European Union Pursues its “Circular Economy” Ambition

Mar 23, 2020

Key Summary

• The EU Circular Economy Action Plan is a central pillar of the European Green Deal and outlines 35 measures to make sustainable products the norm across Europe.
• The plan targets the full product lifecycle, emphasizing design choices that influence up to 80 percent of environmental impact.
• Electronics are a top priority due to rapidly growing waste streams, prompting a Circular Electronics Initiative focused on longer product lifetimes.
• New frameworks such as expanded ecodesign rules, digital product passports, and Right to Repair proposals aim to improve durability, repairability, and transparency.
• The EC plans major updates to chemical regulations, including tracking substances of concern, improving recycled material safety, and revising RoHS by 2021.

The European Green Deal – the first policy strategy put forward by the new European Commission (EC) that took office in December 2019 – is a sweeping plan that aims to reconcile the economy with the planet. Among its other objectives, the Green Deal sets a goal of achieving climate neutrality in Europe by 2050.

The Circular Economy Action Plan, adopted by the EC on March 11, 2020, is one of the flagship initiatives of this effort and will be at the heart of many European policy discussions for months to come. The plan is not legally binding, but it presents a set of 35 measures to be considered from 2020 to 2023 to ensure a cleaner and more competitive Europe. These measures, both legislative and non-legislative, will cover the entire lifecycle of products, ranging from design, production, and consumption to making sure resources are kept in the economy for as long as possible. The plan aims to make sustainable products the new norm in the EU and to make Europe the leader of such efforts at the global level. It calls for this to happen through “co-creation” involving industry, consumers, and civil society organizations.

The Circular Economy Action Plan asserts that up to 80 percent of the environmental impact of a product is determined during its design phase, and therefore the current linear model of “take-make-use-dispose” needs to change. To tackle this challenge, a Sustainable Product Policy Framework will be proposed to make products future-proof, climate-neutral and resource-efficient. The Ecodesign Directive, an existing EU law regulating energy- and resource-efficiency, will be extended beyond energy-related products, and the methodology behind it will be subject to a review. The Framework will be complemented, where necessary and appropriate, with sustainability principles to address aspects such as product durability, reusability, upgradability, and repairability, as well as chemical composition and overall carbon and environmental footprint. To grasp the benefits that digitization makes possible, a to-be-established digital product passport would bring together existing and new databases containing product information covering the entire product life-cycle.

Although the Circular Economy Action Plan covers several product value chains, electronics and ICT are top concerns because they represent some of the fastest-growing waste streams in the EU, with current annual growth rates of 2 percent. A Circular Electronics Initiative will focus on regulatory measures to promote longer product lifetimes, with a primary focus on mobile phones, tablets, and laptops, and bringing those under the Ecodesign Directive.

Consumers will play a crucial role in the transition; their choice of products and consumption patterns affect the entire economy. Consumers need to receive trustworthy information about their products, including aspects such as lifespan, repair options, manuals, and availability of spare parts. These policies will be part of a new initiative called Right-to-Repair, which could affect electronics product design, manufacturing, and service delivery, including requiring spare parts and repair manuals to be available to third-party professional repairers.

When it comes to chemicals, the European Commission is planning to present a new methodology and approach towards regulating hazardous chemicals under the upcoming Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, which is expected to be finalized in October 2020. The strategy will mark a new phase in the long-running interface between product, chemicals and waste, seeking to balance what are often seen as conflicting interests: on one hand, improving recycling and uptake of secondary materials, and on the other hand, substituting for substances of concern.

Although there are already efforts in place to promote a toxics-free environment by adopting substitutes for hazardous substances, the safety of secondary materials can be still compromised. The EC will therefore work on methodologies to minimize the presence of substances of concern in recycled materials and develop harmonized systems to track those substances across the supply chain. As of January 2021, companies supplying articles containing substances of very high concern (SVHCs) will need to submit information on these articles to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) via the SCIP database. There also are indications in the Circular Economy Action Plan that the Commission is looking into extending the current scope from SVHCs to substances of concern (SoC), despite the lack of a clear definition of the latter.

At the same time, the EC is set to review the current Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) by 2021.

The upcoming months will present several opportunities for engaging with EU institutions and stakeholders in shaping all these initiatives. IPC, which is uniquely positioned to represent the entire electronics supply chain, is working on two research reports on traceability of substances and lifecycle analysis, and the association will continue to engage directly in these policy discussions. IPC members with relevant information and opinions should contact Alison James, IPC Senior Director for Europe, or Kelly Scanlon, IPC Director, EHS Policy and Research.

What is the purpose of the EU Circular Economy Action Plan?

