AMAZON multi-meters discounts AMAZON oscilloscope discounts
<< cont. from part 1a
FIGURE 4 Chrysler platform teams utilizing functional silo expertise.
Strategic sourcing is a process or series of processes, not a group of functional tasks. The functional silo diagram illustrated earlier (Fig. 3) is inefficient and ineffective in a strategic sourcing company. Chrysler, for example, created various platform teams (such as interior, exterior, body, chassis, and power train) that integrated the various silos' expertise horizontally in a cross-functional team implementation (see Fig. 4).
Strategic sourcing needs to be a well-thought-out process. It takes time to implement (to a large extent because it involves building personal relationships of mutual trust) but provides renewed vigor to a company. Let's take the example of Xerox in the 1980s as a brief case study. The situation: Xerox had lost its focus and market share. To improve they turned to strategic sourcing to turn the company around. Xerox was losing market share for many reasons:
1. They had an arrogant manner.
2. Xerox didn't understand its business
3. Xerox didn't pay attention to the needs of its served markets.
They had a diminished concern for their customers.
They lost their focus by buying a computer company to go head-to-head with IBM.
Xerox failed to acknowledge changing conditions in the copier and Component and Supplier Selection 183 computer businesses. (Canon shifted the competitive base for a product prone to break down but supported by a terrific service organization, i.e., Xerox, to copiers that didn't need to be serviced.)
4. Their manufacturing costs were bloated.
5. They had high equipment service rates and thus high costs due to poor quality.
6. They became inwardly focused and fought internal turf wars. They ignored advice from within and from specially formed task groups.
7. They centralized decision-making and didn't listen to employee input.
8. They were slow to respond to competition. Xerox was preoccupied with what Kodak was doing but ignored the upstart Japanese competition.
After losing significant market share, Xerox turned to benchmarking to under stand what had changed both in the marketplace and with their competitors. The results of benchmarking led them to adopt strategic sourcing. They centralized materials management in order to centralize sourcing. They employed a commodity team structure and reduced their supplier base from approximately 5000 to 300. These remaining suppliers were welcomed and embraced as family members and were provided with the appropriate training. They focused on retraining their employees. The result of these actions allowed Xerox to improve its competitive position, increase market share, strengthen its bottom line, and build a more solid foundation for the future. But it is not over. They must continually seek to improve all they do, since customer expectations increase and new competitors pro vide new competitive advantages and capabilities.
Strategic sourcing, or supply base management (I use both terms inter changeably), represents a very advanced and complex methodology of dealing with the supply base. Some of the issues that add to this increased level of complexity include:
- Long-term visionary focus
- Customer-supplier interconnectivity
- Organizational connectivity-mutual stakeholders with shared destinies
- Increased leverage
- Higher quality
- Reduced supply base
- Lower total cost
- Shorter lead times
- Increased flexibility
- Joint technology development
- Shorter time to market
- Open, direct, consistent, and transparent channels of communication at all levels within customer and supplier organizations (including IT re sources)
- Empowered cross-functional commodity teams (see next section)
- Comingling of customer/supplier technological and manufacturing re sources
- Focus on suppliers of critical or strategic components
- Required senior management sponsorship in both the customer's and supplier's organizations but implemented at the micro-level person-to-person
- Realistic expectations of clients and suppliers
- Strategic sourcing means that a company
- Develops partnerships with a limited number of suppliers who are leaders in their respective industries
- Looks to these suppliers for quality products, leading-edge technology, competitive pricing, and flexible deliveries
- Bases these relationships on honesty, integrity, fairness, and a desire to do whatever it takes to be mutually successful.
- Promotes win/win co-sharing
- What are some of the key elements of strategic sourcing? To be successful, strategic sourcing
- Must be part of an overall business strategy and actively supported by top management. Being part of only the manufacturing strategy leads to sub optimal results.
- Is integrated with company strategy and technology planning.
- Focuses on critical procurements and develops appropriate strategies for each case.
- Understands cost and competitive drivers.
- Understands technology road maps.
- Uses cost-based pricing.
- Facilitates and uses cross-functional team processes, i.e., commodity teams.
- Constantly measures performance to its customers.
Establishes annual breakthrough goals from benchmarking other companies for such items as material cost reductions, supplier quality improvements, on-time delivery, lead time reduction, inventory reduction, and quicker customer response.
Implements continuous performance measurement and improvement practices.
