Tell Us What You Think About the Skilled Workforce Shortage

As a longtime leader in education and training in our industry, IPC is stepping up its efforts, and we could use your input. How would you answer the following question?

Over the last year, how difficult has it been for your company to find qualified workers for roles that require technical knowledge and skills?

Click here to respond by COB Friday, March 29.

Thank you!

Trump’s FY2020 Budget Plan Kicks Off U.S. Policy Debates

by Ken Schramko, senior director, North American Government Relations

Within the last week, U.S. President Trump released his $4.7 trillion fiscal 2020 budget plan, kicking off the annual federal budget process. IPC is watching several budget debates that could impact the electronics industry and its supply chain.

It’s important to remember that Congress has the power of the purse, and the President’s budget is merely a request. Ultimately, members of Congress must make the tradeoffs that result in spending bills that can pass.

When passed in identical form by both houses of Congress, the budget establishes the overall allocations that the appropriations committees then use to write annual spending bills. However, Congress is not even required to pass a budget; and due to partisan wrangling, in many years it does not. Under the rules, action may begin on the annual spending bills even if the House and Senate have not agreed on a budget resolution by May 15.

Thus, while the president’s budget is a significant statement of executive branch priorities, it is merely the starting point.

Within that context, let’s look at the key takeaways:

The administration’s budget proposal runs a $1 trillion+ annual deficit through FY2022. Rather than balancing the budget within 10 years as Republicans in Congress have proposed in recent years, President Trump proposes to balance the budget in 15 years based on relatively rosy economic assumptions.

The Trump budget assumes the continuation of the spending caps in the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA), which would force overall federal spending down by $126 billion. Congressional leaders have signaled their intent to raise these caps.

Maintaining the BCA caps would require a 9 percent cut to domestic discretionary spending. Spending for Medicaid, Medicare and other mandatory programs is also proposed to be cut. Programs marked for growth include “funding for border security, national defense, opioids, law enforcement, childcare, veterans’ healthcare, emerging technologies that support the industries of the future, and workforce development.”

The Trump budget would cut overall research and development spending by roughly $6.5 billion—or 5 percent. These cuts would primarily affect civilian agencies including the Dept. of Energy, NASA, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and others.

President Trump is proposing to draw on “off-budget” funds from the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) to push through a 5 percent, $33.8 billion overall increase in defense spending. The move is controversial because the OCO was intended for combat operations and crises abroad.

The Trump Administration is expecting GDP growth to hover around 3 percent for the next decade, while the Congressional Budget Office forecasts a decline in GDP growth from 3.1 percent in 2018 down to 1.7 percent by 2020 and then relatively flat through 2029. Federal Reserve Chairman Powell this week said growth appeared to be slowing from last year, “under the weight of the Trump administration’s trade war, economic slowdowns in Europe and China and fading stimulus from the Republican tax cuts of 2017” (New York Times, 3/21).

IPC is digging into the details of the President’s budget request, particularly with regard to DoD, Commerce, and EPA. We will work with Congress throughout the appropriations cycle to protect and improve programs of interest. Please let us know if you have any input on this.

Here’s a rundown of how some budget shifts could affect the electronics industry:

EDUCATION/LABOR

• Would invest $1.3 billion in grants to states for Career and Technical Education (CTE). The recently reauthorized Perkins CTE program helps students gain access to technical education, “including work-based learning during high school and a wide array of post-secondary options including certificate programs, community colleges, and apprenticeships.”

COMMERCE

• Would eliminate the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and Economic Development Agency, both of which support U.S. manufacturing initiatives.
• Would provide $688 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and prioritize research in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and microelectronics.

DEFENSE

• Significant increases for DoD R&D programs, including hyper-sonics, AI, and quantum computing. More defense R&D could be good news for defense supply-chain research and IPC’s efforts to secure funding for a five-year, $40 million program to help the defense industry move toward Pb-free electronics.

EPA

• Would cut the agency by $2.8 billion (31.2 percent), which if enacted could affect IPC’s effort to persuade the agency reduce reporting burdens on electronics manufacturers that send byproducts sent for recycling.