It aims to shift Europe away from a take make use dispose model by introducing measures that keep resources in the economy longer and make sustainable products the standard.

Why is the electronics sector a priority in the plan?

Electronics and ICT generate some of the fastest growing waste streams in the EU, with annual growth rates of about 2 percent, prompting a dedicated Circular Electronics Initiative.

What changes are expected under the Sustainable Product Policy Framework?

The framework will support products that are durable, reusable, repairable, upgradable, resource efficient, and climate neutral, while expanding ecodesign requirements beyond energy related products.

How will consumers receive better information about product sustainability?

Policies under the Right to Repair initiative will require clearer information on lifespan, repair options, manuals, and spare parts availability to support informed choices.

What chemical related changes may affect electronics manufacturers?

The EC plans new methods to regulate hazardous chemicals, reduce substances of concern in recycled materials, and expand reporting through tools such as the SCIP database.

The Coronavirus Outbreak Will Likely Impact New Product Introductions

Mar 17, 2020

By Shawn DuBravac, IPC chief economist and Matt Kelly, IPC chief technologist

Key Summary

• Twenty-two percent of electronics manufacturers expect fewer new product introductions in 2020
• Travel bans are disrupting the in-person supplier visits needed for NPI design, qualification, and production readiness
• Tight build schedules mean even small delays can push back planned product release dates
• Companies like Arlo and Logitech are already reporting NPI delays due to component shortages and slower manufacturing equipment deliveries
• Collaboration barriers between designers, engineers, and manufacturers may extend NPI impacts into 2021
• Some OEMs are turning to U.S. firms to help offset overseas limitations during the coronavirus outbreak

According to IPC’s recent Coronavirus impact study (March update), roughly 22 percent of electronics manufacturers and suppliers reported that the coronavirus outbreak will result in fewer new product introductions (NPIs) in 2020. In a normal year, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) would be readying production of new products to be released in the coming year. This is especially true for consumer electronics manufacturers, which tend to follow six- to 12-month cycles and aim to release NPIs in the fall months just ahead of the holiday shopping season. Electronics manufacturers in the OEM supply chain would generally prepare for NPIs by traveling several times to visit input suppliers in the lead-up to full-scale production. Each of these trips would last up to a few weeks and would involve all aspects the NPI process, including design tweaks, incoming component supply, assembly and test process definition, product qualification, reliability assurance, manufacturing yield assessment, and final product fulfillment models – all in preparation to support ramp to volume production requirements. Corporate travel bans have cancelled many of these trips and left engineering teams rushing to develop alternative approaches. Some are turning to U.S. firms to help. Because build schedules are already extremely tight, delays of any kind could impact planned product release dates. In short, the coronavirus outbreak is causing delays that could affect planned NPIs. Some companies are already reporting such impacts. Arlo Technologies, a maker of wireless security cameras, noted in its fourth-quarter 2019 financial results conference call that “coronavirus is impacting our business on the supply side as our vendors do not have sufficient quantities of the required components to fulfill our demand … Additionally, in the second quarter, we have new product introductions planned that we believe will be impacted by the component shortages, as well as delayed delivery of some of the manufacturing equipment from China.” Logitech noted in a statement that “due to the availability of labor and varying timing of component supply recovery, there is potential for delays to new product introductions.” Because of the long lead times involved, timing constraints and travel bans that hinder collaboration between designers, engineers, and manufacturing facilitates could also impact NPIs in 2021, even if other impacts from the coronavirus outbreak are reversed quickly. To read full report, click here.

Why will the coronavirus outbreak reduce new product introductions in 2020?

Because supply chain disruptions, travel bans, and engineering delays are slowing the processes required to prepare new products for mass production.

What parts of the NPI process are being disrupted?

Design revisions, component sourcing, assembly and test planning, manufacturing validation, and volume ramp readiness—all of which normally require in-person supplier visits.

Which companies have already reported NPI delays?

Arlo Technologies and Logitech have publicly stated that component shortages and delayed equipment delivery may push back their new product launches.

How do travel bans specifically impact NPIs?

OEM engineers cannot travel to supplier factories to oversee builds, troubleshoot issues, or validate production lines, causing delays in every stage of NPI preparation.

Could the outbreak affect NPIs beyond 2020?

Yes. Even if other disruptions resolve quickly, timing constraints and lost collaboration opportunities may impact 2021 NPIs due to long lead times.

