Early Stage Impacts of the Printed Wiring Board Joint Venture, Assessed at Project End ⁽¹⁾

Executive Summary

I. Background Information

A. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP)
B. The ATP Award to the Printed Wiring Board Research Joint Venture

II. Overview of the Printed Wiring Board Industry

A. Early History of the Industry
B. Trends in the Competitiveness of the PWB Industry
C. Current State of the PWB Industry

III. Printed Wiring Board Research Joint Venture

A. Roles and Relationships among Members of the Joint Venture
B. Organizational Structure of the Joint Venture
C. Technical Accomplishments

IV. Research Cost Savings, Early Productivity Gains, and Other Effects

A. Conceptual Approach to the Analysis
B. Methodology for Data Collection
C. Survey Results: Two Snapshots in Time, 1993 and 1996
D. Summary and Interpretation of the Survey Results

V. Concluding Observations

References

APPENDIX 1: 1996 NCMS Survey Instrument

Endnotes

This report has benefited significantly from comments and suggestions from a number of individuals. In particular, I acknowledge the contributions of Rosalie Ruegg, Thomas Leedy, Jeanne Powell, Richard Spivack, Brian Belanger, Robert Sienkiewicz, Andrew Wang, Connie Chang, and Michael Walsh, all of the Advanced Technology Program; J. C. Spender then of Rutgers University and the Advanced Technology Program and now of the New York Institute of Technology; Gregory Tassey of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; Ron Evans then of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences and now of U.S. Robotics; members of the Steering Committee of the PWB research joint venture; Kim Sterling of the Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits; David Leech of TASC; and Harvey Miller of Kirk-Miller Associates.

This report summarizes the technical accomplishments and presents selected measures of research efficiencies and early stage economic impacts of the Printed Wiring Board (PWB) Research Joint Venture Project. The project was cost-shared by the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), a unique partnership in which the Federal government and private industry jointly fund research and development projects that have high technical risk and commensurate large potential for creating broad-based economic benefits for the United States. It was carried out by a group of seven companies, with participation by Sandia National Laboratories. The period covered by the study is from mid-1991 through mid-1996, the time during which the research was conducted.

The ATP has an evaluation program to assess how well the funded projects meet technological milestones, to determine their short-run impacts and, ultimately, their long-run impacts, and to improve the program's effectiveness. Most of the 352 projects the ATP has funded, from its start-up in 1990 through 1997, were funded only in the last several years, and it is premature to attempt to measure empirically the long-term impacts of the program. However, some of the earlier projects are now beginning to reach completion of their research phases, and it is possible to conduct at least preliminary assessment of their technical accomplishments, their early impacts on the companies involved, and, to a much lesser extent, the early impacts on the rest of the economy.

This study addresses a five-year joint venture funded in the 1990 competition, ATP's first. The PWB Research Joint Venture Project was first addressed in an interim evaluation study in April 1993, which focused on early gains in research efficiencies in the project and early gains in productivity improvements by project participants up to that time. This report updates the 1993 study by documenting the technical accomplishments of the PWB Research Joint Venture Project through completion of the ATP funding period in 1996, and by offering selected quantitative and qualitative measures of research cost savings and early stage economic impacts realized by the end of that same period.

Over the decade prior to the ATP PWB Project, the U.S. PWB industry had experienced sharp declines in the number of companies in the industry and in their world market share. The outlook for the future was not considered favorable unless substantial advances could be made in terms of producing more dimensionally stable laminates, lower cost and higher performance materials, increased wiring densities, and more efficient and environmentally friendly processes. Most of the companies in the industry lacked the capacity to carry out research; only a few of the more than 700 companies remaining in 1991 were able to undertake advanced research. Yet a whole set of new capabilities were needed if the U.S. PWB industry was to remain viable in the future. Printed wiring boards are important because they are the backbone of the electronics industry. A group of companies in the industry saw the ATP as a possible mechanism for overcoming the high risk and large cost of attempting a turn-around, and organized the PWB joint venture to apply in ATP's first competition, the 1990 General Competition. It received one of the 11 research awards that year out of a field of 249 project applicants. The project was begun in 1991.

The major findings of the study are as follows:

• The ATP provided $12.866 million over the five-year research project, and industry provided $13.693 million, for a combined research effort of $26.559 million. After the project started, the U.S. Department of Energy added $5.2 million for Sandia National Laboratories' participation in the research joint venture, which reportedly would not have been provided without the ATP initiative. Hence, the overall research effort was $31.759 million, taking into account funding by the member companies, ATP, and Sandia National Laboratories. This represented a substantial expansion in the amount of advanced research in the area of printed wiring boards.