HOMELAND SECURITY

• Would give DHS a $3.6 billion (7.4 percent) increase to help support funding for 750 additional border patrol agents, 1,000 ICE officers, and 54,000 detention beds. The budget proposal would require all employers to use E-Verify program for worker authorization.

ENERGY

• Would eliminate the Advanced Research Project Agency–Energy (ARPA-E).

Looking Ahead

The U.S. budget process as it works today also revolves around those cliffhanger moments when Congress and the President must agree on a way forward or trigger government shutdowns or debt defaults.

The “meta” decisions are whether to raise the BCA spending caps and based on what understanding; how to handle the next debt-limit increase; and within those parameters, partisan wrangling over programs like the border wall, defense, and health and welfare programs. In short, this promises to be another raucous budget and appropriations year.

As always, please let us know if you have any questions or concerns about how the federal budget process affects your business.

Chris Barrett, Safari Circuits Helps Develop New IPC Video on Through-Hole Rework

This March, Chris Barrett of Safari Circuits travelled to the IPC Video Studio in Taos, N.M., to shoot a new training video, Through-Hole Component Removal and Rework.

This was the 7th video that Chris Barrett has helped create for IPC:

142C – Introduction to Hand Soldering (Communicator Award)
• 143C – Through-hole Component Preparation and Hand Soldering (Telly & Videographer Awards)
• 144C – Hand Soldering – SMT Component Installation (Communicator Award)
• 145C – Basic SMT Rework without Component Removal (AVA Digital Award)
• 196C – Area Array Rework
• 118C – Terminal Soldering
• 141C – Through-Hole Soldering – Component Removal and Rework

Chris Barrett, Safari Circuits

Chris was responsible for organization of the video script, the resolution of committee technical comments, and also provided the hands-on demonstrations shown in the video.

“It takes an exceptional amount of patience and skill to perform on-screen soldering for an IPC video… creating the sample, setting up the lighting, performing the action flawlessly, along with the inevitable retakes. This process would test the patience of any ordinary mortal. Chris is wonderful to work with, and he does his job amazingly well… it’s a real pleasure to be able to work together,” said Mark Pritchard, IPC video producer.

Our sincere thanks to Chris (aka “CB”) and the management of Safari Circuits for their continued support of the IPC training efforts for the electronics assembly industry.

All of these videos will be available in the new IPC online video subscription library.

Here’s the 2019 Outlook on IPC Advocacy for Workforce Education and Training

by Ken Schramko, senior director, North American government relations

The chronic shortage of skilled workers is the top business challenge facing the electronics industry worldwide. Our skilled workers are aging and retiring faster than we can hire replacements. A large majority of our members report that their inability to find skilled workers is limiting their growth. Too often, today’s rising workers lack essential knowledge and skills including math, basic technology skills, and problem-solving.

Given these facts, IPC is building on our strengths and making workforce development one of our top priorities. We’ve pledged to develop 1 million new training and workforce development opportunities in the United States over the next five years; and we launched the IPC Workforce Champions initiative to engage our member companies in that effort.

Here’s an overview of the government policy landscape that we’re working to shape.

New U.S. Government Advisory Board

In the United States, last week a newly formed advisory committee to the federal government held its first meeting. The members of the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board, led by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Advisor to the President Ivanka Trump, include representatives of eight companies, three industry associations, four universities, three state and local governments, and several nonprofits, think tanks, and a trade union. The board will serve from now through July 2020.

During the meeting, Ms. Trump outlined four goals of the board:
1. Develop a robust campaign to promote multiple pathways to good-paying jobs, dispelling the myth that there is only one path to a successful career, i.e. a four-year college degree.
2. Improve the availability of high-quality, transparent, and timely data to better inform students and educators, as well as match American workers to American jobs.
3. Modernize candidate recruitment and training practices to expand the pool of job applicants that employers are looking to hire.
4. Measure and encourage employer-led training and investments, such as those being made by IPC.

You may recall that IPC President John Mitchell and several IPC member companies were invited to the White House last October to discuss this issue with President Trump, Ivanka Trump and other senior policy officials. Rest assured we have kept those communications channels open and are continuing to engage with the administration on this issue.

Congressional Outlook

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, there is strong bipartisan support for addressing the workforce shortage. Last summer, Congress passed and the president signed the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (the Perkins CTE Act), which IPC strongly supported and continues to support in its implementation phase.