Electronics Supply Chain in Flux Due to Tariffs, Epidemic, Other Factors

Mar 02, 2020

by Shawn DuBravac, IPC chief economist Over the last year, electronics manufacturers have been adjusting their supply chains, driven by a variety of factors but especially trade tensions between the United States and China and the growing expectation that higher tariffs between the U.S. and its partners may be “the new normal.” More recently, the coronavirus epidemic that originated in China and now is sweeping the world is driving further decoupling between China and the United States. A recent IPC survey of its members revealed an overwhelming majority (84 percent) were worried about the epidemic’s impact on their business operations, with some looking to develop alternative sources of inputs from other countries. The primary beneficiaries to date include countries with competent workforces, modern infrastructure, and congenial business environments, including Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia and Taiwan, where we do see some elements of the electronics supply chain expanding. If your company is contemplating or in the process of sourcing from new countries instead of China, I would be interested in hearing from you as part of IPC’s ongoing research and monitoring efforts. Your information will be held in confidence, although we are always looking for members who are willing to share their insights and experiences with reporters and policymakers.

Coronavirus Expected to Cause Five-Week Product Shipment Delays, Says Electronics Manufacturing Industry

Feb 26, 2020

Electronics manufacturers anticipate at least a five-week product shipment delay from suppliers due to the coronavirus epidemic, according to a survey conducted by IPC. Shipping delays from China and other countries where the virus has spread are already having negative impacts on manufacturers. Roughly 65 percent of manufacturers report their suppliers expect, on average, a three-week delay. However, electronics manufacturers expect delays to be longer than what their suppliers are currently quoting. On average, executives expect shipment delays to be at least five weeks. “The delays will likely have ripple effects for the rest of the year,” said John Mitchell, IPC’s president and CEO. "The longer China is affected by the epidemic, and the more it spreads to other parts of the world, the supply chain will experience more and varied strains and disruptions.” An overwhelming majority (84 percent) of electronics manufacturers and suppliers are worried about the epidemic’s impact on their business operations. Delays in receiving supplier inputs can lead to factory downtime, higher average costs, transportation bottlenecks, pressure for alternative sourcing, delayed sales, and delayed prototyping that slows the introduction of new products. “In most cases, it’s not easy for manufacturers to switch suppliers, if that’s what turns out to be necessary,” added Mitchell. “Securing alternate sources requires an investment of significant time and money that must be weighed against the value gained.” IPC surveyed industry professionals at electronics manufacturing companies, including original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), electronics manufacturing services (EMS) companies, and printed circuit board (PCB) fabricators. Almost half of the survey respondents represent the contract electronics manufacturing services (EMS) industry. This segment performs an estimated 25 percent of North American electronics manufacturing for OEMs. The survey was conducted between February 11–16, 2020. IPC will continue to perform regular surveys and research on this issue.

U.S. EPA Fees for Toxic Substances May Apply to Your Company This Year

Feb 26, 2020

By Kelly Scanlon, director of environment, health and safety policy and research

Key Summary

• EPA TSCA Fees Rule may require manufacturers and article importers to pay fees for high-priority substances in 2020.
• Companies must review EPA preliminary lists and self-identify if they handle HP substances or risk daily penalties.
• No exemptions exist for articles, impurities, byproducts, or de minimis quantities under the TSCA Fees Rule.
• Fees per substance will be shared among listed companies, with small businesses receiving an 80 percent discount.
• Companies may join consortia to distribute TSCA fees after final scoping documents are released.

Manufacturers and importers of “high-priority substances” and importers of articles containing these substances may be obligated to pay fees this year to defray the U.S. EPA's costs for administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Many companies may be unaware of these potential fee obligations, especially importers of articles that contain HP substances by design or as byproducts or impurities. The regulation imposing these fees – the “Fees Rule” – went into effect in October 2018, but the obligation to pay the fees kicked in this year, as the EPA launched new risk evaluations for 20 substances. Companies should be diligent when determining the potential impacts of the Fees Rule. For starters, the EPA has opened a comment period during which companies have the opportunity to review preliminary lists of manufacturers and importers of HP substances.

The preliminary lists were developed using the most up-to-date information available, including information submitted to the EPA under the Chemical Data Reporting Rule and the Toxics Release Inventory. However, EPA has indicated that the preliminary list may not be comprehensive, and companies involved in manufacturing or importing HP substances are required to self-identify to the EPA or be subject to daily fines. Thus, it is critical for companies to undertake the necessary due diligence prior to the end of the comment period, which is May 27, 2020. If a company believes it has been listed wrongly, it should consider filing a "certification of no manufacture" or a "certification of cessation" to be removed from fee obligations. Conversely, companies that do handle these substances must self-identify or face the risk of significant penalties. The potential size of the fees is hard to estimate.

