Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1161956
54 SMT007 MAGAZINE I SEPTEMBER 2019 Johnson: Do you feel like the standards envi- ronment has changed? Bergman: There have always been ebbs and flows. Often, standards have been a reaction to industry problems; you see a failure, so you go back in time. We became involved in mea- sles—thermally-related voids being seen in PCBs—back when the industry was having trouble with them. We did round-robin test- ing in PCB manufacturing that drove require- ments on inner plane separation, barrel crack- ing, and resin recession, which still exist today. Those actions came out of some of IPC round- robin testing that took place in the '80s. We also did round-robin testing small-diame- ter plated through-hole (PTH) reliability and aspect ratios that support PCB activity. We've attempted to support other markets too. We did one guideline standard for optoelec- tronics, and then that industry crashed and dis- appeared. It's not to say that optoelectronics is not still important, but it's not what it was. We also did some things in fiber, and we respond as the industry has an interest. With automotive and e-textiles, the growth has been more of an active staff initiative to pull together audiences, which has been successful. And CFX would be an example of an industry pull. Typically, you gather a group of people together and provide some oil to the gears to make sure everything moves smoothly, but it depends. I don't see that the process has changed, necessarily. At IPC, we are engaging the global industry so that standards are not perceived as a U.S. push. I'm happy to be a U.S.-based associa- tion, but we're a global standards development organization. I don't want to hear somebody saying, "IPC standards are all U.S. standards," because they aren't. Becoming more global is a continuing effort, and each new standard that was not initiated by the U.S. helps the cause. People have less time to participate in standards development, and we also have an aging work- force in the U.S., which is reflected in our commit- tees. So, we're trying to capture that and maintain their resources and experience while investing in the next generation through our Emerging Engi- neer Program and engaging future leaders. Further, we implemented a series of pro- grams to improve the overall standards effort. The goal is to both accelerate and reduce the overall time required to create an IPC standard. We worked on a series of initiatives or tech- niques that reduced wasted time and effort. I don't want to create a process so that some- one can't participate. I want to preserve open- ness and due process, but I also want to create a process where people feel that their time is respected and valued. We have A-teams in place that do triage on comments, make recommendations to the committee, and facilitate tasks. As a result, I can have a dedicated group of 6–10 people invest more of their hours, which then saves the time of 180 other people. Overall, IPC's impact on the industry time is significantly less even though IPC is leaning on a smaller group of individuals. There's a continuing effort to maximize the end result and impact from fewer people in less time while ensuring that people are not cut out of the process. The IPC/WHMA-A-620 group, which is the collab- oration between IPC and WHMA on wire har- ness, is one of our most shining examples of how the A-team can be used effectively to help achieve updates to standards in a shortened timeframe where everybody is able to have their voice heard. ____________________________ iNEMI Plays a Supporting Role in Standards Creation iNEMI CEO Marc Benowitz draws a clear line on iNEMI's involvement with standards—they With automotive and e-textiles, the growth has been more of an active staff initiative to pull together audiences, which has been successful.