 

Posted in Cost Savings | 1 Comment