Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1161956
SEPTEMBER 2019 I SMT007 MAGAZINE 29 Naisbitt: And the other rea- son is I'm stubborn. People ask, "Why are you recognized as world leaders in what you do at Gen3 Systems, which is just a small business located in Farnborough, England?" If I knock on a door as Gra- ham with Gen3 Systems, I am turned away. But if I knock on that same door and say I'm the vice-chair or chair of the com- mittee involved with this num- ber, it opens doors. But who am I to change an industry standard that's been around since the 1970s? Especially when you have the entire industry saying to leave it alone until a com- pany called Robert Bosch says, "Take that number out." After five years of effort, that's resulted in a fundamental change, the num- ber has gone, and it was finally released to the industry in September/October of 2018. Matties: One of the points that came from one of our recent expert meetings is the standards should be reviewed on a calendar basis. Naisbitt: That's an interesting point. Matties: These standard committees are all vol- unteer as well. Naisbitt: They are all volunteered from compa- nies concerned to be involved by topic. Trying to seek harmonization is a key factor, and that has been my endeavor over the last 20 years. Matties: To that point, anybody with a horse in the race might have a different view and agenda, which could make finding the consen- sus amazingly challenging. Naisbitt: At the end of last year, I was appointed the new vice-chair of the IPC 5-30 Clean Coating Subcommittee. Now, I have 15 dif- ferent working groups reporting on those two topics, and SIR, CAF, and subsurface electric chemical migration are part of that portfolio. Therefore, we have a far better opportunity for harmonization to take out the disparities that may exist, and making sure that they do meet everybody's interests is a key part of that. Candidly, that's where IPC does a far better job. Matties: When you brought the volumes of documentation from your Bosch work after those five years and said that the standard needed to be reconsidered and retooled, what was the process like? Naisbitt: It was a fairly difficult environment to navigate through, but we've done so satisfac- torily. Matties: Was it because it was your organi- zation saying, "Here's what we've done. We want a standard to benefit us." Is that how it was viewed? Naisbitt: No, it was, "Here's what should be done if you're going to do this type of test and do it properly. This is what we recommend." Robert Bosch picked up on that and went through that five-year program to prove it. We did a joint publication at IPC APEX EXPO 2017. It's all public domain, so I'm perfectly at lib- erty to disclose stuff, but the barrier is trying to break down that understanding. Cleanliness is not a meaningful term. Matties: That's not the measure that we should look at it. Naisbitt: Correct. There have been instances when people have said the cleanliness test is superior and has to be superior to a cleaning process. That is never going to happen. It's simply a chemical mechanism that can deter- mine whether or not there's been a change in your manufacturing process. Matties: And it's an end-of-the-line test, and what you're talking about is process-step test- ing. Graham Naisbitt