The EPA has determined that the HP risk evaluations will cost about $1.35 million per substance, and the costs will be distributed among all companies on the final list for each substance. The fees will vary from one substance to another depending on the number of impacted entities and a few other variables. For example, small businesses are expected to receive an 80 percent discount on fee obligations. Also, the Fees Rule allows entities to form consortia to divvy up the fees among themselves, a provision that is intended to ease compliance burdens for both the entities and the EPA. If a company does not join a consortium, then the EPA will dictate the fee amount it owes. What do you need to do by May 27? 1. Determine whether you are a manufacturer or importer of any of the HP substances or if you are an importer of articles containing HP substances. 2. Review the preliminary lists of manufacturers and importers of HP substances as compiled by the EPA. Your company belongs on the list if it manufacturers or imports any of the substances or if it imports articles containing HP substances. At present, there are no exclusions or exemptions for articles; there is no de minimis level for reporting; there are no volume or quantity thresholds for reporting; and there are no exclusions for byproducts and impurities. Here is some guidance should you need to know how the EPA defines “manufacturer,” “importer,” or “article.” 3. If your company is listed incorrectly, then a correction notice must be submitted during the open comment period. You can submit a comment to the open docket, or IPC can do this for you. 4. If you believe that your company needs to be listed, then you are required to self-identify through the Chemical Data Exchange (CDX) system. You will need to submit at least your company’s information and a technical point of contact. Here are some additional dates to be mindful of. It is expected that companies will have 60 days after the release of the final scoping documents to form consortia. Impacted companies will need to determine whether they want to join any consortia and to join if they wish to do so. Approximately 120 days after the final scoping documents are released, the TSCA fees will be due to EPA. What else can you do? Review the draft scoping documents for the risk evaluations. Likely beginning in April 2020, the EPA will release the draft scoping documents for each of the 20 HP substances. IPC will be tracking these documents and providing updates to its members. The scoping document is the first step in the risk evaluation process, and providing evidence-based information to the EPA about your understanding of a substance will enable the EPA to identify relevant conditions of use in the risk evaluation. Also, there should be a good correlation between uses of the HP substances that are subject to risk evaluations and those who are obligated to pay TSCA fees to support the risk evaluation. Keep in touch with IPC. Let us know your questions, concerns, and suggestions about the TSCA fee obligations. To date, IPC has engaged with the EPA senior staff responsible for implementation of the Fees Rule to voice the electronics industry’s concerns regarding self-identification for those who import articles containing HP substances. You may also sign up to receive the weekly IPC Global Advocacy Report to stay informed on this subject and all the latest electronics-relevant environmental policy happenings. Any questions? Just drop me a line.

What triggers TSCA fee obligations under the EPA’s Fees Rule for high-priority substances?

TSCA fees apply when a company manufactures or imports HP substances, including when articles intentionally contain them, with no exemptions allowed.

How should companies verify whether the TSCA Fees Rule applies to their operations?

Companies must review EPA’s preliminary lists and assess whether they manufacture or import HP substances or articles containing them.

What actions are required if a company appears incorrectly on EPA’s preliminary TSCA list?

The company should file a correction or certification during the comment period to avoid improper TSCA fee obligations.

How are TSCA fees calculated for companies handling high-priority substances?

EPA divides each substance’s $35 million evaluation cost among all listed companies, with discounts for small entities and consortium options.

What deadlines must companies meet under the TSCA Fees Rule for high-priority substances?

By May 27, companies must self-identify or correct listings, with fee payments due about 120 days after final scoping documents.

TTM Technologies Inc.'s Sustainability Efforts Recognized by U.S. EPA

Feb 18, 2020

By Kelly Scanlon, director, environment, health and safety policy and research, IPC

Key Summary

• TTM Technologies earned EPA recognition for reducing emissions and improving printed circuit board production processes.
• The Sterling facility lowered ammonia air emissions and reduced nitrate compounds discharged to the local water treatment facility.
• TTM promotes sustainable chemical and material choices, reducing off-site transfers of lead and copper sent for recycling.
• The company installed a new Ion Exchange wastewater system to improve water footprint and metal recovery efficiency.