• The PWB Research Joint Venture Project accomplished all of the originally proposed goals, and the project exceeded the original expectations of the members. The joint venture entailed 62 distinct research tasks carried out by the project's four research teams. Technical accomplishments included, among other things, the following:
  1. the "Materials Team" developed the technology for making single-ply laminates and a new, dimensionally stable thin film material that has superior properties to any other material used by the industry,

  2. the "Surface Finishes Team" improved test methods that determine the effectiveness of various materials during the soldering process,

  3. the "Imaging Team" developed and successfully demonstrated the process required to obtain a yield of greater than 98 percent for 3 mil line and space features, and

  4. the "Product Team" (also a research team) developed a revolutionary new interconnect structure and demonstrated its feasibility in production.

• Based on a survey of the PWB Research Joint Venture member companies, the joint venture would not have occurred without ATP funding because, even for the group, the risk and associated financial cost of the project would have been too great.

• According to survey results, of the 62 research tasks completed by the PWB Joint Venture, about one-half would not have been undertaken at all in the absence of ATP funding, and the remaining one-half would have been delayed by at least one year in an industry where timing is critical.

• According to the survey results, the companies estimated that without the ATP Research Joint Venture, the approximately 32 research tasks that they thought they would have eventually done on their own--but with a delay--would have cost them an additional $35.5 million to complete at the same technical level and in the same time frame as achieved by the PWB Research Joint Venture, that is, a total of $67.259 million. The $35.5 million savings in research efficiencies accruing to the member companies on these tasks consisted of:
  1. $24.7 million in workyears saved by performing the research in collaboration,

  2. $3.3 million in testing material and machine time savings by sharing test data and equipment, and

  3. $7.5 million in other research cost savings.

• In addition to the above research cost savings from collaborating on the 32 research areas the member companies would otherwise have done independently, the companies obtained these new technical capabilities sooner than they otherwise would have.

• More significantly, from the other 32 research tasks that they would not have done at all without the ATP Research Joint Venture, the member companies obtained a whole set of additional new technical capabilities that they otherwise would not have had.

• At the end of the project, member companies estimated that partial implementation of new processes resulting from about 40 percent of the 62 research areas, that they had undertaken in "spin-off" fashion, was already yielding directly traceable productivity gains in the production of printed wiring boards. Some examples of the production-productivity gains that had been realized by member companies by the end of the project were:
  1. reduced ply count in PWBs without the previous attendant problems--one company reported savings of $3 million or more per year for this advance,

  2. reduced costly scrap loss by the use of a model to predict inner layer shrinkage--one company reported savings of $1.4 million or more per year due to a dramatic cut in scrap due to this advance, and

  3. reduced solder defects--one company reported a 50 percent decrease in solder joint defects, which were numbering more than 1,000 per board, due to this advance.

• The PWB industry as a whole is rapidly obtaining many of the benefits of the new methods and techniques developed by the PWB Research Joint Venture through an active transfer of scientific information about the new production processes to other producers outside the joint venture, as well as to universities, as evidenced by the following:
  1. 214 research papers had been presented by PWB members by the end of the project,

  2. two research papers received Best Paper Awards at conferences,

  3. numerous research papers have been cited in other academic manuscripts, and

  4. independent PWB shops were beginning to invest their own funds to incorporate the new processes developed by the joint venture (a finding based at this time on anecdotal information).

• PWB manufacturers inside and outside of the PWB Research Joint Venture expressed interest in forming additional collaborative research efforts.

• Members of the PWB Research Joint Venture indicated that as a result of the project their companies had become more competitive in certain segments of the world market ­ including the computer sector, the fastest growing segment of the industry. Furthermore, they indicated that the domestic PWB industry as a whole had improved its competitive position in selected world markets as a result of the accomplishments of the project.

• At a recent meeting, the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS) gave its collaborative project excellence award to the ATP-sponsored PWB project, and the NCMS president credited the project with saving the PWB industry in the U.S. with its approximately 200,000 jobs.

• With the passage of additional time, it is anticipated by the member companies that productivity gains from implementation of the 62 research tasks addressed by the PWB Research Joint Venture will grow exponentially as more of the new process technologies are put into practice by the members, and as the new knowledge and techniques are widely disseminated across the PWB industry.

In addition to strengthening the competitiveness of U.S. producers and increasing their share in world markets, aggregate long-term benefits of the PWB Research Joint Venture Project will come through the incorporation of lower-cost and improved printed wiring boards in the myriad of electronics products, which will provide great benefit to consumers.

A. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP)

The goals of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), as stated in its enabling legislation, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-418), ⁽²⁾ and modified by the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-245), are to assist U.S. businesses in creating and applying the generic technology and research results necessary to:

(1) commercialize significant new scientific discoveries and technologies rapidly; and

(2) refine manufacturing technologies.

These goals were also restated in the Federal Register on July 24, 1990:

The ATP . . . will assist U.S. businesses to improve their competitive position and promote U.S. economic growth by accelerating the development of a variety of pre-competitive generic technologies by means of grants and cooperative agreements.

