A Conversation With Industry Icon Pete Starkey

Estimated reading time: 16 minutes

After spending a week at productronica 2023 with Pete Starkey, it became quite clear that Pete is something of an icon in the printed circuit board industry. I knew I had to spend some time talking to him specifically about the history, progress, and future of the bare printed circuit board. It was fascinating, humbling, and very educational. I think you’ll agree.

Marcy LaRont: Pete, you have seen the beginnings of the bare printed circuit boards. How did you get your start?

Pete Starkey: I got into printed circuit manufacture by a roundabout route, and the English weather played a part. Working as a lab assistant in the research division of a company engaged in synthetic fiber manufacture, I studied applied chemistry at the local polytechnic. I got a good degree and became a research chemist, working on projects requiring an understanding of organic and polymer chemistry. Although the company had always been heavily committed to the production of textile fibers for tire reinforcement, it followed the trend towards steel-belted radial tires and bought into a steel tire cord manufacturing joint-venture.

I took on a research project studying the chemistry and metallurgy of a continuous electroplating process for steel wire and effectively became the company’s technical expert by default, mainly because no one else understood much about high-speed cyanide brass plating. So, from a background of organic and polymer chemistry, and because of my “specialist” metal finishing experience, I was “encouraged” to take a technical management position in the manufacturing plant. 

The factory was 40 miles away from my home. The only transport I had was a motorbike and it rained every day. I was in my 20s and married with a family, so I found a job closer to home in Coventry, working with a metal finishing company specializing in gold plating at a time when the electronics industry had a growing requirement for gold-plated connectors. As their head of research, I helped to develop gold electroplating processes, both for the company’s use in-house and for sale as proprietary processes to printed circuit manufacturers. We also had opportunities to supply the printed circuit people with processes for copper and tin-lead plating, as well as with cleaners and etchants.

The company had been an agent for an American supplier of a proprietary process for electroless copper plating. This was the magical chemistry that facilitated the through-hole plating of printed circuit boards, a technology revolution that enabled interconnection of circuits on both sides of the board. A couple of enterprising guys broke away and set up a UK subsidiary of the American supplier of this electroless copper chemistry, offering their proprietary processes to the high end of the printed circuit manufacturing industry. And when the opportunity arose, I joined the company as a technical service chemist. 

A Changing Landscape

LaRont: What was the PCB industry like at that time in the UK?

Starkey: There were 400–500 PCB shops in the UK, most of them mom-and-pop shops, because it was fairly inexpensive and simple to make PCBs. You could lash up a screen-printing assembly, rig up a basic etching facility, buy the resist and screen-print the pattern, then etch away the copper. With a drill, you could drill the holes, and if you had a saw, you could you cut the profile. That was basic printed circuit board manufacture. 

LaRont: This was occurring in parallel in the United States. 

Starkey: The high end of the industry in those days was plated through-hole, and the chemistry for producing plated through-hole was a proprietary magic. The margins on that chemistry were substantial, but that process didn't always work reliably. You would provide a company with logical process instructions, but the process would go wrong, of course. They needed technical service, and I had become a tech service bloke. 

LaRont: Decades later, plants lived and died by their “tech service blokes.” 

Starkey: In those days, you got a telephone call from a guy saying his electroless copper had just turned a funny color and was very fizzy and plating-out out on the tank. Rather than rush out to teach the guy some chemistry, we would ask basic questions like, “Have you had a thunderstorm?” When he said he had, we would answer, “Oh, they don't like thunderstorms.” These things sort of had a mind and a life of their own. 

Because so many people didn't know what they were doing, they were prepared to pay a lot of money for this chemical magic. Part of what they were buying was the service of some guy who would fix what went wrong, so that gave me the opportunity to travel quite a bit. I had an interesting life, traveling long distances and fixing other people's problems. 

That was my beginnings in the printed circuit board industry and with advanced printed circuit board technology. 

LaRont: This was, in essence, the beginnings of “advanced packaging.” 

Starkey: Yes, and the industry was undergoing a fundamental change. In the beginning, most of the big shops were OEM captives that developed most of the technology. But they were making their own products and weren’t so accountable at the end of the line, so they tended to be expensive and inefficient. But in terms of making printed circuit boards, they could afford to buy the equipment and the processes, so they pushed the technology. 

LaRont: They probably didn't know that they were running inefficiently and wasting so much money. 

Starkey: Right, not until some budding entrepreneurs said, “We can do this much more efficiently, and more cost effectively too. We can also make a big profit.” That’s when a whole subcontract industry set up in parallel to the OEM shops, marking a major shift, and shaping the future of electronics manufacturing.

LaRont: How was that relationship between the OEM and the independent PCB shop in those early times?

Starkey: OEM shops jealously guarding their IP would still produce in-house even if it cost them a lot of money. But those who just wanted PCBs to maximize their operating profits said, “If I shut down my board shop and sub out to people who know what they are doing, I can save an awful lot of money.” That led to both some very big contract shops, and a lot of small subcontract shops. 

I was in 20 different board jobs a week and saw how they did things. Back then, if you showed an interest, they were happy to show you what they were doing. So, I learned, and while I was careful not to give away trade secrets, I developed a very broad understanding of the technology and best practices for plating. 