In the current session of Congress, attention is turning to work-based learning programs and the employment visa backlog.

For example, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Reps. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) and Drew Ferguson (R-GA) recently reintroduced the Promoting Apprenticeship with Regional Training Networks for Employers’ Required Skills (PARTNERS) Act last month. This legislation would promote registered apprenticeships and other work-based learning programs for small and medium-sized businesses through the establishment and support of industry-based partnerships. It also would provide funds to states to award grants to eligible partnerships.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers are working to make it easier for companies to access high-skilled immigrants. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Ken Buck (R-CO) recently introduced the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, which would eliminate the per-country immigration caps that cause backlogs in the employment-based green card system.

Now Seeking Workforce Champions in the EU, Too

Later this month, IPC is preparing to launch its Workforce Champions initiative in Europe with a pledge to provide education, training and career opportunities to more than 500,000 Europeans over the next five years.

As part of the preparations, IPC’s European team has been networking and developing relationships with the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP); the European Alliance for Apprenticeships; EURASHE, representing technical education institutions; EUROCHAMBRES, representing regional Chambers of Commerce; and the STEM Alliance, bringing together Industries, ministries of education, and other stakeholders to promote STEM education and careers to young Europeans.

Please stay tuned for more news on the European front and let us know if you want to get involved.

IPC Members: Help Your Industry and Yourselves!

Over the last two years, IPC has doubled down on its longstanding commitment to help address the chronic skills gaps affecting the electronics industry. Beyond the efforts noted above, IPC also has launched the IPC Education Foundation to expand the number of education and training opportunities in the electronics industry.

Just over the horizon, IPC’s annual U.S. advocacy days in Washington (May 21-22) and Brussels in the Fall will provide opportunities for IPC members to tell government policymakers our views on education and workforce development. IPC encourages our member companies to send senior executives to participate in these important events to help advance our industry’s interests.

Please contact me at KenSchramko@ipc.org in the U.S. or Nicolas Robin in the EU if you have any questions or information to share on workforce issues. Our success depends in large part on the guidance and support we receive from IPC members like you!

Tell Us What You Think

IPC is looking for your thoughts on the following question: “If you were to visit D.C. and have access to any government official(s) for a chat, who would you meet with, and what would you tell them?”

Click here to respond!

The best responses will be shared in an upcoming edition of the IPC’s weekly Global Advocacy Report and will help inform our plans for IMPACT Washington D.C., May 21-22, 2019.

USMCA Fights Ramps Up; IPC Helps Launch New Coalition

by Chris Mitchell, vice president, IPC global government relations

Last week, IPC and more than 200 companies and industry associations announced the launch of a new coalition to make the case for congressional adoption of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) Free Trade Agreement.

The coalition has a series of daunting and time-pressing tasks ahead of it. The USMCA needs to surmount procedural and political hurdles and be passed this year if we are to avoid the pitfalls of election year politics in the United States.

When the leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico signed the agreement last November, President Trump expressed his desire to see the trade bill move through Congress by early spring, if not sooner. However, several factors have pushed the timeline into at least the summer. The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), which is responsible for producing a report on the economic impacts of the trade legislation, fell victim to the government shutdown. Their report, which was originally due March 15, may now be pushed back as late as May 5. Although Congress is not required to wait on this report, it is unlikely that either chamber would approve the pact without an official statement on the impacts.

Congress is also waiting on the draft implementing legislation that the US Trade Representative is required to submit to Congress at least 30 days prior to introduction of the bill. Given the need to conduct congressional hearings and floor debates before final votes, and given the pressing nature of other congressional business, Congress may not get around to voting on USMCA until July or September. Any additional hurdles in the process would push the bill further into the bright lights of election-year politics.

The agreement has also hit a speed bump in the Democratically controlled House of Representatives. Historically, securing Democratic votes for a trade agreement has proven more challenging than securing Republican votes. For the last 30 years, in fact, trade agreements have been passed with the support of the Republican conference and a small but committed group of pro-trade Democrats. This time, two or three dozen Democrats are likely to cross the aisle and vote with Republicans to pass USMCA, but much remains unclear. President Trump and a changing U.S. economy have scrambled the politics of trade in ways that would have been hard to imagine even 10 years ago.