All of these elements are in essence related. It's hard to separate and discuss them individually without referring to the others. As an example Figure 5 lists some of the strategic sourcing considerations that an electronics equipment manufacturer makes. The inner circle lists those few high-level critical corporate is sues. Moving from the center outward the list of considerations expands, i.e., becomes more granular, or detailed.
FIGURE 5
Example of sourcing strategy considerations of an electronics equipment manufacturer.
Where to Start. Before adopting a strategic sourcing methodology, a company's management must do some self-assessment and introspection by asking itself some extremely pointed questions, such as the following:
1. How do we compare to world class companies?
2. What do we need to do to be better than the competition?
3. Are internal best practices widely used across our company? If not, why not?
4. Do we spend our company's money as wisely as we spend our own?
5. Are we focused on the right priorities?
6. Are we organized correctly?
7. Do we have the right skills and expertise?
8. Have we consistently demonstrated the proper leadership and support for strategic sourcing and related issues, such as concurrent engineering?
9. Are our people empowered to make the correct decisions?
10. Have we identified our core competencies?
11. Have we identified the critical commodities that if faulty could spell disaster to our equipment in the field?
Once these questions are answered, it is wise to create a sourcing statement that clearly relates to both a company's corporate objectives and related functional strategies. It is important that this is effectively and consistently communicated along with the results obtained on a regular basis both internally and with a company's strategic suppliers.
Purchasing's New Role. Historically, most corporations had a purchasing department in name only, with limited or no input in overall corporate strategy and direction. This in spite of the fact that the purchasing function accounts for 40-60% of the total dollars a company spends with its outside suppliers.
The change in sourcing mindset represents a major culture change for an OEM. Top management support is essential if sourcing professionals are to add value as part of cross-functional sourcing teams. Strategic sourcing offers a company some real benefits: total cost reduction, supply chain process improvement, process integrity, a strong competitive philosophy, and more.
In a strategic sourcing model the role of Purchasing changes from a focus on price and pitting supplier against supplier to a more value added function: establishing and maintaining collaborative supplier relationships. In a strategic sourcing organization, the Purchasing function has a strategic rather than tactical mindset. Purchasing becomes a strategic driver for the company because today customers want the variety, velocity, quality, and cost competitiveness that can only be provided through collaboration. A study conducted in 1990 by Yankelovich, Clancy, and Shulinan (and updated more recently with the same results) showed the reduced importance of price as the main purchasing issue. When asked the question what constitutes quality, the respondent companies listed the following as being important (in ranked order): reliability, durability, ease of maintenance, ease of use, a known and trusted name, and lastly a low price.
One of the biggest challenges for the purchasing function is how to turn an individual accustomed to transactional purchasing into a skilled strategic sourcing professional. Purchasing departments have many individuals who are quite comfortable in the transactional world. But change is necessary. Purchasing is taking a more proactive and strategic role in component supplier selection and use, moving into the design space to provide added experience and value. To accomplish this, Engineering is being integrated into Purchasing to provide the required technical expertise. Job functions such as Commodity Engineer, Purchasing/Procurement Engineer, and Procurement Qualification Engineer are becoming common place. An increasing number of personnel populating the procurement ranks have BSEE degrees; some have MSEE degrees.
In a strategic sourcing company, high-value opportunities are identified and resources are allocated to focus on them. Here the focus is on managing suppliers and supplier relationships, ensuring access to the top suppliers, and encouraging their best efforts by qualifying existing and potential suppliers, monitoring their performance, and upgrading or eliminating marginal performers. The Purchasing Department Is focused on developing and managing long-term strategic supplier/partner relationships. This process includes the proactive use of scorecard evaluations and links the assessment of suppliers' past performance to current and future partnering opportunities. Appendix A of Section 4 presents an example of a supplier scorecard measurement process.
Reduces the effort associated with procuring items where the procurement function can add limited value.
Eliminates low-value-added activities by streamlining the procurement pro cess and outsourcing these activities.
Has become a strategic resource by providing a competitive advantage to an electronics manufacturing company.
Provides critical information about supply conditions and market trends, recommending suppliers before new product design begins.
Is involved with marketing strategy and specific sales opportunities (winning business by enabling customers to meet equipment purchase bud gets through creative component pricing and purchasing techniques).
