IPC International Community magazine an association member publication
Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1546580
SEPTEMBER 2026 I I-CONNECT007 MAGAZINE 27 on my own while the process engineer went off to do something else. This happens far too often, but in this case, the etcher operator took an interest in what was going on and asked all kinds of ques- tions about what I was doing and why. By the time the problem was resolved, he knew exactly what had happened and took responsibility to see that it never happened again. I told his supervisor to give this guy whatever he wanted in terms of wages because lost time and production while trying to replace him (if they could find someone as good) would be more than any salary increase. The supervisor smiled and said he knew that and that it wouldn't be long before he was running the entire etching department. When I visited again six months later, that's exactly what had happened. Again, exactly how it should work. An Example of the 'Bad' However, the idea of using automation to free up time for a competent operator or process engineer to expand their responsibilities can be taken too far. Several years ago, I visited a rather large PCB shop on the West Coast to help with a process problem involving our equipment. I met their process engi- neer, who was responsible for the entire wet pro- cessing (DES, SES, plating, etc.) area across the whole facility. The actual problem turned out to be a rather simple one with an easy fix, but he was constantly being called off to other sections of the plant to deal with other issues, so it took several extra hours to find and fix it. For months after that visit, I got phone calls and emails from him, time-stamped 10 p.m. or 3 a.m. and other ungodly hours. He was always at the plant for one emergency or another. About a year and a half later, I got a call from a headhunter offering a wonderful job on the West Coast at a generous salary increase. As she described the job, I began to get suspicious and asked if the job was at this company I had just visited the year before. Well, yes, it was. I politely turned down the opportunity since I wasn't eager for a job that required me to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week (that and the fact that the rent on an apartment a one-hour commute from the plant was more than the mortgage on my house, a 15-minute commute to the plant, in State College, Pennsylvania). It isn't always about the money, you know. I later learned that the process engineer had burned out, suffered a nervous break- down, and left the company to recover and seek sunnier climes. So, using more automation to free up time for good employees to expand their responsibilities and retain their services is a good idea, but don't take it too far. And What About AI? A History Lesson Now we come to AI. I freely admit that I am un- easy about it—not so much about AI itself as about the motives of the people rushing to embrace it. It seems to me that the underlying (and unspoken) reason AI is so eagerly anticipated by some isn't that it can increase efficiency and quality (which it can), but for the potential to replace employees that need to be paid and thus maintain or increase profit levels. Granted, this will happen, but where do the reductions in personnel come from? Back in the ancient times of the PCB industry (1980s), American PCB shops steadily lost business to Japan, which supplied high-quality circuit boards at very competitive prices. The Japanese had aggres- sively automated their production and run their plants with a few well-trained and well-paid employees. The response from many American shops was to lay off their highest-paid employees and hire more minimum-wage workers to cut costs and compete on price. Most of the shops that adopted that tactic were soon out of business, and the Japanese shops took over even more of the business. AI is coming, of that there is no doubt. My obser- vation is that the good shops will use AI to increase the efficiency and productivity of their empowered employees, not to get rid of them. In my opinion, based on reports of experimental testing and real-world failures, no AI should be allowed to run without some human oversight and supervision. I-CONNECT007 Don Ball is a process engineer at Chemcut. To read past columns or contact Ball, click here. T H E C H E M I CA L C O N N ECT I O N