Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

Learning with Leo: The Cost of Training on Skills and Knowledge Development

The ability to manufacture electronic products requires specific skills and knowledge, which have traditionally been developed through on-the-job experience and training. These experiences and training programs are expensive to implement, yet they are necessary to meet customer demands and remain competitive in the marketplace.

Today, manufacturers, including government contractors, rely on industrial specifications in the design, fabrication, and assembly of electronic products. In parallel, training programs have been developed to enhance operator skills and knowledge, resulting in higher yields and lower manufacturing costs. The need for training, the costs associated with it, and an analysis of the improvements gained through formal training programs means compliance with these specifications requires companies to ensure their employees are professionally trained and certified so they understand customer requirements and are proficient in their job functions.

The cancellation of military standards in 1995 aimed to eliminate the use of government documents within the military electronics manufacturing industry and replace them with industrial documents from organizations such as the Global Electronics Association or internally developed specifications. Military standards, previously referred to as “MIL-STD,” were renamed “MIL-PRF,” or performance specifications, due to the lack of compatible industrial documents¹. However, training and certification to those documents were no longer allowed or supported by the authorizing agencies.

One of the most significant changes resulting from this transition involved training functions associated with these documents. When the specifications were canceled, all related certifications were also eliminated. In response, the Global Electronics Association took the initiative to create certification-based training programs that supported standardized manufacturing processes across the electronics industry². These documents addressed manufacturing functions such as printed wiring board design, assembly criteria, and final inspection requirements prior to product installation in its operational environment.

Two major manufacturing philosophies drive the need for training. First, OEMs often subcontract the production of electronic products to contract manufacturers (CMs). A key logistical concern in this model is verifying that CM employees are properly trained and capable of assembling products to OEM-specific requirements. Second, contract manufacturers benefit from knowing their workforce possesses the necessary skills and knowledge, giving them a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The industry frequently questions the value of training programs and seeks to understand the return on investment. Typical responses focus on defect reduction, improved yields, and increased reliability due to reduced rework. Trained employees are more knowledgeable about their roles and tend to be more motivated to perform their jobs well. They also understand that the products they manufacture may save lives, such as those used in medical devices, automotive and aerospace transportation, or telecommunications systems.

Although these concepts are often discussed in terms of manufacturing efficiency, the fundamental objective remains customer satisfaction. Without customers, companies cannot survive.

Training is defined as the acquisition of new skills, attitudes, and knowledge. Workforce performance will determine which organizations prosper and survive in the foreseeable future.

There are two primary types of training programs: knowledge-based training and skill-based training. Effective training must answer a critical question: Can the individual apply the latest information effectively within their work environment?

Training is necessary because it must be customer-focused, ensuring that manufacturers produce products correctly the first time. One of the major driving forces behind training is technological change. Whether evolutionary or revolutionary, new technologies demand updated knowledge of assembly techniques, materials, and processes.

For example, miniaturization may require different tooling and equipment. Modern solder alloys demand an understanding of changes in temperature profiles, liquidus flow, and solidification behavior. New laminate materials require awareness of potential board damage due to thermal excursions. Likewise, new flux chemistries require knowledge of their function and whether post-assembly cleaning is necessary.

The industry must recognize the necessity of learning modern technologies to manufacture products with minimal rework and failures, and this is achieved through structured training programs.

From a business perspective, training creates a knowledgeable workforce and makes employees more employable in volatile markets. It enhances product quality, improves yields, reduces scrap, and increases throughput. Training improves morale and employee retention, allows companies to remain competitive and current, and provides access to modern technology. It also increases flexibility through cross-training, ensures compliance with contracts, provides accreditation, and supports compliance with laws and regulations such as RoHS, WEEE, and FDA requirements.

From the employee perspective, training allows individuals to learn new subjects and skills while reinforcing their value to the company. It helps them understand the “what” and “why” of processes, increases awareness of product cost and value, and improves communication with design, manufacturing, quality, and acquisition teams. Employees also gain a clearer understanding of accept and reject criteria. As a result, training increases morale and provides employees with the tools and information needed to improve competency and efficiency.

In today’s economic environment, turnover rates can be high as people and businesses change. Companies should embrace an intrinsic value system that recognizes employees as people and acknowledges that change is inevitable. By investing in training, companies help keep employees employable while supporting cross-training programs that allow workers to perform multiple manufacturing functions within a facility.

When discussing training, it is essential to consider the cost of quality. According to A.V. Feigenbaum³, the cost of quality consists of three elements: failure costs, appraisal costs, and prevention costs. Failure costs result from defective products; appraisal costs include inspection, audits, and testing; and prevention costs involve efforts to prevent problems during the manufacturing process.

While many quality elements could be discussed, I’m focusing on prevention costs, which are directly related to training investments. Increased training and certification help prevent initial failures, reduce field failures, and lower overall quality costs. A defect found during assembly versus one found in the field can differ in cost by a factor of 1,000.

Defect-related cost factors increase dramatically as products move through the manufacturing lifecycle. Assembly-level defects have a relative cost factor of one, inspection increases the cost to 10, verification raises it to 100, and field service escalates it to 1,000.

Assigning cost values to yield improvement illustrates this impact. A yield rate of 95% means that 5% of units are defective. For a production run of 5,000 units, this results in 250 defective units, or 50,000 parts per million. If half of these defects are found in the field, 125 units for $1,000 each result in $125,000. The remaining 125 defects found during testing at $100 each add $12,500, bringing the total cost to $137,500.

In comparison, most knowledge- and skill-based training programs cost less than $2,500, including materials. This modest investment in people leads to improved quality, higher yields, better inventory management, and increased profitability. As the saying goes, what costs pennies to fix in-house can cost thousands to correct in the field—without even considering customer perception, which is priceless.

Operator training programs increase awareness of product value, enhance communication between departments such as design engineering, manufacturing, quality, and purchasing, and encourage collaboration across the organization. This results in a more knowledgeable workforce, a stronger emphasis on quality, and greater customer confidence that products are manufactured by proficient professionals.

In conclusion, the value of training is captured in the old axiom: “You don’t get paid for what you know; you get paid for how you use or apply what you know.”

References

1. Transition from MIL-STD specifications to MIL-PRF performance specifications, mid-1990s acquisition reform initiatives.
2. IPC standards and certification programs, including IPC-A-600, IPC-A-610, IPC/WHMA-A-620, and related training and certification materials.
3. Total Quality Control by A.V. Feigenbaum.

Leo Lambert is the technical director at EPTAC Corporation.