So the basic elements of strategic sourcing that Purchasing now addresses include
1. Supplier selection
Global strategies
Qualified competitive sources
Ensured supply
2. Supplier negotiation Industry-leading terms and conditions Flexible, continuous supply
3. Supplier development Relationship development at micro-level Continuous improvement and innovation goals
4. Supplier evaluation--Performance measurement and reporting--Total cost of ownership--Technology road map match
5. Long-range supplier strategy
Core commodities
Maximizing leverage across commodities
Matching technology road map with client product road map
6. Strategic resource to both Design and Marketing-Sales
I can't emphasize this enough: strategic sourcing is not a fixed process; it is flexible and adaptable to a specific company's needs. Even as this is being written, the sourcing responsibility is undergoing refinement and change to be more in tune with and effective in providing the design community with the suppliers and components required to produce a product that meets customer expectations. The focus must be external-on the customer.
Strategic Sourcing Summary. A 1995 study by A. T. Kearney of 26 multi national corporations in a variety of industries predicted that developing suppliers is going to be a part of a company's market strategy. The study found dramatic changes in how corporations view suppliers and the procurement function. Restructuring their relationships with suppliers was revealed in the study as one of the key ways that leading U.S. companies have found to compete, dramatically cut costs, and slash the development time for new products.
The OEMs focusing on strategic sourcing are able to offer products and services faster and at lower prices and thus invest more cash into the core competency of research and development. Other companies have used strategic sourcing methodology and discipline to find and lock up the best suppliers in long-term exclusive relationships, effectively shutting the competition out of participation in critical markets. A summary of the Kearney findings is presented in Table 5.
----------
TABLE 5 Strategic Sourcing Key Findings of 1995 A. T. Kearney Study
95% of corporations surveyed reported a significant change in the procurement organization in the past decade; 55% anticipated additional change in the future.
The use of outsourcing is growing rapidly. 86% of surveyed corporations reported outsourcing some function in 1995 versus 58% in 1992.
Supplier concentration is still being aggressively pursued, with corporations reducing their supply base by 28% between 1992 and 1995. The study predicted that another 35% reduction is expected by 1998.
Leading companies chopped their inventory levels by 4% using strategic sourcing; half the companies in the study expected inventory levels to fall at least another 40% by the year 2000.
Leading companies reduced product development time by 62% over a one-year period.
Source: From the short course ''Supplier Management'' at the California Institute of Technology.
-----------
Thus, the company that revolutionizes its supplier relationships will have lower costs, faster response times, and happier customers. Other things (like making the right products) being equal, that must also mean higher profits. An open, honest relationship between equal partners in the supply chain is the only way of optimizing the performance of the supply chain. Similarly, within companies the only way of achieving velocity in design and manufacture is to break down the old barriers and rebuild new relationships by adopting simultaneous engineering. That means all functions working together in teams from the start; it is about relationships, not technology.
=========
(coming soon) TABLE 6 Categories of IC Suppliers
Tier 1 supplier Tier 2 supplier Tier 3 supplier
------ Large supplier Well-defined and documented quality system Full service supplier Comprehensive design practices with large R&D resources Defined and controlled processes Well-developed support infrastructure with appropriate staff and equipment (e.g., CAD models, test resources, F/A and corrective action, reliability tests) Provides breadth and depth of product offering Rigid rules for customer requests Select customers carefully for relationships 80% of purchase spending 20% of problems
----------
Medium-sized supplier
Well-defined and documented quality system
Niche to full service supplier
Comprehensive design practices with medium
R&D resources
Defined and controlled processes
In-place support infrastructure with appropriate staff and equipment
Focused on one or two key functional component categories
Some rules with some flexibility
Open to meaningful partnerships
80% of purchase spending
20% of problems
----------
Small supplier
Minimal quality system
Niche/boutique supplier
Not as rigorous design practices and minimal
R&D resources
Minimal process control
Minimal support infrastructure with minimal staff and equipment
Provides performance advantage and/or unique benefit for one functional component type and/or family
Very flexible
Interested in customers who need performance parts
20% of purchase spending
80% of problems
=====================
3.5 Categories of Suppliers
Where a given IC supplier stands in respect to specific business, technical, quality, and support issues (see Table 6) determines the level of effort required to support him. I have used IC suppliers here since specific IC functions normally provide an OEM with a competitive advantage.
Not all suppliers are created equal. Nor should all suppliers be considered as strategic sources because:
1. The components they provide are not critical/strategic nor do they pro vide a performance leverage to the end product.