Kudos to IPC-member company TTM Technologies, Inc. for reducing air and water emissions while continuously improving their printed circuit board production processes. On February 11, 2020, the Sterling, Va. facility was recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator and the Region 3 Director for Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division for these improvements as demonstrated by the Toxics Release Inventory data from 2018. TTM’s Sterling facility has optimized production processes resulting in reduced air emissions of ammonia and reduced quantities of nitrate compounds discharged to the local water treatment facility. In addition, TTM educates it customers and staff about chemical and material selections resulting in reduced off-site transfers of lead and copper sent for recycling. The company is passionate about what it makes as well as how sustainably it makes it. Printed circuit board fabrication in the United States is essential to defense systems and other critical applications. Producing these essential products reliably and without increased cost to the environment is a challenge that TTM Technologies has taken head on. “TTM’s lean management system enables them to demonstrate continuous improvement across all that they do and the Sterling facility is no exception,” said Chris Mitchell, IPC vice president of global government relations. Across the United States, TTM is investing its capital and engineering intelligence -- the skills of its own employees, to design, fabricate, and install new Ion Exchange (IX) wastewater treatment systems. In 2019, the Sterling facility’s IX system came online and it is expected that this will further improve the company’s water footprint through increased capacity and improved metal recovery efficiency. IPC worked with the Sterling facility staff to host the EPA’s Smart Sectors Program and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) staff for a tour of the new IX system in July 2019. Read more here. We look forward to this facility’s and this company’s efforts to shape and define achievable sustainability goals.

What sustainability improvements did TTM Technologies achieve at its Sterling facility?

TTM reduced ammonia air emissions, lowered nitrate discharges to the local water facility and improved recycling efforts for lead and copper.

Why did the EPA recognize TTM Technologies for sustainability efforts?

EPA recognized the Sterling facility for demonstrating emissions reductions and continuous improvement shown in its 2018 Toxics Release Inventory data.

How is TTM Technologies reducing environmental impacts during printed circuit board production?

The company has optimized production processes, educated customers and staff on material choices and invested in advanced wastewater treatment systems.

What role does the new Ion Exchange system play in TTM Technologies’ sustainability work?

The Ion Exchange system increases wastewater treatment capacity and improves metal recovery efficiency, further reducing the facility’s water footprint.

Key Takeaways from IPC APEX EXPO 2020 from a Government Relations Perspective

Feb 13, 2020

By Chris Mitchell, vice president, global government relations IPC APEX EXPO is always a fascinating kaleidoscope of electronics manufacturing excellence, and APEX EXPO 2020 was no exception. Most of the show’s content is relatively technical in nature. But it all comes down to making amazing things possible for the industry’s customers. Here are my top take-aways from this year’s show, from the perspective of someone whose job it is to explain our industry and its concerns to non-technical government policymakers. 1) The factory of the future continues to be a priority. According to a recent McKinsey survey, more than two-thirds of industrial companies are making digitization of their factories their top priority. This trend was reflected at APEX EXPO in the growing number of committee participants in the IPC Connected Factory Exchange (CFX) standard, which standardizes machine-to-machine communications and makes possible a range of “Industry 4.0” applications. Accelerating the flow of information across equipment and throughout the manufacturing process will improve the economics of manufacturing in all nations that foster the factory of the future. But when will these digital advancements start paying major dividends? And how can we prepare the workforce of the future to manage smarter machines? These difficult questions continue to loom even as the industry signals that we are the cusp of radical change in electronics manufacturing. 2) Ever growing interest in environmental issues and corporate social responsibility. While the U.S. government is currently focused on reducing the burden of regulation, the European Commission that recently took power in Brussels is pointed in the other direction, seeking ways to gain global competitive advantage with stricter environmental standards. Perhaps this environmental action in Europe explains nearly filled meeting of our revitalized Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Committee. APEX EXPO attendees were also able to take advantage of sessions on California’s Prop 65 and lead-free electronics. But it’s not just regulation driving interest in environmental issues. IPC President and CEO John Mitchell’s keynote speech emphasized purpose-driven innovation, and that kind of innovation was well-represented on the floor. One company that caught my eye was Indubond, whose lamination press performs using 10 percent of the energy of traditional technologies. 3) New faces reflect IPC's commitment to the industry. A quartet of new IPC executives attended APEX EXPO for the first time, reflecting the association’s commitment to supporting the industry globally. Matt Kelly, formerly of IBM, joined IPC in January in the new role of chief technology officer. Matt’s mission will be to lead IPC’s “factory of the future” standards and technical research; develop a new “industry intelligence” function; and launch an Industry CTO Council. Shawn DuBravac is IPC’s new chief economist, expanding IPC’s research and member services around the economic trends shaping our industry. Alison James is IPC’s new senior director for Europe, working closely with IPC’s European members as well as European government officials, institutions and public policy stakeholders. And Kelly Scanlon is coming up on one year in the role of director of environment, health and safety policy and research. Please reach out to them if you have questions or suggestions. 4) IPC Education Foundation continues to expand its outreach. Last year, the new IPC Education Foundation hosted more than 100 San-Diego-area high school students at APEX EXPO for panel discussions, hands-on training in soldering PCBs, and tours of the expo floor. This year, IPCEF hosted almost 200 kids from area schools! In its second year, IPCEF is continuing to partner with several organizations to distribute basic electronics curricula to hundreds of high schools, and to create IPC student chapters at universities and community colleges across the country. 5) An influx of younger engineers is revitalizing our membership. IPC launched the Emerging Engineer program in 2016 to provide early-career professionals with an opportunity to learn from the dedicated industry volunteers who participate in IPC standards development. This year at APEX, they seemed to be everywhere. Younger professionals are also stepping into leadership roles in several key standards groups. And John Mitchell’s keynote speech highlighted the rise of millennials like Melby Thelakkaden of Raytheon, who has gotten herself involved in eight technical committees! 6) U.S. manufacturers see opportunities and challenges in defense electronics. The U.S. Defense Department is devoting increasing attention to the nation’s defense industrial base, including the electronics supply chain. Representatives of the DoD’s Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) program attended APEX and focused on several key issues. Cyber security and resilience also played a prominent role in APEX discussions, with the DOD’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) causing quite a few furrowed brows. IPC is stepping up its member support in these areas and exploring new platforms for industry engagement with DoD. 7) The Coronavirus outbreak is affecting our supply chain. One of the biggest headlines outside the convention center – the Coronavirus epidemic – was also felt inside the building, as attendees and exhibitor personnel from China stayed home due to the virulent outbreak in that country. People across the industry are worried about the human toll as well as the supply chain disruptions that could arise in this crisis and future crises. IPC is collecting data on the impact of the coronavirus on the industry. To share your insights, please reach out to Shawn DuBravac. These were my top take-aways from a government relations perspective, but it cannot be said enough: The power of IPC APEX EXPO lies in the thousands of attendees who take part in standards committees, policy committees, executive forums, technical conference sessions, and professional development. Many thanks to the hundreds of companies who exhibited their products and services and brought so much excitement to all aspects of the show.