LaRont: As the plated through-hole technology took hold, what other technology were you seeing? 

Starkey: We started to see multilayer boards, which was the next technology step beyond the through-hole board, and those proprietary processes were very sophisticated and expensive. Like the plating chemistries, all manner of materials were becoming proprietary. We moved on from screen printed resists to these magic things called “photoresist.” Photoresists were brilliant because we could start with a photographic master, then coat our circuit board with a liquid polymer solution that we painted, rolled, or coated onto the surface. Using our photographic master, we UV-exposed the pattern and developed the image ready for etching. 

Then some bright Americans developed dry film, which meant you didn't have to worry about getting the coating thickness right and trying to do something with this very sticky flypaper. It was all done for you on a proper coating line, in someone’s proper clean room. You just bought it on a roll and put it on your circuit board using heated rollers. The technology of the materials was mostly proprietary and if you were a PCB manufacturer, you were prepared to pay the high price because you were buying the convenience, repeatability, and the technical service. If something went wrong, it was the tech service bloke who was wearing out his Ford Cortina driving 60,000 miles a year to fix your process.

LaRont: It seems not much has changed. Manufacturers pay the price for convenience and repeatability that comes from cutting edge machines and product lines which translate to higher product quality, less scrap, and faster process times—ultimately, all investments toward a higher bottom line. 

Starkey: Absolutely. I continued to learn my trade and was being offered technical management jobs. In the late ’70s, I was offered a position with a startup company founded by some ex-supply-house guys who really knew what they were doing—as opposed to a number of PCB manufacturers who didn’t have a clue. These guys also had some money and were in touch with potential buyers. I had set up the chemistry in their PCB shop, and a short time later, I joined the company as employee number 11 or 12. We were a very successful quick-turn prototype shop in the Midlands of the UK. At that time, if you could turn the boards around quickly and get them right the first time, there was a lot of money in making circuit boards.

LaRont: What was the landscape like in terms of prototype vs. volume? 

Starkey: The volume went to the big shops because that wasn't your business, but you could get £100 a square foot for basic double-sided plated-through prototypes, and considerably more for multilayer. For quick turnaround, you could almost name your own price. If you didn’t have the capacity or the capability, you didn’t take the job. The customer looking for a cheap job could go to the chap down the road who probably didn’t recognize the limits of his capability, and if that chap couldn't turn the job round quickly or get it right first time, it could take a couple of weeks each time he tried to re-make it. We knew our processes and materials, understood our limitations, and worked within them, often completing jobs within 24 hours, and we were really successful at that time. 

The Issue With Standards

LaRont: What about standards? You were developing and living best practices, but were standards developing? 

Starkey: In the early days, the principal players were OEM shops that weren't that bothered about standards other than their own, because they were making the boards for their own use. Some standards were developing outside of that: various safety standards, British Standards, and international standards. Non-OEM PCB manufacturers could certify that their product met specified standards. If you were an OEM, you could place your work outside the company with confidence. Someone else would check, inspect, test, and certify that his product complied. So, for the first time, the OEMs had other choices. 

LaRont: Who was creating the standards at this point? 

Starkey: Initially, the primary generator of PCB standards in the UK was the Post Office for their first-generation telecom systems. If you had Post Office D2398 approval, you could write that on your delivery documents, and it was a measure of your status. 

The British Standard 9760 series was supervised by the Ministry of Defence, and there weren’t many companies approved in the early days. But if you were qualified, it put you in a higher status category. You could certify your work and attract a more refined customer base.

A Shift in the Market

LaRont: For a long time, we had mostly captive OEM shops. Did this shift toward subcontractor options for bare printed circuit boards create a totally different market, or at least, a significant redistribution of market share? 

Starkey: In the late 1970s and early 1980s, many OEMs realized they couldn't run their shops cost effectively in a competitive market. Most closed their shops, unless they were doing work that was particularly sensitive or confidential. The printed circuit board industry became a subcontract industry.

We were not afraid of being pioneers and the UK became a technology leader. I admired those who saw an opportunity to advance themselves or the technology by doing something different. There was a bit of a risk attached to it, and a lot of people won’t take that risk. They would just sit on the fence and wait for someone else to take the plunge. If the risk-taker fell on his back, the fence-sitters were tough critics. If he was successful, they'd jump off the fence and run after him. But the risk-takers saw the fence-sitters coming and were already several steps ahead. 

Because we were profitable, we could buy equipment as well as get involved in our local trade and professional associations. We worked with specialists and suppliers to advance the technology, which was a big challenge for the industry in the beginning. The OEMs had driven the technology, and when they drifted away, the advancement of technology was left to the supply houses. This worked when the supply houses were making big money, but if they weren’t, they couldn't afford the big R&D programs. At this time, there were almost as many supply houses as mom-and-pop PCB shops. 

LaRont: How long did you stay with that board company?

Starkey: I stayed 15 years, working as technical director and even as interim managing director. Inevitably, the owners saw other opportunities and when the company was acquired in the mid-1990s, I left. This was when I started my career in technical editing.

Page 1 of 2

• Next Page >