2. The OEM has limited resources to manage a strategic sourcing relationship. It's simply a case of the vital few suppliers versus the trivial many.
The more tiers of suppliers involved, the more likely an OEM will get into the arena of dealing with very small companies that do not operate to the administrative levels that large companies do. With fewer staff available to over see second- and third-tier suppliers, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain a consistent level of quality throughout the supply chain. Companies have to accept the commitment to work with second- and third-tier suppliers to develop the same quality standards as they have with their prime suppliers. It's part of managing the supply chain. Most companies in the electronics industry prefer to deal with tier 1 or tier 2 suppliers. However, often unique design solutions come from tier 3 suppliers, and they are then used after due consideration and analysis of the risks involved. It takes a significantly larger investment in scarce OEM resources to manage a tier 3 supplier versus managing tier 1 and tier 2 suppliers.
Many tier 2 and 3 suppliers outsource their wafer fabrication to dedicated foundries and their package assembly and test as well. Integrated device manufacturers, which are typically tier 1 suppliers, are beginning to outsource these operations as well. This removes the need for keeping pace with the latest technology developments and concomitant exponentially accelerating capital equipment expenditures. The major worldwide foundries are able to develop and maintain leading-edge processes and capability by spreading mounting process development and capital equipment costs across a large customer base. Many of these are "fabless" semiconductor suppliers who focus on their core competencies: IC circuit design (both hardware and software development), supply chain management, marketing, and customer service and support, for example.
Having said this, I need to also state that IC suppliers have not been standing still in a status quo mode. Like their OEM counterparts they are going through major changes in their structure for providing finished ICs. In the past (1960s and 1980s) IC suppliers were predominantly self-contained vertical entities. They designed and laid out the circuits. They manufactured the ICs in their own wafer fabs. They assembled the die into packages either in their own or in subcontracted assembly facilities (typically off-shore in Pacific Rim countries). They electrically tested the finished ICs in their own test labs and shipped the products from their own warehouses. This made qualification a rather simple (since they directly controlled all of the process and resources) yet time-consuming task. Mainline suppliers (now called integrated device manufacturers, or IDMs) such as AMD, IBM, Intel, National Semiconductor, Texas Instruments, and others had multiple design, wafer fab, assembly, electrical test, and warehouse locations, complicating the OEM qualification process.
Integrated circuit suppliers were probably the first link in the electronic product food chain to outsource some of their needs; the first being mask making and package assembly. Next, commodity IC (those with high volume and low average selling price) wafer fab requirements were outsourced to allow the IDM to concentrate on high-value-added, high-ASP parts in their own wafer fabs. Electrical testing of these products was also outsourced. Then came the fabless IC suppliers such as Altera, Lattice Semiconductor, and Xilinx who outsource all of their manufacturing needs. They use dedicated pure play foundries for their wafer fabrication needs and outsource their package assembly, electrical test, and logistics (warehouse and shipping) needs, allowing them to concentrate on their core competencies of hardware and software development, marketing, and sup plier management. A newer concept still is that of chipless IC companies. These companies (Rambus, ARM, and DSP Group, for example) develop and own intellectual property (IP) and then license it to other suppliers for use in their products.
Cores used to support system-on-a-chip (SOC) technology are an example.
Currently, IC suppliers are complex entities with multiple outsourcing strategies. They outsource various parts of the design-to-ship hierarchy based on the functional part category, served market conditions, and a given outsource provider's core competencies, design-manufacturing strategy, and served markets. Each of the functions necessary to deliver a completed integrated circuit can be out sourced: intellectual property, design and layout, mask making, wafer fabrication, package assembly, electrical test, and warehousing and shipping (logistics). In fact, for a specific component, there exists a matrix of all possible steps in the IC design-to-ship hierarchy (that the supplier invokes based on such things as cost, delivery, market needs, etc.), complicating supplier selection and qualification, part qualification, and IC quality and reliability. From the OEM's perspective the overarching questions are who is responsible for the quality and reliability of the finished IC, to whom do I go to resolve any problems discovered in my application, and with so many parties involved in producing a given IC, how can I be sure that permanent corrective action is implemented in a timely manner.
