Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1166358
20 PCB007 MAGAZINE I SEPTEMBER 2019 standards that describe the trade goods. Stan- dards must: • Define the goods sufficiently so that buyers can have faith it will serve the purpose • Be voluntarily accepted as binding by both parties (e.g., the term "voluntary" being included in contract language) • Describe what to measure, how to measure, and (generally) what measure is acceptable to both parties • Be useful and achievable, or they won't be used The Process Today, consensus-based standards are en- sured by rigidly enforced and internationally audited procedures so that input from all pos- sible sides of a deal—as well as inputs from "knowledgeable neutrals"—are fairly repre- sented. Though the participants in a standards group are typically chosen, standards develop- ment organizations (SDOs) generally strive for balanced committees. Users, sellers, technolo- gists, and academia professionals all are invit- ed to participate, and all inputs must be de- bated, considered, and answered (even if they end up formally rejected by vote). The standards created should reflect the wishes of the people who show up to work on the process, so companies (or country repre- sentatives for some organizations) often par- ticipate to ensure their interests are represent- ed. Human beings and businesses being what they are, not everyone who shows up to help create or update a standard has "the fair and equitable treatment of all parties" as their pri- mary motivation. Sometimes, we have to do the standards over until we get it right. You'd think that, for something destined to ease communication and understanding, what comes out of the process wouldn't look as much like Sanskrit to most of the world. But precision and clarity do not always apply to the language of the definition. An example of the obtuse (to outsiders) language is "embedded component printed board (ECPB)." From IPC- 7092 [2] , this is, "The general term for a com- pletely processed printed circuit and printed wiring configuration, which contains an inter- nal base-core that includes embedded formed or placed components (this includes an em- bedded component base-core, or sequential- ly-laminated HDI configurations using embed- ded component base cores with additional lay- ers)." I had a hand in this one, so I'm just as guilty as anybody else. Geeks in any field have their own language. Why Can't We All Just Get Along? In an ideal world, there would be one uni- versally accepted catalog of standards, but the real world differs. In your career, you may en- counter overlapping—and sometimes contra- dictory—standards related to your business: • DoD, MIL, or MOD: Documents prepared by a country's military • ECA: Documents prepared by the Electron- ic Components, Assemblies, Equipment, and Supplies Association (ECA) of the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA); EIA ceased operations in 2011, but standard activities under the EIA Standards Council (ESC) continue under the auspice of the Electronic Components Industry Associa- tion (ECIA) • IEC: Documents prepared by the Interna- tional Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) • IECQ: Documents prepared for a quality assessment system for electronic compo- nents supported through the IEC • IPC: Documents prepared by IPC—Associ- ation Connecting Electronics Industries • JEDEC: Documents of the Solid State Technology Association of the EIA • JESD: Standards prepared by the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC) • JPCA: Standards prepared by Japan Electronics Packaging and Circuits Association (JPCA) • J-STD: Joint-industry standards (standards followed by more than one association) • Proprietary standards, company-generated standards, and industry-qualification documents that use the aforementioned standards as their basis (NADCAP, etc.)