How do European Policy Initiatives Impact Electronics Manufacturing Competitiveness?

An interview with Alison James, IPC Europe

Oct 06, 2020

| By Sandy Gentry

Key Summary

• IPC Europe is navigating COVID-19 impacts while continuing virtual engagement with EU institutions
• EU policy priorities are shifting toward recovery, digitalization, and climate goals that influence electronics manufacturing
• Sustainability, circular economy rules, and expanded reporting requirements pose major challenges to the sector
• EU recovery plans create opportunities for advanced manufacturing, digital technologies, and low carbon production
• Supply chain transparency initiatives like REACH and SCIP require collaboration across electronics manufacturing networks

Curious about what’s happening in IPC Europe? IPC blog staff took the opportunity to talk to Alison James, senior director, IPC Europe, Government Relations, about the European response to COVID-19, as well as other issues facing the European electronics manufacturing industry.

Q: How are you settling into your role as senior director of IPC Europe? We know that the pandemic is making all of us do our jobs differently, but what specific changes has IPC Europe experienced because of COVID-19?

AJ: I am settling in very well and delighted to be part of a versatile team. I joined IPC at the end of 2019 and was lucky enough to be able to attend IPC APEX EXPO before the pandemic with IPC’s government relations team led by Chris Mitchell. That was an important start to have time with IPC’s executives, to meet members and to see the evolving technologies. Government relations relies on understanding the business and its strategic direction and translating that into objectives regarding anticipated legislation. I was intending a few rounds of European EMS and PCB site visits this year, but all meetings have of course become virtual. However, it has been impressive that contact with European institutions has continued well under changing circumstances. On the policy side, we have seen a re-focusing of governments on managing the pandemic in the immediate term which has shifted policy priorities. Policy going forward will be viewed through the lens of recovery.

Q: Can you provide us with information on the top industry challenges facing IPC Europe? How does your background with the EU help you find solutions to those challenges?

AJ: Prior to joining IPC, I spent 20 years heading up the public affairs departments for a range of technology companies from Kodak to Microsoft to Hollywood studios. Before that I also worked for the European Commission. Europe has its own particular set of challenges and sensitivities. When it comes to legislation, the EU is leading the way in quite a few areas. That has always been the case in the environmental field and even more so now with Europe’s Green Deal and move towards a circular economy.

All of this implies longer term change for the electronics industry in materials used and a significant increase in reporting requirements in the shorter term. We control the sails but not the wind, meaning that EU legislation will come, but our government relations function is here to speak for the industry, mitigate costs as much as possible and work with the legislators towards solutions that are workable and do not compromise on safety or reliability. There are a high number of policy initiatives underway here that directly or indirectly impact the competitiveness of our sector. We have a European industrial policy under development and an effort towards broad-scale digitalization of infrastructure and processes. Considering COVID-19, much is up for review and we certainly see a new spotlight on supply chains and an increased focus on re-shoring and regionalization. In addition, there is a review of Europe’s trade policy which can have a substantial impact on businesses and their sourcing and manufacturing strategy. Consequently, it will impact their global supply chains. It’s important that electronics manufacturing can benefit from the push towards digitalization and automation and that future policy here provides a needed boost for our sector in this region. My background helps me to approach industry issues in a holistic way; to understand the different components of the ecosystem and integrate business demands into policy objectives together with the GR team and members’ expertise. To enable a cross-functional approach to deal with multilayered matters.

Q: How does the EU’s Climate-Focused Recovery Plan affect the European electronics manufacturing industry?

AJ: I’ll break this down into a few answers. Firstly, I would say that the EU’s climate focus was already there before the pandemic. Secondly, there are also opportunities in greater production of low carbon technologies from green mobility to energy and beyond. The details of the package still need to be agreed on by the EU Member States. Thirdly, the recovery plan is not all climate focused. Let’s not forget the shorter-term measures that have enabled flexibility for manufacturers in financing short time work schemes, the loans and grants that have been provided at Member State level. The Recovery Plan is also a stimulus for Member States to invest in digital infrastructure and technologies as the EU’s direction for the future is both green and digital. Hence there are opportunities as well as challenges for the European electronics manufacturing industry.

Q: What opportunities exist for manufacturers to align their factories with the European recovery plan?

AJ: The opportunity for manufacturers is to implement advanced manufacturing (AI, Data Spaces) and utilize low carbon technologies and initiatives that together potentially can create a global leading position in electronics manufacturing.