Another issue to consider is that of mergers and acquisitions. Larger IC suppliers are acquiring their smaller counterparts. This situation is occurring as well across the entire supply chain (material suppliers, EMS providers, and OEMs). In these situations much is at risk. What products are kept? Which are discontinued? What wafer fab, assembly, test, and ship facilities will be retained? If designs are ported to a different fab, are the process parameters the same? Is the same equipment used? How will the parts be re-qualified? All of this affects the qualification status, the ability of the part to function in the intended application, and ensuring that a continuous source of supply is maintained for the OEM's manufacturing needs. Then there is the issue of large companies spinning off their semiconductor (IC) divisions. Companies such as Siemens (to Infineon), Lucent (to Agere Systems), and Rockwell (to Conexant), for example, have al ready spun off their IC divisions.
FIGURE 6 Inverted pyramid model for the 1998 DSP market. (IC Insights,
Scottsdale, AZ.)
In fact, it is predicted that the IC industry will be segmented into a number of inverted pyramids characterized by dramatic restructuring and change (Fig. 6). The inverted pyramid shows that for a given product category, digital signal processors (DSPs), in this example, four suppliers will eventually exist: one large tier 1 supplier and 2 or 3 smaller suppliers will account for the entire market for that circuit function. A reduction in the supply base will occur due to mergers and acquisitions and the process of natural selection. This model has proven to be valid for programmable logic devices (PLDs) and dynamic random access memories (DRAMs), with the number of major DRAM suppliers being reduced from 10 five years ago to five today. Other IC product types are likely to follow this path as well. This structure will prevent second tier or start-up companies from breaking into the top ranking. The barriers to entry will be too formidable for these companies to overcome and the inertia too great to displace the market leader. Such barriers include financial resources, process or design capabilities, patent protection, sheer company size, and the like. This will serve to further complicate the selection and qualification of IC suppliers and the parts they provide. OEMs will be limited in the number of suppliers for a given functional IC.
3.6 Customer-Supplied Relationships
Partnerships (i.e., mutually beneficial relationships) are absolutely essential in today's marketplace. Both buyers and suppliers need the stability and security provided by establishing long-term relationships. Good supplier relationships don't just happen. They take a conscious and concerted effort and require a lot of hard work. It takes time to develop relationships based on mutual trust and respect. People issues, which are more critical than technical issues, must be allocated the proper resources for these relationships to succeed. Supplier-OEM relationships are all about people skills, mutual trust, and commitment to the relationship. These long-term relationships must be developed through the efforts of both customers and suppliers. They are mutual stakeholders in each other's success. Each must make concessions to the other in order to arrive at a relation ship satisfactory to both. Continuing coordination and cooperation are important in retaining the relationship once it is established. Collaboration with suppliers, rather than an adversarial relationship, will result in more successful projects; leading to suppliers having more responsibility and influence during product de sign.
Why have many companies, which for so long emphasized price competition, changed direction to place greater emphasis on the long term relationship?
1. They have found that this relationship results in both fewer quality problems and fewer missed delivery schedules.
2. When there is a supply shortage problem, the firms with long-term relationships suffer less than do opportunistic buyers.
3. Frequent changes in suppliers take a lot of resources and energy and require renewed periods of learning to work together. Relationships can't be developed and nurtured if the supply base is constantly changing.
4. Product innovations require design changes. Implementation of changes in requirements is less costly and time consuming when a long-term relationship has been developed.
5. If either party runs into a financial crisis, concessions are more likely if a long-term relationship exists.
6. Cooperation helps minimize inventory carrying costs.
7. A company and its suppliers can work together to solve technical issues to achieve the desired product performance and quality improvement.
Commitment to these relationships is essential. But strong commitments to suppliers over the long term do not diminish the importance of other factors.
The doors should be left open for new suppliers who have new and applicable technologies to the OEM's products. Suppliers in turn are expected to contribute both cost and quality improvement ideas and they are expected to understand the goals, products, and needs of their partner OEM.
Table 7 presents a high level supplier-OEM relationship model put forth in Beyond Business Process Reengineering. It progresses from the "conventional" (or historical) OEM-supplier relations that were built on incoming inspection and driven by price to what the authors call a holonic node relationship. This, in effect, represents the ultimate relationship: a truly integrated supplier-OEM relationship in which both are mutual stakeholders or co-makers in each other's success.
In this ultimate relationship, there is cooperation in designing new products and technologies. Suppliers are integrated into the OEM's operations, and there is a feeling of mutual destiny-the supplier lives for the OEM and the OEM lives for the supplier's ability to live for its business. Increasingly, the OEM's product components are based on the supplier's technology.
There is also a constant exchange of information concerning both products and processes. The client company's marketing people feed back information directly to the supplier company. This allows the partners to make rapid, global decisions about any required product change.