Delta Group Electronics Hosts Production of IPC Wire Crimping Video

Jan 27, 2020

By Mark Pritchard, director, media training.

Key Summary

• Delta Group Electronics hosted production of IPC’s new Wire Crimping training video in December 2019
• This marks the sixth IPC video produced with Delta Group Electronics, four of which previously won training awards
• The Dallas team provided extensive planning, technical support and sample preparation for the production
• Key contributors included production staff, engineering support and leadership who coordinated logistics and demonstrations
• New wire-crimp samples created for the video will also be used in the IPC A-620 Certificate Course
• Additional equipment and samples were supplied by Schleuniger to support the filming process

Delta Group Electronics of Dallas, Texas, hosted the production of a new IPC video on Wire Crimping, December 9-12, 2019. This is the sixth IPC video that Delta Group Electronics has hosted. Four of these videos have already won industry awards for video training:

Safety in Electronics Assembly – Albuquerque, N.M.
Wire Assembly Terminology Training – Rockledge, Fla.
Electronic Assembly Inspection – Albuquerque, N.M.
Reflow Soldering – Albuquerque, N.M.
Handling in Electronics Assembly – Albuquerque, N.M.
Founded in 1987, Delta Group Electronics Inc. is a full-scope electronics contract manufacturer with five facilities — serving the southern portion of the United States from coast to coast. More information can be found at www.deltagroupinc.com.

“The pre-production planning and technical support for this video was exceptional,” according to Mark Pritchard, IPC video producer. “DGEI had everything laid out and ready to demo, along with the help of their top production staff. We felt completely welcome and supported, for which we are deeply grateful.”

Participants in the video were:

Damir Cocic, production manager;
Flor Hernandez, engineering support;
Avelito Hernal, engineering.
Flor Hernandez created all of the new wire-crimp samples that will be featured in this video and in the new IPC A-620 Certificate Course. Tod Cummins, DGEI/director of corporate quality, coordinated the production with Trey Johnson, general manager of the Dallas facility. Additional tools, equipment, and samples were brought in by Jonathon Guay of Schleuniger. IPC sincerely appreciates this exceptional contribution to the educational efforts of our industry.

Subscribe to our online video library: https://my.ipcedge.org/static/vtl.html for these and other training programs from IPC..

Why did IPC partner with Delta Group Electronics for this video?

Delta Group Electronics has a strong history of supporting IPC training productions, offering skilled staff, technical expertise and well-equipped facilities that help ensure high-quality instructional content.

How many IPC videos has Delta Group Electronics hosted so far?

This Wire Crimping video is the sixth IPC production hosted by the company, and four previous collaborations have earned industry awards for training excellence.