Q: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) states that the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) directive to push companies to replace harmful chemicals with safer alternatives has had a notable impact on the industry. How does this directive affect the work you do with IPC to establish collaborative networks across the supply chains?

AJ: What we are seeing not only in REACH and the related SCIP database but also in other requirements pending, is a heightened move towards transparency throughout the supply chain and eventual substitution. Given this general direction, it is important for us in government relations to receive input from industry experts and stakeholders across the chain. There are challenges in reporting for the industry; there is interdependency, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. Hence integral communication by IPC and collaboration with our standards committees is key.

Q: We understand that IPC provided EU leaders with input via the Roadmap for Economic Recovery. How has that input affected the manufacturing industry in Europe?

AJ: We seized upon the opportunity to provide input and the European Council were very appreciative of receiving it. However, the work is still on-going as recovery is still on-going and as in any process the devil is in the details. There were immediate-term objectives to keep manufacturing sites and supply chains up and running and we worked very closely with the European Commission, its Transport Directorate General and with the Heads of the EU Member States to have this understood and acted upon.

Now with the longer-term objective to re-build we would like to see a resilient, competitive electronics manufacturing sector in this region.

That means it is now critical to continue to work with our members and with the European institutions and Member States. To make sure that the future policy environment reflects the criticality of the electronics sector for Europe’s competitiveness. That together we can provide the right conditions to help it thrive and grow.

How has COVID-19 changed IPC Europe’s work with the electronics manufacturing industry?

IPC Europe shifted to virtual meetings and adapted to rapidly changing policy priorities as governments focused on pandemic response and economic recovery.

What major challenges are affecting electronics manufacturers in Europe right now?

Manufacturers face evolving environmental legislation, expanded reporting requirements, digital transformation pressures, trade policy reviews, and renewed focus on supply chain resilience and regionalization.

How might the EU’s climate focused recovery plan influence electronics manufacturing?

It aims to support low carbon technologies, digital infrastructure, and new green initiatives, creating both opportunities and operational challenges for manufacturers.

What opportunities can manufacturers pursue to align with Europe’s recovery strategy?

Manufacturers can implement advanced manufacturing technologies, utilize low carbon solutions, and adopt digital systems to strengthen competitiveness in the European market.

How do REACH and increased transparency requirements affect electronics supply chains?

They accelerate pressure to substitute hazardous chemicals, require more extensive reporting, and increase the need for collaboration and communication across all supply chain partners.

This Week’s #TrendingTopic is Data Exchange on Chemical Substances

Sep 24, 2020

| By Corey Lynn

This week, IPC played a role in two different presentations offered by two different organizations on one common theme: the need for accurate, workable exchange of data about substances in products throughout the supply chain.

On September 23, Kelly Scanlon, IPC’s director of environment, health and safety policy and research, presented to the workgroup on materials and substances declaration at the International Aerospace Environmental Group’s (IAEG’s) fall meeting. Kelly’s presentation highlighted IPC’s efforts to monitor, meet, and engage on emerging policies such as the U.S. EPA’s risk evaluations of high-priority substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the European Commission’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. Kelly’s presentation to IAEG was sandwiched between presentations on the need to harmonize materials declaration standards and the usefulness of standards to enable compliance with policies, including the policy that is driving the creation and implementation of the EC’s Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database.

Then on September 24, Chemical Watch sponsored a free webinar on “IPC-1754-AM2: Materials and Substances Declaration for Aerospace, Defense, and other Industries,” focusing attention to the recent amendment to this IPC standard. Patrick Crawford, IPC’s manager of the materials declaration and data exchange standards, gave an overview of the IPC-175x family and then had a software solutions provider and an aerospace and defense representative demonstrate real-world use cases for data exchange. The presentations explained the technical features of the standard and the business case for its adoption.

For more information about IPC’s materials declaration and data exchange standards, please contact Patrick Crawford, IPC’s manager for design standards and related industry programs, and for more information on IPC’s policy advocacy on this topic, contact Kelly Scanlon.

IPC’s September 2020 Economic Report: U.S. and EU Outlook

Sep 22, 2020

| By Corey Lynn

As we present the September economic outlook report, the economy has improved over the last month, but momentum is slowing as manufacturers remain cautious. In this report, you will find U.S. and European data on economic growth, employment, Manufacturer’s Sentiment (PMI) and end markets for electronics.

You will also find details on industrial production, capacity utilization, PCB production data and North American PCB bookings.