(coming soon) TABLE 7 Supplier-Customer Relationship Models Supplier level Quality Logistics Product and technology development | Node choice criteria
3.7 Commodity Teams
There is no substitute for knowing (developing close relationships with) your key suppliers, especially those that provide components for critical parts of the design. An equipment manufacturer needs to understand an IC supplier's design practices, modeling techniques, in-line process monitors and feedback mechanisms, manufacturing (both wafer fabrication and package assembly) and electrical testing processes, yields, qualification and long-term life test methodology and results. The OEM also needs to understand the financial health and stability of a supplier and its long-term business outlook.
Industry-leading companies have recognized the multiplicity of skills required to truly know and understand, in depth, a supplier's capabilities. These companies have created and empowered commodity teams (also called supply base teams) composed of experts from multiple disciplines to have complete sourcing responsibility for designated strategic or critical components. I use the word commodity to denote critical or strategic components, not to denote widely available low-priced components.
The commodity team "Owns" the supply base for a given strategic technology/commodity Assesses product technology needs Acts as a resource to new product teams and ensures that supply strategies are established early in new product development.
Maintains knowledge of industry and technology developments and matches the technology to the available supply base Defines, evaluates, and ranks suppliers and implements the long-term supply base/commodity strategy Identifies benchmarks for the commodity Defines the criteria and manages supplier selection, qualification, development, and the qualified part list (QPL) Generates supplier report cards based on quality, on-time delivery, price, flexibility, service, continuous improvement, reliability, and other metrics Determines deficiencies, isolates their root cause, and drives corrective actions with suppliers
Develops, implements, and monitors supplier performance target plans to ensure that continuous improvement is occurring.
In addition to these tasks, I present two issues for consideration: price and time to volume. In a previous section it was mentioned that price was no longer the primary focus of the purchasing equation. However, this is not entirely accurate. Manufacturers of products destined for high volume use applications such as consumer products (video games, DVD players, mobile communication de vices, and the like) and personal computers select and trade suppliers solely on price. (Questions such as what is the best price I can get for a DRAM, a microprocessor, a disk drive, etc., are routine. In fact many OEMs for these products are so bold as to state, "I expect the price for your DRAM to be $W this quarter, $X the next quarter, $Y the following quarter, and $Z four quarters out. If you can't meet these prices we will take our business to someone who can.") When many millions of components are used in manufacturing one of these products, several cents shaved off the price of true commodity components affects the product cost and a company's gross margin. For more complex and less price sensitive products/equipment, component price is not the primary focus, although it certainly is important.
In Section 1 I talked about time to market and customer-centered issues.
Just as important as time to market is time to volume. Can an IC supplier meet IBM's, Cisco System's, Nokia's, Dell Computer's, or Sony's huge volume ramp requirements? Being able to deliver samples and early production quantities is well and good, but can volume ramp up and production be sustained at the levels required by the OEM to produce and ship the product? This is a serious consideration not to be taken lightly.
A typical commodity team might include representatives from Purchasing, Supplier Quality Engineering, Development Engineering, Reliability Engineering, Component Engineering, and Manufacturing Engineering. The technical requirements are so important that in many organizations, Purchasing contains an embedded Engineering organization. In the commodity team structure each functional discipline brings various strengths and perspectives to the team relationship. For example,
1. Purchasing provides the expertise for an assured source of supply, evaluates the suppliers financial viability, and helps architect a long term sourcing strategy.
2. System Engineering evaluates and ensures that the part works in the product as intended.
3. Manufacturing Engineering ensures that the parts can be reliably and repeatedly attached to the PCB and conducts appropriate evaluation tests of new PCB materials and manufacturing techniques, packaging technology (BGA, CSP, etc.), and attachment methods (flip chip, lead free solder, etc.).
4. Component Engineering guides Develop Engineering in the selection and use of technologies, specific IC functions, and suppliers beginning at the conceptual design phase and continuing through to a fixed de sign; evaluates supplier-provided test data: conducts specific analyses of critical components; generates functional technology road maps; and conducts technology audits as required.
5. Reliability Engineering ensures that the product long-term reliability goals, in accordance with customer requirements, are established; that the supplier uses the proper design and derating guidelines; and that the design models are accurate and in place.
Each commodity team representative is responsible for building relationships with her/his counterparts at the selected component suppliers.
NEXT>>