Who contributed to the creation of the new wire-crimp samples?

The new wire-crimp samples were created by Flor Hernandez from engineering support, and they will be featured in both the video and the IPC A-620 Certificate Course.

What role did leadership at Delta Group Electronics play?

Tod Cummins coordinated planning with Trey Johnson, ensuring the facility, staff and materials were ready for filming and supporting smooth on-site production.

Did any outside companies participate in the production process?

Yes, Schleuniger contributed tools, equipment and additional samples through Jonathon Guay to support filming needs.

Where Can you Find a Suitable Surface Finish for 5G, High Frequency, and High-Density Applications?

Jan 20, 2020

By Kunil Shah, Ph.D., chief scientist, LiloTree

Key Summary

• High frequency and high density electronics require surface finishes that minimize insertion loss and maintain signal integrity.
• ENIG is widely used but its nickel layer reduces performance due to higher conductor losses and ferromagnetic effects.
• Nickel’s properties can degrade high-frequency data transfer compared to bare copper surfaces.
• Selecting a finish for 5G applications requires low insertion loss, long shelf life, cost effectiveness and high reliability.
• Alternatives such as EPIG, EPAG and DIG exist, though each has limitations for advanced applications.

The advent and ongoing evolution of internet-enabled mobile devices has continued to drive innovation in the manufacturing and design of technology capable of high-frequency/high-density electronic signal transfer. The combined requirements for both fast, always-on data transmission, and small geometric form-factors can be difficult to satisfy without compromised performance and signal loss. Among the primary factors affecting the integrity of high frequency signals is the surface finish applied on PCB copper pads – a need commonly met by technology manufacturers through the electroless nickel immersion gold process, ENIG. However, a well-documented limitation of ENIG is its insertion loss due to the inferior conductivity of nickel over copper, leading to higher conductor losses. Additionally, nickel’s ferromagnetic properties adversely affect circuit performance. The result is an overall reduced performance in high-frequency data transfer rate for ENIG-applied electronics, compared to bare copper. The selection criteria of surface finish for 5G, high frequency, high density application involves minimal insertion loss, long shelf life, cost-effective and high reliability. There are few options (EPIG, EPAG, DIG, etc.) available in the market and there are limitations involved with each offering. You can learn more at IPC APEX EXPO Technical Conference Session 15 (Surface Finishes 1) on Wednesday, February 5 at 1:30-3:00 pm. For more information, visit www.ipcapexexpo.org.

What challenge does ENIG surface finish create for high frequency applications?

ENIG introduces insertion loss because nickel has lower conductivity than copper and its ferromagnetic properties weaken circuit performance.

Why is surface finish selection important for 5G and high density technology?

These applications require minimal insertion loss and high reliability to maintain fast, consistent data transmission in compact designs.

How does nickel affect high frequency signal performance?

Nickel increases conductor losses and its ferromagnetic behavior negatively impacts high frequency circuit performance compared to bare copper.

What criteria should guide surface finish selection for 5G electronics?

A suitable finish should provide low insertion loss, long shelf life, cost effectiveness and high reliability for advanced applications.

Three Workforce Lessons from Manufacturing Plants Around the World

Jan 13, 2020

By John Mitchell, IPC president and CEO

Key Summary

• Global electronics manufacturers face similar workforce shortages, with hiring and retention challenges emerging across regions.
• Hiring for interest, then training internally, builds long-term talent pipelines.
• Clear career pathways increase motivation, loyalty, and workforce stability.
• Collaborative communication systems improve problem-solving, efficiency, and worker satisfaction.
• International practices offer transferable lessons for U.S. manufacturing growth.