Please let us know how you use this research along with what other details you would like to see from IPC. We welcome your thoughts and feedback.

IPC and 40 Groups Urge European Commission President to Postpone Reporting Deadline for SCIP Database

by Alison James, senior director, Europe, Government Relations

Sep 21, 2020

| By Corey Lynn

Key Summary

• IPC and nearly 40 industry groups urged the European Commission to postpone the January 2021 SCIP database reporting deadline
• Companies supplying articles with SVHCs would otherwise be required to begin submissions on 5 January 2021
• Concerns center on the database’s workability, lack of stakeholder consultation, and insufficient time for companies to adapt
• IPC supports the database’s intent but believes implementation has been rushed and disproportionate
• Industry groups hope the Commission will reconsider the deadline and take a more practical approach

Today, IPC joined with almost 40 other industry groups in calling on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to postpone the January deadline for a new chemicals database and to study related issues further before it goes forward.

Under current plans, companies supplying articles containing substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to the EU market will be obligated to submit information on these articles to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) beginning on 5 January 2021.

IPC supports the intent of the SCIP database to make information about SVHCs available throughout the life cycle of products and enable “circular economy” efficiencies. However, the development and implementation of the database has raised serious doubts about its workability, proportionality, and value. Specifically, we believe the ECHA failed to finalize the database within a timeframe that would enable companies to develop, test and adapt their own systems to meet the January deadline. Moreover, contrary to the EU Better Regulation principles, the requirements were adopted without any prior stakeholder consultation or impact assessment.

To date, the relevant parties have resisted calls for a postponement of the deadline, but IPC and our industry colleagues hope that by shining a spotlight on the flaws in the process, we can persuade the EC to take a more measured, reasonable approach. In the weeks ahead, we will continue to work with you and European policy makers to advocate for a better policy outcome.

View industry joint news release and the list of signatories.

Please contact me if you have any questions and/or want to be involved.

What deadline did IPC and other groups ask the European Commission to postpone?

They asked to postpone the 5 January 2021 start date requiring companies to submit SVHC information to the SCIP database.

Why is industry calling for a delay to the SCIP database requirements?

The database was not finalized early enough for companies to build and test compliance systems, raising concerns about workability and proportionality.

Does IPC support the purpose of the SCIP database?

Yes, IPC supports improving SVHC transparency and enabling circular economy practices but disagrees with how quickly the system is being implemented.

What process concerns were raised about SCIP development?

The requirements were adopted without stakeholder consultation or an impact assessment, which runs counter to EU Better Regulation principles.

What are IPC’s next steps regarding this issue?

IPC will continue working with members and policymakers to advocate for a more workable approach and encourage reconsideration of the deadline.

Chemical Watch Hosts Webinar on IPC-1754

A must-attend session for those obligated to declare materials content

Sep 16, 2020

| By Corey Lynn

Key Summary

• Chemical Watch is hosting a free webinar on IPC-1754-AM2, a standard used to exchange material and substance data across industries
• The session will explain requirements for reporting materials content in aerospace, defense, automotive, electronics, heavy equipment, and software sectors
• Speakers from IPC, Raytheon Technologies, and DXC Technology will break down how IPC-1754-AM2 supports compliance and data transparency
• Attendees will learn why accurate substance declarations are essential for suppliers and customers managing regulatory and industry reporting needs
• Registration includes access to the slides and recording even for those who cannot attend live

Next week, Chemical Watch will host the latest addition to its series of free webinars, IPC-1754-AM2: Materials and Substances Declaration for Aerospace, Defence and Other Industries (Thursday 24 September, 15:30 BST), presented by representatives from IPC, Raytheon Technologies and DXC Technology. During the webinar, an expert panel of speakers will explore IPC-1754-AM2, an IPC standard that establishes the requirements for exchanging material and substance data for products between suppliers and their customers — essential information for those in the aerospace, defence, heavy equipment, automotive, electronics and software solution sectors.

Speakers:

Patrick Crawford, Manager of Design Standards and Related Industry Programs, IPC
Tim Sheehan, Engineering Fellow, Raytheon Technologies
Chuck LePard, Senior Consultant, DXC Technology

Register for webinar

Please note, if you cannot attend the live broadcast, you can still register for the webinar and receive a link to the slides and recording.

What is IPC-1754-AM2?

It is an IPC standard that defines how suppliers and customers should exchange material and substance data for products across industries.

Who should attend this webinar on IPC-1754-AM2?