For their part, House Democratic leaders remain focused on securing changes to the agreement. Specifically, they would like to see more ambitious labor and environmental chapters to include stronger enforcement provisions. Additionally, some Democrats want to reopen negotiations related to prescription drugs. These concerns are layered on top of other bipartisan concerns, including changes to the de minimis threshold, which determines which low-value parcels can be shipped across borders tax-free, tariff-free, and with simple customs forms.

The Trump administration and the business interests that support the pact continue to emphasize the importance of passing it as early in the year as possible. USTR Robert Lighthizer, during his appearance before the House Ways and Means Committee last week, said that the agreement was “clearly” better than NAFTA and that failure to pass it would cause a loss of credibility on trade with China and other trading partners.

The coming months are thus crucial to ensuring the growth and integration of the North American economies through the USMCA. Rest assured, IPC will be in the thick of the debate, urging Congress to pass this bill and bolster the North American electronics supply chain.

 

IPC Issues Call for Participation for IPC E-TEXTILES Europe 2019

by Chris Jorgensen, director, technology transfer

IPC invites innovators, technologists, materials suppliers, electrical engineers and academicians to submit technical conference abstracts and educational course proposals for IPC E-TEXTILES Europe 2019 to be held on November 12, 2019 in Munich, Germany.

IPC E-TEXTILES Europe 2019 will provide a platform for presenters and their companies to promote their expertise in e-textiles technologies to key contacts from such industries as fashion design, health and medical, sports and athletics, automotive and military/aerospace.

Expert technical presentations are being sought in the following areas:
reliability, test methods, connectors, design, innovations in materials, mass production, washability, and market-specific e-textiles technologies (automotive, military, consumer wearables, etc.)

An approximate 300-word technical conference abstract summarizing original and previously unpublished work covering case histories, research and discoveries must be submitted. The submission should describe significant results from experiments and case studies, emphasize new techniques, discuss trends of interest and contain appropriate technical test results.

In addition, course proposals are solicited from individuals interested in presenting half-day (three-hour) professional development courses on e-textiles design, manufacturing processes and materials.

Technical conference paper abstracts and course proposals are due May 10, 2019. To submit an abstract or course proposal, e-mail me at ChrisJorgensen@ipc.org.

Trump Administration has Opportunity to Ease EPA Reporting Burden for Electronics Industry

By Chris Mitchell, IPC Vice President, Global Government Relations

The finish line may be in sight in a decade-long effort to persuade the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to curb unnecessary and duplicative Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting requirements that discourage recycling of manufacturing byproducts.

In January, EPA sent the White House Office of Management and Budget a draft proposal to make changes to the current Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) regulations. Although the draft proposal has not been released publicly, we believe it may address reporting obligations for byproducts sent for recycling. It remains to be seen whether the changes that EPA is proposing constitute meaningful relief for U.S. printed circuit board manufacturers.

Printed circuit board manufacturers have long been committed to sound environmental practices, including the recycling of byproducts to reduce waste and recover valuable metals. Current TSCA reporting requirements, however, are forcing some PCB manufacturers to consider whether recycling is too burdensome and, more importantly, too risky.

Existing TSCA regulations contain specific exemptions for byproducts, but the EPA’s narrow interpretation of these rules over the past 13 years has eliminated any meaningful distinction between new chemical products and byproducts. EPA has interpreted TSCA’s exemption of byproducts to apply only if the “chemical component” in the byproduct is removed through a process not involving a chemical reaction. In effect, this interpretation excludes the recycling of metals from the exemption, and instead treats metal-containing byproducts sent for recycling as new products subject to the full regimen of TSCA regulation. Most significantly, this includes a Pre-Manufacture Notice (PMN), registration, and other requirements under Sections 5 and 6, as well as reporting and monitoring under Sections 8 and 12 and associated penalties or enforcement provisions.

The burdens imposed by EPA’s approach to this issue discourages recycling without providing any additional protection of public health and the environment. Consider the following facts:

1. EPA has not demonstrated that TSCA registration and reporting of byproducts sent for recycling is needed to protect public health and the environment. For nearly 30 years prior to 2003, EPA did not require reporting on inorganics because they were considered low risk. In 2011, EPA made a commitment to reexamine reporting requirements based on the data received during the 2012 reporting cycle, to determine whether some reporting could be eased or eliminated. IPC – through in-person meetings, letters and congressional testimony – has urged EPA to complete this analysis. But to date, we are unaware of any meaningful analysis of this data.

