Subject: Participation Invited at CAD to CAM Strategy Planning Meeting
Dear Colleague:
As you know, the IPC is a U.S. based trade association devoted to the success ofits members who are participants in the electronic interconnection industry. To facilitate this commitment, the IPC has produced technology roadmaps in the last three consecu
tive years. These roadmaps describe the industry challenges to address the growing needs of the customer base.
Each of the IPC roadmaps indicates that one of the major roadblocks to our success in meeting customer expectations for product turn-around is the technique we use to transfer data from CAD work stations to CAM work stations. A group of industry experts
visited companies in Japan and identified the fact that their reversal of the transfer of poor data is one factor that makes Japanese companies successful.
We continue to struggle with poor data transferred to the printed board fabricator or the printed board assembler, data that does not provide a clear understanding of what the customer means by the information supplied.
WE NEED YOUR HELP
Over the past few months, we have been involved in a number of meetings with interested and affected parties: CAD vendors, CAM vendors, ARPA, OEMs, board manufacturers, assemblers, and designers. All have expressed a strong interest and desire to resolve the data transfer
problems that increase turnaround times, reduce productivity, increase errors and costs, thereby reducing the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.
It is obvious that the problems of CAD to CAM data transfer will not be solved without the cooperation of everyone in the supply chain, plus major external intervention. No single company can adequately address the situation on their own.
The winds of change are upon us. We invite your participation in shaping the new wave. A two day brainstorming meeting has been scheduled to bring together all members of the industry supply chain to smooth the data highway between CAD and CAM. We reco
gnize that there are standards intended to address these issues. We also know that individual OEMs can effect a change that will work within their own supplier base. However, it is not working for the industry infrastructure, which needs to be in place
for our country to meet global competitive pressures.
The attached report explains the goals of the planned CAD to CAM Strategy Planning Meeting. Please read it carefully. Even if you do not entirely agree with the report, come to the meeting and express your views. The results of our deliberations could
affect the way in which you and your company manage your participation in the industry, whether you are a provider of automation tools, a manufacturer printed boards or modules, an assembly company, design facility, or a customer (OEM) interested in getti
ng products delivered in a timely manner.
ABOUT THE MEETING
The meeting will be held at the Westin Hotel, 5101 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, CA, 95054, Tel:408/986-0700.
We have reserved a small block of sleeping rooms. Arrangements can be made by calling the hotel directly. Please indicate that you will be attending the IPC CAD to CAM Strategy Meeting in order to receive the hotel rate extended to us by the Westin Hote
l.
The meeting will start promptly on Monday, May 15, at 1:00 p.m. We hope to conclude our deliberations by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16. All attendees will receive a comprehensive set of minutes, which will include the brainstorming deliberations, conclus
ions reached, and recommendations for moving into the implementation phase.
PLEASE RETURN ENCLOSED FORM
We have enclosed a response form for this CAD to CAM Strategy Meeting. Please return this form to IPC by April 30, 1995. We would appreciate your input by that time, in order to ensure adequate meeting space. If you cannot personally attend, please pas
s this information along to someone knowledgeable about these issues, who can provide ideas as to how we should collectively move forward.
We will discuss forming precompetitive consortia teams, consider the implications of the Internet and WorldWide Web (WWW) data transfer and confirmation, as well as adopting some of the international EDI proposals. We need your participation to take our
first real step forward to smooth the data transfer from CAD to CAM. Please join us in Santa Clara.
Best regards,Thomas J. Dammrich Dieter Bergman Executive Director Director, Technology Transfer and Implementation
STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
CAD TO CAM DATA TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Meeting growing competitive pressures requires increased use of computer aided design and manufacturing tools, especially since time-to-market opportunities are shrinking. Thus, the process of transferring design information to manufacturing production e
quipment becomes a major factor in the success or failure of a project to meet customer or company management expectations.
For many years, the printed board industry has contended with the transfer of a vector photoplotter machine language (Gerber) to describe the requirements of the fabrication and testing of the printed board, and even the printed board assembly. Since the
machine language does not adequately describe the board, its fabrication requirements, the electrical testing necessary or assembly information, each company has attached their own version of a supplement necessary to describe the missing data.Manufactur
ers of printed boards and printed board assemblies have had to deal with all versions of the supplemental data. In fact, manufacturers have had to accommodate many different implementation versions of the Gerber machine language. Fortunately, the CAM eq
uipment has provided analysis tools and functions that have addressed the ambiguities in the machine language provided by the customer. In addition, due to the competitive nature of the printed board and assembly industries, the manufacturer would prefer
to fix the problem and charge for the services, rather than contact the customer and imply that the data provided was insufficient.
TIME FOR CHANGE
The time to address the situation is now. There is a sufficient history of difficulties encountered, and the additional efforts required to turn design information into manufactured reality. Customers of printed board and printed board assembly manufact
urers are looking toward the future, with a turnaround of manufactured products within five days or less from receipt of design data descriptions, and prototypes within one day. We will never be successful as an industry if we continue to use the present
disjointed and ambiguous methods of transferring design data to manufacturing, especially in a business environment where more and more of this manufacturing is not being done in vertically integrated companies.