Anyone responsible for materials declarations in aerospace, defense, heavy equipment, automotive, electronics, or software solutions.

Who is presenting in the IPC-1754-AM2 Webinar?

Speakers include Patrick Crawford of IPC, Tim Sheehan of Raytheon Technologies, and Chuck LePard of DXC Technology.

U.S. Defense Bills Would Bring Greater Resiliency and Security to Electronics Supply Chains

By John Mitchell, IPC president and CEO

Sep 16, 2020

| By Corey Lynn

Key Summary

• The FY2021 NDAA includes provisions to strengthen resiliency and security across U.S. electronics supply chains
• The bill would limit sourcing of PCBs and PCBAs for defense systems to trusted allied countries
• The DoD faces risks when electronics are sourced from regions viewed as security threats
• Congress broadly supports these requirements and the industry has sufficient allied manufacturing capacity
• NDAA provisions could boost domestic and allied electronics production and reinforce national security

For more than two decades, the United States has turned a blind eye to its shrinking electronics manufacturing base, even as experts in and out of government have warned that the decline has weakened the country’s national security.

In response, both the U.S. House and Senate have included in the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provisions to bolster the resiliency and security of the electronics manufacturing ecosystem, including printed circuit board (PCB) fabrication and printed circuit board assembly (PCBA).

The NDAA provisions aim to improve the security of electronics purchased by the Defense Department by developing an affirmative list of allied, trusted countries from which the DoD can source those boards and assemblies. The United States should not be sourcing electronics for national security systems from countries it deems a current or potential security threat. Nor should any other country, for that matter.

Today, without this requirement, there are potential national security risks associated with systems that are built with PCBs and PCBAs from sources that are beyond the visibility of the DoD. These risks have been well-documented by the Defense Department and outside experts.

The opposition fears the new requirements will disrupt their established supply chains in countries that are not affirmatively covered. But the provisions explicitly authorize the Secretary of Defense to add countries to the list of locations from which PCBs and PCBAs can be sourced. And, with over $10 billion of PCB manufacturing today in allied countries and the United States, there is ample capacity today to meet DoD demand for military and commercial off-the-shelf electronics.

In addition to down-stream electronics industry support, the provisions have more than four dozen supporting members of Congress from both sides of the aisle in the House and the Senate. Not a single member of Congress has risen in opposition.

Moreover, both the full House and Senate have voted to include these provisions in the bill, so in keeping with committee precedent, the broad parameters of issue are settled.

The NDAA provisions offer the ancillary, but meaningful, benefit of strengthening supply chain resiliency by growing the market for electronics manufactured in the United States and its allies. In fact, U.S. CEOs have indicated a desire to grow their manufacturing operations in the United States but are hedging for the moment. They are waiting for the passage of the NDAA and the demand signal it will send.

As a global organization, IPC supports public policies and industry initiatives that cultivate resilient and secure supply chains everywhere we have members. While we are committed to global commerce and a lowering of trade barriers, we believe that all countries can and should take meaningful steps to shore up trusted supply chains for electronics related to essential government functions such as national security.

Many governments IPC works with appreciate the importance of secure and robust electronics manufacturing and cultivate an environment for it to flourish. The United States is among the exceptions. The NDAA offers the United States an opportunity to begin to follow through on its commitment to a more robust industrial base and unquestioned national security.

Why do the NDAA electronics provisions matter for U.S. national security?

The provisions address long-standing concerns about sourcing PCBs and PCBAs from countries considered security risks. Limiting defense procurement to trusted allied sources helps reduce vulnerabilities in mission-critical systems and strengthens supply chain visibility.

How would the NDAA change sourcing requirements for defense electronics?

The bill directs the DoD to create an approved list of allied nations from which PCBs and assemblies may be procured. The Secretary of Defense can expand this list over time, ensuring flexibility while maintaining security-focused sourcing standards.

What risks exist when defense systems use foreign-made PCBs and PCBAs?

When boards and assemblies are sourced from untrusted regions, the DoD lacks visibility into manufacturing practices and potential tampering risks. These vulnerabilities can compromise system integrity and have been documented by government and independent experts.

Does allied manufacturing capacity meet DoD needs under the NDAA?

Yes. More than $10 billion in PCB manufacturing already exists across allied countries and the United States. This volume is sufficient to meet military and commercial off-the-shelf demand without disrupting supply availability.

How could the NDAA strengthen U.S. electronics manufacturing?