2. TSCA reporting imposes a burden on manufacturers. In addition to reporting of byproducts required under other laws, namely RCRA and EPCRA, TSCA imposes an additional layer of reporting for manufacturers. Most PCB manufacturers send byproducts for recycling despite the cost and despite the risk of regulatory fines for TSCA non-compliance. A typical printed circuit board factory has a database of well over 300 chemicals entries. Reporting under Section 8 requires generating very detailed information on chemical compounds or substances sent for recycling and how they may be processed by the recycler. Each TSCA report can average 64 labor hours per facility.

3. The guesswork required to report byproducts sent for recycling exposes manufacturers to considerable risk. EPA bases the applicability of notification and reporting requirements on the recycler’s actions, yet it requires the byproduct generator to make this determination. This is problematic because when the generator sends the byproduct for recycling, it may not have the information needed to determine regulatory applicability. Only the recycler knows for certain what chemical reactions (often safeguarded as trade secrets) will take place during the recycling process and how the resulting chemicals will be used. Yet, byproduct generators are required to report on this information, and they risk fines of $37,500 per day for each chemical they fail to report fully and accurately.

4. TSCA reporting of byproducts sent for recycling is largely duplicative of reporting required from the recycler and by other environmental, health and safety laws. TSCA reporting requires byproduct generators to provide information that serves the same purpose as that reported by recyclers. Moreover, EPA seeks the same basic information from byproduct generators under other reporting regimes (e.g. RCRA and EPCRA); but because EPA offices do not coordinate, the various reporting regimes require the same information to be provided in several different formats, increasing the burden.

5. Congress itself has required EPA to reduce the reporting burden on byproducts sent for recycling. In 2016, as part of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, IPC persuaded Congress to require the EPA Administrator to finalize within three and a half years a negotiated rulemaking “limiting the reporting requirements … for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, when such byproducts, whether by the product manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed.” Unfortunately, the negotiated rulemaking process ground to a halt after only a few months of effort due to an impasse among the stakeholders.

The good news is that the Trump Administration can resolve this issue through the new CDR rulemaking, most simply by eliminating TSCA reporting for inorganic byproducts sent for recycling. Until then, the existing reporting requirements will continue to discourage recycling of resource-rich byproducts and impose unnecessary business burdens on U.S. manufacturers.

Electronics Industry Joins Call for Passage of USMCA

Statement from IPC President and CEO John Mitchell

Representing the views of more than 2,500 U.S. companies engaged in the global electronics industry, and their nearly 1 million workers, IPC – Association Connecting Electronics Industries, is joining the new USMCA Coalition. which is being launched today in Washington by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
More than 200 companies and associations representing an array of economic sectors are backing the USMCA Coalition, which will advocate for congressional approval of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

“Building a stronger U.S. electronics industry depends in no small measure on building a stronger North American supply chain,” said IPC President and CEO John Mitchell. “Our association has members with both headquarters and thousands of jobs in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, and thus we have a strong interest in securing enactment of this agreement.

“The USMCA promises to spur even greater integration among the North American economies and strengthen the region’s stature as a formidable global manufacturing base. Improving the manufacturing competitiveness of North America will unlock more growth, innovation and job creation, benefiting people across the continent and the world.

“As always, IPC will continue to advocate for our members’ interests as the debate goes forward.”

Microvia Subcommittee Brings Industry Together, Hosts Open Forum

By Chris Jorgensen, IPC director, technology transfer; IPC staff liaison to V-TSL MVIA Weak Interface Microvia Failures Technology Solutions Subcommittee

In early 2018, Jerry Magera and J.R. Strickland, Motorola, answered a call for white papers from the IPC V-TSL Technology Solutions Committee. Their white paper, IPC-WP-023, casts a light on an issue that has been troubling the printed board manufacturing industry and upstream users of printed boards: failures at the microvia interface.