Over the years, many standards have evolved to address data transfer. The IPC has a suite of standards that deal with board, phototool, electrical test, and assembly descriptions. The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) has adopted these con
cepts in their international group of standards. IGES (Initial Graphic Exchange Specification) has evolved to handle drawing information. EDIF (Electronic Design Interchange Format) covers schematic capture, and is currently working on design informatio
n for semiconductors and printed boards. PDES (Product Data Exchange using STEP) is supported in the U.S. by PDES, Inc., and STEP is supported in international standardization by ISO Technical Committee 184, with work being conducted on models for printe
d board assemblies.
Each of these standards has a purpose in the hierarchy of information transfer. However, none of them correctly addresses the problem of smoothing the data highway between CAD and CAM. The focus of the standards has been to address specific information
transfer between various platforms. The formats and information models are good, but each user sees his needs from a different vantage point, and requires a different set of information.Companies that manufacture printed boards need information on toolin
g; tolerances; fabrication sequences; dimensional requirements for board features and bare board testing information, including impedance control requirement evaluation. Companies assembling printed boards need information on components, point of origin,
assembly sequences, board side relationships, location of fiducials, and electrical test vector information for in-circuit or functional testing.
While the need of the manufacturing community to receive clear unambiguous data is growing at a phenomenal rate, the precision of the processing window is being reduced, and the turnaround time for product delivery to the customer is shrinking. It is tim
e for industry/government/academia to take a coordinated stance. We need a single broadly accepted and implemented standard, one which can be used by all of the tools which produce and consume data. Perhaps an initial "Let's Talk" meeting could help set
the strategy on how industry and government could work together to develop the solution to a problem that is currently being worked on in a non-productive manner. A proactive solution is needed before industry is incapable of meeting the new "fast respo
nse" manufacturing requirements.
FORMAT FOR STRATEGY MEETING
A special two-day meeting has been scheduled to discuss the issues of CAD to CAM data transfer. This meeting will be held at the Westin Hotel in Santa Clara, CA, May 15 and 16, 1995. All members of the industry supply chain are invited to participate:
manufacturers, computer tools developers, OEM users, software engineers, standard developers and technical institutions. In addition, representatives from government agencies are also invited, in order to express their needs as a part of the user communi
ty.
The format will be to start the meeting with a restatement of the need or problem. This real need or problem will be agreed to by all those attending the meeting. At that point, we will not be asking for solutions, but will be establishing goals: what
information is needed; how much or how little information is needed; what is the relationship to other systems that the user wants to use in order to assess the completeness or quality of the end product?
There is no doubt that some of our industry standards already address issues that will evolve from the initial review. However, attendees will be asked to "park all bias" at the door until information transfer needs have been completely defined. After a
greement is reached on the manufacturing wish list, the group will then determine what data is readily available from the various CAD systems, what requires special additions or user intervention, and what is difficult or nearly impossible to provide.Afte
r the needs assessment and capability review have been completed, the group will examine existing or developing standards to determine applicability to addressing of issues described by group analysis. Without choosing domains, attendees will then attemp
t to discern the methodology for best-of-class to affect CAD to CAM data transfer. It may be difficult to obtain agreement, but transfer technique goals can be stated, and ideas can be measured to meet those requirements.
SOLUTION CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED WITH COOPERATION THROUGHOUT THE SUPPLY CHAIN
Over the years, many techniques have been attempted in order to establish a methodology to address the issues that will be brought to this two-day brainstorming session. During that time, there have been successes, as well as failures. The most successf
ul implementation is one driven by a specific OEM user, who describes a technique used between himself and his vendors. He is in complete control of his destiny. Everyone is fully trained in the use of the systems used. Software is developed to meet th
e conditions required, and updated as technology changes. Going to a new supplier or implementing a new feature requires retraining and beta testing, in order to smooth out the wrinkles in the system. Turnkey systems are easily managed, if they are user
controlled.
The most detrimental failures have occurred when a customer purchases a new CAD system with the expectation that data transfer is as simple as installing a new printer driver, only to find that the driver is inadequate or provides data that is unreadable
by the manufacturer. Bad implementation of a standard is bad, no matter how the problem is identified. Customer frustration, CAD tool provider reluctance, and return on investment have all been cited as the reason for industry failure to adopt or suppor
t a single standard. Yet everyone is trying hard to address the issues, seeing the problem from a different vantage point.
CAD systems should concentrate on simulation, placement, placement/routing algorithms, thermal analysis, impedance control. CAM stations should concentrate on panelization, test coupon incorporation, machine optimization, electrical test sequences, and c
omponent attachment. Suppliers of these systems find it hard to justify resource expenditures to simplify the CAD to CAM data transfer issue. They get paid for providing additional functions for the tools that are sold to the user.
On the other hand, the user doesn't want to pay an exorbitant amount for something that he or she thinks should be free. That is why we are still using Gerber machine language, even though more elegant solutions are available. If a consortia were formed
, made up of industry, government and academia personnel, this problem could easily be resolved. A system specification could be developed to address the issue and define a standard, perhaps even "shareware" programs that are essentially given to industr
y users and suppliers to implement the standard for CAD to CAM data transfer.
Perhaps with the right incentive, (OEM leadership, ARPA leadership, and others), CAD vendors and others in the supply chain will become part of the solution. What is most needed now is a cooperative effort that makes us more productive and competitive wi
thout giving away those items that are considered our core competencies.
Think of it! Solutions to our problems! Wouldn't that be grand? Let's talk. Come to Santa Clara, May 15 and 16, 1995.
For more information contact Mike Buetow at IPC: 708-677-2850, ext. 335.
|