By signaling demand for trusted, domestically aligned electronics, the NDAA encourages U.S. companies to expand production. These policies support greater supply chain resiliency, enhanced security, and a more competitive industrial base aligned with national interests.

HDP User Group Announces Free Aerospace Electronics Webinar

Sep 15, 2020

| By Corey Lynn

Key Summary

• HDP User Group is hosting a free webinar on aerospace electronics on November 12, 2020
• Experts from ESA, NASA, Collins Aerospace, Tech Search, and Lockheed Martin will speak
• The webinar will address reliability, PCB risks, tin pest research, and heterogeneous integration
• The event is open to all and held in English with a three-hour technical agenda
• Attendees can register by emailing their contact information to HDP User Group representatives

High-Density Packaging (HDP) User Group is hosting a free webinar that will provide its members and others in the electronics industry the latest information on issues facing aerospace electronics. Worldwide experts in the field will share their knowledge and concerns during the 3-hour webinar, which is open to all interested parties.

“Aerospace electronics pose the most severe use environment in all of the electronics world. This, coupled with the mission-critical aspect of aerospace applications, make it a reliability and performance challenge that can provide valuable insight to all of our members and anyone involved in electronics”, said Marshall Andrews, Executive Director of HDP User Group.

The webinar will be held on November 12, 2020, at 8:00 am US Central Time.

Agenda

8:00 am – 11:00 am US Central Time
Welcome – Larry Marcanti, HDP

Opening of the Webinar by the Moderator
Martin Cotton – Martin joined HDP in 2018 as European representative. He holds eight patents in PCB design and has held senior positions in OEM, PCB, and materials companies. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Circuit Technology and is active in seminars and educational forums regarding PCB design.
Reliability of HDI PCBs for European Space Agency (ESA) Projects
Stan Heltzel – ESA
An Overview of Printed Circuit Board Risks and Supplier Capability
Bhanu Sood – NASA
An Investigation into the Tin Pest Phenomena: Ten Years of Testing Chasing Myths
David Hillman – Collins Aerospace
The Promise of Heterogeneous Integration
Jan Vardaman – Tech Search Inc.
How to Give the Fabricator the Best Chance at Success for Creating Reliable Microvia Connections
Kevin Kusiak – Lockheed Martin

Round Table & Questions

Webinar Close

The Webinar is in the English language.

Please register for webinar log-in and call details by e-mailing your contact info (name, company, e-mail) to one of the following: Kim Andrews at kima77@hdpug.org, Martin Cotton at martinc@hdpug.org or Larry Marcanti at larrym@hdpug.org.

About HDP User Group

HDP User Group (www.hdpug.org) is a global research and development organization based in Cave Creek, Arizona, which is dedicated to “reducing the costs and risks for the Electronics Manufacturing industry when using advanced electronic packaging and assembly.” This international industry-led group organizes and conducts R&D programs to address the technical issues facing the industry, including design, printed circuit board manufacturing, electronics assembly, and environmental compliance. HDP User Group maintains additional offices in Austin, Texas, and Singapore.

What is the purpose of the HDP User Group aerospace electronics webinar?

The webinar aims to provide updated insights on issues facing aerospace electronics, focusing on reliability and performance challenges in the most severe use environments.

Who will be presenting during the High-Density Packaging webinar?

Experts from ESA, NASA, Collins Aerospace, Tech Search Inc., and Lockheed Martin will deliver technical presentations covering PCB reliability, risks, tin pest research, heterogeneous integration, and microvia connection success.

Who is HDP User Group and what do they do?

HDP User Group is a global R&D organization focused on reducing costs and risks in advanced electronic packaging and assembly through industry-led programs on design, PCB manufacturing, assembly, and environmental compliance.

Addressing the Skills Gap — IPC Launches New Electronics Workforce Training Courses

Sep 11, 2020

| By Corey Lynn

John Mitchell, IPC president and CEO, shares how IPC Electronics Workforce Training courses will help IPC members overcome workforce skills gap challenges with essential and value-added coursework that is curated exclusively to address the most difficult-to-fill positions in the electronics industry.

Interested in Chemical and Electronics Product Regulations in Asia-Pacific Countries?

Sep 04, 2020

| By Corey Lynn

Key Summary

• Asia-Pacific countries maintain comprehensive environmental, health, and safety regulatory frameworks
• IPC is monitoring RoHS- and REACH-like regulations that may affect chemicals and electronic products
• Six white papers outline regulatory history, current systems, updates, and trends in key APAC countries
• Countries covered include China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand
• Members can access updates through the Global Advocacy Report and IPC’s website

The Asia-Pacific region is home to several of the world’s largest nations and many of its most dynamic economies. The governments in this region have generally established comprehensive environmental, health and safety policy frameworks, with a variety of approaches and enforcement mechanisms.