IPC-WP-023, an IPC Technology Solutions White Paper on Performance-Based Printed Board OEM Acceptance, Via Chain Continuity Reflow Test: The Hidden Reliability Threat – Weak Microvia Interface, proclaims stacked microvia reliability problems link to a weak interface between microvia target pads and electrolytic copper fill and provides data in support of their observations. Observations IPC would learn are being reported by numerous IPC OEM Member companies.

There was so much interest in this white paper, a new subcommittee, IPC V-TSL-MVIA Weak Interface Microvia Failures Technology Solutions Subcommittee, formed in summer 2018 to begin investigating the potential causes of these failures and to provide industry resources on the topic.

Over the course of multiple web meetings, this group, representing the entire supply chain and numerous end-market segments, broke ground on an activity to begin to attempt to flesh out the potential causes of these interface failures to propose to industry solutions to address the issue.

During IPC APEX EXPO 2019 in San Diego, the subcommittee hosted an open industry forum to share its activities, its plans for bringing industry together to work on solutions to the problem and its planned path ahead. This meeting attracted 97 attendees, almost all of whom raised their hands, when asked by V-TSL-MVIA chair Marc Carter, SAIC, “Who has seen this issue in their products?”

Carter shared the activities of the subcommittee to date, which is focused on gathering existing, open data on the issue and querying industry for the types of data their companies collect on the issue.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, and to best advise IPC on if and how to progress with industry studies, the group will work to gather information in the public domain that could provide common clues regarding the interface failures. The group will compile this research into additional resources to be made available through the IPC Technology Solutions Committee through white papers and other resources.

In its efforts to get an understanding of existing data “behind the curtain” with companies, the subcommittee has also created a survey for industry that will provide the subcommittee information on types of data that could be available. These surveys are submitted to IPC staff and all company information is removed from them before being submitted to an agent of the subcommittee for compiling.

By understanding what data are already available, the subcommittee could then identify common denominators in data collected to request the actual data from industry for developing initial reports and to be able to best advise industry on round robins or other industry research initiatives that would fill the gaps in existing data.

Carter explained that the next step for the subcommittee is to break into A-Teams based on high-level topic areas from a fishbone diagram the subcommittee created. These A-Teams will gather and disseminate data to present reports on its findings back to the subcommittee. These reports can then be compiled into larger reports or resources for industry.

The A-Teams are:
• Simulation and Modeling
• Characterization and Test Methods
• Laminate Materials
• Construction Design Elements
• Metallurgy
• Chemical Processes
• Hole Formation
• Data Collection

Carter stressed that although this subcommittee is open to anyone to join, a requirement of being a member of the subcommittee is that your company will share information or expertise as active participants. Others in industry who simply want to learn and observe will be able to do so through additional reporting sessions, white papers and other resources and reports from the subcommittee.

Following Carter’s introduction, J.R. Strickland, one of the IPC-WP-023 co-authors, presented Microvia Weak Interface Failures: Current Understanding and Mitigation. Based on the research shown in the presentation, their conclusions are to not use more than two stacked microvias and that staggering the microvias can make them much more reliable. One of the most interesting findings in their investigation was when they attached an electrical probe to their test boards they put through reflow, they could spot the actual moment the microvia detached from the interface and then reattached before coming out of the oven. This detachment would not be recognized by electrical testing before and after reflow.

Motorola also indicated they have seen failures between copper fill and electroless, electroless and electrolytic and electroless to copper pad. You can view the Motorola slide deck here.

Happy Holden, who is disseminating blind survey responses submitted to IPC staff, presented on the fishbone diagram developed by the subcommittee and the types of data the subcommittee is collecting. He also presented the early results of the industry survey. You can view Holden’s data mining slide deck here.

How You Can Get Involved
People with interest in this topic should get a copy IPC-WP-023, which is available from the IPC store, and share their experiences with IPC by e-mailing me at ChrisJorgensen@ipc.org. The more IPC can learn about the scale of this issue and companies that are affected by it, the better.

As mentioned, the IPC V-TSL-MVIA Subcommittee is open to anyone to participate, but your company will be required to actively participate through data and information sharing and/or providing expertise on the topic. If you have interest in learning about the subcommittee and your expectations as a member of it, e-mail me at ChrisJorgensen@ipc.org.