The U.S. economy has remained surprisingly resilient, and the result has been that the country’s unemployment has continued to inch lower. It’s now at 3.5 percent, the lowest rate since 1969, and that rate could go even lower as the U.S. boasts more than 7 million job openings. Those job openings suggest an opportunity for workers but a tight labor market for employers. For the industry I represent, electronics manufacturing, talent and retention have always been top concerns, but the situation is worsening. Today, more than 60 percent of U.S. manufacturers say that an inability to find and retain skilled workers is constraining their growth and undermining their global competitiveness. The same story is true around the world. During my latest international listening tour of manufacturing plants in France, Germany, India, Japan, Taiwan and Thailand, I noted again that the challenges faced in the United States extend beyond our borders. The good news is that, through shared experience, we can develop shared insights and solutions. In that vein, I’d like to offer the conclusions I’ve drawn from my meetings with operators and managers across the electronics industry about the current labor environment: Lesson 1: An open-minded approach to hiring based on industry interest, not just skill, can result in new long-term talent During the recruitment process, seeking out potential employees that hold genuine interest and passion for the industry even if they don’t yet pose the skills can provide a new source to fill long-term workforce gaps. It’s okay to hire an employee with minimal training – that's where company education programs come in. In Japan, one manufacturing plant hires operators interested in the job without a background in the industry. The workers are trained with pay for a full year before joining the assembly line. Once thoroughly vetted and trained, operators have the avenue to move up through the ranks to become managers. Among the factory managers with whom I spoke, none of them had college-level training; their education was solely completed through intracompany training. As an added bonus the longevity and loyalty of this workforce is impressive, but more on that in Lesson 3. This model, used in some Japanese companies as well as others in Europe, underscores the point that we can find talent by embracing workers with little to no experience – but with industry passion – to build the worker pipeline. That is where the next key lesson comes in. Lesson 2: Career progression is important to workers Hiring is the first step, but companies need to keep thinking of new ways to keep employees engaged and motivated by prioritizing both their personal and professional growth. Job security and location to home remain pillars for workers within the industry. However, with a younger generation entering the workforce, convenience isn’t enough to retain workers. Workers want to know they have a career path they can build in their companies. In Thailand, operators who lack a college education, along with management staff from top schools, can grow within their roles and continuously be promoted. The job culture there exposes workers early on to self-improvement paths that help them attain specific knowledge or capabilities. Having this type of transparency helps create trust among employees and companies, where the workers invest in the companies and the companies invest in the workers. During my latest trip, I spoke with college-educated engineers who expressed appreciation for their companies’ focus on personal growth. One manager emphasized that it was during his time as a quality engineer that he learned how to meet his goals and prioritize learning additional skill areas, allowing him to become a senior production manager. Lesson 3: Worker retention relies on effective workplace communication to maintain worker happiness As I engage with workers and management, I’m always reminded that companies address and troubleshoot challenges in the workplace in a variety of ways, and how they do so impacts the employee experience. A successful environment champions collaboration to lessen the stress placed upon employees closest to the supply chain or any other production issues at hand. In Bangalore, India, I saw how deliberate and collaborative employee interaction could solve product processing challenges. For more arduous job tasks, such as accommodating factory capacity, maintaining various product delivery schedules and facilitating cross-department collaboration, a company systemized procedure review. When they encounter an issue, operators stop the production process, brainstorm solutions, bring these potential solutions to a quality assurance team and then implement the changes through a management system in place, fostering a new type of learning environment with its people and collaborative problem-solving at the core. The success this brings isn’t just apparent through workers’ happiness and loyalty – their mantra of “zero defects,” helps ensure their products demonstrate the highest quality standards through their production process. Conclusion: Lessons can be learned on a global stage to ensure company efficiencies and worker satisfaction for future growth Seven million jobs unfilled is a staggering number, but U.S. economic growth and innovation hinges upon addressing this workforce need. Companies are stepping up through commitments to hire interested but untrained workers, employee initiatives geared toward career progression, and c-suite focus on finding ways to retain workers. These initiatives are helping to drive record growth in the electronics industry. But the U.S. industry should take note of the lessons I saw around the world. For too long, countries have been resistant to learn lessons from others. But with our ever-shrinking globe and ever-expanding workforce, our neighbors have solutions that should be embraced.

Why does hiring for interest rather than skill benefit manufacturers?

Hiring based on genuine interest allows employers to train workers internally and build loyalty. Examples from Japan and Europe show that employees with little experience can become highly capable when supported through structured, paid training programs designed to develop long-term talent.

How does career progression influence worker retention?

Employees stay engaged when they can see a future within the company. Plants in Thailand and other regions show that offering clear advancement paths and promoting personal growth helps workers build careers rather than short-term jobs, which increases loyalty and reduces turnover.

What communication practices support better workforce retention?

Manufacturers that encourage open communication and collaborative problem solving create more supportive environments. Systems that allow operators to pause production, share issues and propose solutions improve product quality, reduce stress and help workers feel valued and respected.

What key workforce challenges did global manufacturers report?

Across France, Germany, India, Japan, Taiwan and Thailand, manufacturers described tightening labor markets and difficulty finding skilled labor. Despite regional differences, companies consistently highlighted hiring, training and retention as central challenges that directly affect competitiveness and growth.

What can U.S. manufacturers learn from international plants?

Global examples show that proactive training, clear advancement pathways and strong communication systems are effective tools for building stable workforces. These lessons can help U.S. manufacturers strengthen retention, improve efficiency and adapt to a labor market with millions of unfilled jobs.

Subscribe to