Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

Testing Todd: Decision Time—Invest or Delegate?

The cost of quality has us rethinking our processes in our everyday life, particularly as state-of-the-art technology presents challenges in our manufacturing theatres. In the 1980s and ‘90s, it wasn’t as much of a challenge, as PCBs were stable, and the technology curve was rather flat. Surface mount technology had made its appearance and multilayer technology was basically 18 layers or less.

During this time, equipment manufacturers were in the driver’s seat. Netlist testing came online, and these new fixture testers took confidence to a new level above the routine “self-learn.” However, these machines were expensive. It was not uncommon during this era to spend $750,000 to over $1 million on a fixture tester that could perform netlist testing. Flying probes were just starting to hit the market but confidence in this new technology was not high and many OEMs were not ready to trust these new testers. So, fixture testers flooded the market and were successful during this age.

Technology evolved and advanced very rapidly. Designs and component packages became smaller. New build technology emerged such as microvias, blind and buried designs, sequential lamination, and other processes that allowed for the amazing products we consider routine today. This has challenged PCB manufacturers that had invested in equipment to satisfy their ET needs but now are struggling to test these new designs with the expensive equipment purchased years ago.

As they struggle to keep delivery times competitive, manufacturers are faced with a decision: Do I invest, or should I delegate? To stay competitive, a large percentage of capital must be slated for PCB manufacturing equipment. This is understandable as that is where the revenue is generated. Newer equipment begets higher technology builds and thus, more revenue. The drawback is knowing how to get this product out the back door. There are delays in electrical testing due to long test times using equipment that is not best suited for today’s demand.

Decision time: Do we update our equipment, or do we delegate it? This is a deep question with many variables. Usually, ET is just another department in a large operation. Payroll, utilities, supplies, and such are amortized and integral to the entire operation. In the decision-making process, one must evaluate the real cost of electrical test. Years ago, I had a conversation with a higher management individual at a large PCB manufacturer who candidly stated, “Todd, I can’t even spell electrical test.” So, there you go.

To really understand the cost of ET, you need to dig into the trenches of the operation. What are your standard cycle times, cost of equipment maintenance, supporting equipment cost and maintenance, down times, and the availability of spare parts for what are, many times, older equipment with no further OEM support. Once you have your arms around the cost of quality regarding ET, you can have a better idea where you stand.

Now it’s time to investigate whether my dollars spent on ET make sense. If I invest and update my ET theatre, what are my expected deliverables? Will one machine decrease my cycle time? Can I perform more tests such as 4-Wire Kelvin, buried passives, IR, and Hi-Pot? What capital budget do I have to work with? Interesting enough, although ET QA is a significant part of the overall process, many ET managers find that capital expenditures have been directed to the manufacturing process. “Make do” is the common response.

Thus, the outsource option make sense. We now have the cost of ET in our hands and the cost/availability of upgrading. Is the overall cost to upgrade feasible against the gains expected? Many times, the answer is “no.” Although the upgrade provides advantages over current methods, it does not significantly reduce cycle time as the equipment is quickly saturated with the higher technology product and many times, cycle time increases.

Now, there are two camps on the outsourcing topic. There are those who always believe that “we can do it ourselves.” There are benefits to that if you have the knowledge, equipment, and experience to take ET head-on and provide all the deliverables your customers expect. It is imperative that you know your cost of quality, or you are living in a dream and wasting dollars on your bottom line with inefficiency and lost time. Reinventing the wheel is not always the best option.

The other camp embraces new ideas and has learned that the cost of quality does not calculate favorably to invest large amounts of capital to just get to the technology level required by increasing demand. They already have calculated that reinventing the wheel will only result in a flat tire. Here, outsourcing is the favorable option. Again, this can be just sending product to a service center to be tested using an on-demand scenario (which many do). Maybe you just want to lose the ET headache altogether. There are options where outsourcing the entire ET operation may be feasible. Scenarios may include just equipment, equipment and labor, or even full black box integration. No more equipment/technology challenges, known cost of quality, and confidence that all industry/customer requirements are met. Gained expertise to represent in quality audits for ISO, DLA, and 9100 are just another benefit.

When drawing conclusions, whether it’s time to invest or delegate, depends on your individual circumstances. Do you know your cost of quality? You need that in hand to make justifiable decisions regarding capacity and cost. I know it’s hard to get past some trains of thought or perceptions but sometimes reinventing the wheel or throwing capital at a squeaky wheel is only a temporary solution. Remember to consider where you are today vs. where you want to be in the future. Where does the capital need to go?

Just remember, whether you decide to invest or delegate, you want to find a partner that provides solutions and not just selling equipment.

This column originally appeared in the November 2022 issue of PCB007 Magazine.