Because these policy frameworks have so much importance for our members, IPC monitors and engages in selected, high-priority environmental policy matters in the Asia-Pacific region. Most recently, we have focused on RoHS- and REACH-like regulations that may affect the chemicals and electronic products that are manufactured or imported into countries in the region.

To help our members, IPC has created six white papers, each of which highlights the history of chemical regulations, current regulatory systems, recent regulatory updates, and anticipated trends in the following countries:

In addition, we publish news on the latest developments in the weekly Global Advocacy Report and on IPC’s website. We welcome your review and feedback.

Why is IPC monitoring chemical and electronics regulations in the Asia-Pacific region?

Because these regulations significantly affect companies that manufacture or import chemicals and electronic products into APAC countries.

What regulatory themes are most relevant to electronics companies?

RoHS- and REACH-like requirements, which shape chemical use, product compliance, and market access.

Which countries are included in IPC’s regulatory white papers?

China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand each have a dedicated overview.

What information do the white papers provide?

They summarize regulatory history, current frameworks, recent updates, and expected future trends.

How can members stay updated on APAC regulatory changes?

Through IPC’s weekly Global Advocacy Report and ongoing updates published on IPC’s website.

Power Your Potential with J-STD-001 for Operators

Sep 02, 2020

| By Corey Lynn

Key Summary

• J-STD-001 is a globally recognized standard for soldered electrical and electronic assemblies.
• IPC created the J-STD-001 for Operators course to help operators and technicians apply the standard in real production environments.
• The training focuses on navigation, interpretation, and application of J-STD-001 acceptability criteria.
• The course includes four modules covering materials, soldering, assembly, product assurance, and cleaning requirements.
• It is available in both self-paced and instructor-led formats and takes about 6 to 8 hours to complete.

The IPC Standard, J-STD-001G: Requirements for Soldered Electrical and Electronic Assemblies, is globally recognized for its criteria on soldering processes and materials for electrical and electronic assemblies. Because J-STD-001 is a critical standard for the industry, IPC Workforce Training created the course, J-STD-001 for Operators, to provide operators, technicians, and other assembly line staff with a practical introduction to the terms, concepts and acceptability criteria found in the standard.

IPC Workforce Training courses are specifically designed to help the electronics industry overcome gaps in workforce skills with essential and value-added coursework that addresses the most difficult-to-fill positions in the electronics industry.

The objective of J-STD-001 for Operators is to enable learners to effectively navigate, locate, and apply the criteria specified in the IPC J-STD-001 standard to the role of assembly line operator, technician, or supervisor. The J-STD-001 Workforce Training program provides engaging videos, activities and quizzes designed to help students learn, remember, and apply criteria to the electronics assembly process. Enrollment in the course is continuous.

Composed of four modules – General Standard Information and Requirements, General Materials, Soldering and Assembly and Produce Assurance Requirements, Wires, Terminals and Component Mounting, and Cleaning, PCB, and Conformal Coating Requirements – this course covers all the requirements assembly line operators, technicians and supervisors need to advance their careers and enrich their technical education. J-STD-001 for Operators takes approximately 6-8 hours to complete and is available in both self-paced and instructor-led versions. Students must complete Electronics Assembly for Operators as a prerequisite to J-STD-001 for Operators.

Learn More About the Workforce Training J-STD-001 for Operators

This course is specifically designed to help operators navigate the IPC J-STD-001 standard. It is an introductory course and not a certification..

Learn More

What is J-STD-001 and why is it important?

J-STD-001 is the industry standard for soldering materials and processes, providing essential criteria for building reliable electrical and electronic assemblies.

Who should take the J-STD-001 for Operators course?

Operators, technicians, supervisors, and assembly line personnel who work directly with soldering and electronics assembly will benefit most from the course.

What does the course teach?

The course teaches learners how to navigate and apply J-STD-001 criteria, covering materials, soldering, component mounting, product assurance, cleaning, and conformal coating.

How long does the course take to complete?

The training typically takes 6 to 8 hours and is available in both instructor-led and self-paced versions.

Are there prerequisites?

Yes. Students must complete Electronics Assembly for Operators before enrolling in J-STD-001 for Operators.

Subscribe to