The ATP received its first appropriation in FY 1990. The program funds research, not product development. Most of the joint-venture projects last from three to five years. Nascent commercialization of the technology resulting from the project might overlap the research effort, but the full translation of the technology into products and processes generally takes a number of years. The ATP has an evaluation program to assess project and program impacts. ⁽³⁾ Although full economic impacts of most ATP funded research will not likely be realized for some time, ATP's evaluation plan is to assess both short- and long-term effects.

B. The ATP Award to the Printed Wiring Board Research Joint Venture

In April 1991, ATP announced that one of its initial eleven awards was to a joint venture led by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS). The objective of the project was to research aspects of printed wiring board (PWB) interconnect systems. ⁽⁴⁾ The ATP project description follows:

Printed wiring boards (PWBs) are often overlooked in discussions of microchips and other advanced electronic components, but they form the backbone of virtually every electronic product, providing connections between individual electronic devices. Although to date PWB technology has kept pace with the increased speed and complexity of microelectronics, it is approaching fundamental limits in materials and processes that must be overcome if the U.S. industry is to maintain a competitive position. (The U.S. share of the $25 billion world market dropped from 42 to 29 percent in 3 years.) Four members of the NCMS consortium, AT&T, Texas Instruments, the Digital Equipment Corporation, and Hamilton Standard Interconnect, Inc., will work with the Sandia National Laboratories (U.S. Dept. of Energy) to develop a more consistent epoxy glass material with improved mechanical characteristics for PWBs, improved processes and process-control techniques to produce more reliable solder connections, improved methods and technologies for fine-line imaging on the boards, and a better technical understanding of the chemistry underlying key copper-plating processes. Nine hundred U.S. firms in the PWB industry could benefit.

The project was completed in April 1996. Actual ATP costs (pre-audited) amounted to $12.866 million over the five-year (statutory limit) funding period. Actual industry costs amounted to $13.693 million. During the project the U.S. Department of Energy added an additional $5.2 million. Thus, total project costs were $31.759 million. ⁽⁵⁾

A. Early History of the Industry ⁽⁶⁾

Dr. Paul Eisler, an Austrian scientist, is given credit for developing the first printed wiring board. After World War II, he was working in England on a concept to replace radio tube wiring with something less bulky. What he developed is similar in concept to a single-sided printed wiring board.

A printed wiring board (PWB) or printed circuit board (PCB) is a device that provides electrical interconnections and a surface for mounting electrical components. While the term PWB is more technically correct because the board is not a circuit, the term PCB is more frequently used in the popular literature. ⁽⁷⁾

Based on Eisler's early work, single-sided boards were commercialized during the 1950s and 1960s, primarily in the United States. As the term suggests, a single-sided board has a conductive pattern on only one side. During the 1960s and 1970s, the technology was developed for plating copper on the walls of drilled holes in circuit boards. This advancement allowed manufacturers to produce double-sided boards with top and bottom circuitry interconnections through the holes. From the mid-1970s through the 1980s there was tremendous growth in the industry. In the same period, PWBs became more complex and dense, and multilayered boards were developed and commercialized. Today, about 66 percent of the domestic market is multilayered boards. ⁽⁸⁾

B. Trends in the Competitiveness of the PWB Industry

As shown in Table 1, the United States dominated the world PWB market in the early 1980s. However, Japan steadily gained market share from the United States. By 1985, the U.S. share of the world market was, for the first time, less than that of the rest of the world excluding Japan; and by 1987 Japan's world market share surpassed that of the United States and continued to grow until 1990. By 1994, the U.S. share of the world market was approximately equal to that of Japan, but considerably below the share of the rest of the world, which was nearly as large as the two combined. While there is no single event that explains the decline in U.S. market share, one very important factor, at least according to a member of the PWB Project team, has been "budget cut backs for R&D by OEMs because owners demanded higher short-term profits," which led to deterioration of the industry's technology base. ⁽⁹⁾

In 1991, the Council on Competitiveness issued a report on American technological leadership. ⁽¹⁰⁾ Motivated by evidence that technology has been the driving force for economic growth throughout American history, the report documented that as a result of intense international competition, America's technological leadership had eroded. In the report, U.S. technologies were characterized in one of four ways:

Strong: meaning that U.S. industry is in a leading world position and is not in danger of losing that lead over the next five years.

Competitive: meaning that U.S. industry is leading, but this position is not likely to be sustained over the next five years.

Weak: meaning that U.S. industry is behind or likely to fall behind over the next five years.

Losing Badly or Lost: meaning that U.S. industry is no longer a factor or is unlikely to have a presence in the world market over the next five years.

The 1991 Council on Competitiveness report characterized the U.S. PWB industry as "Losing Badly or Lost." However, in 1994, the Council updated its report and upgraded its assessment of the domestic industry to "Weak" due in large part to renewed R&D efforts by the industry. ⁽¹¹⁾

__________

Note: Percentages are rounded; they are based on the value of sales.
Source: IPC (1995a, 1995b) as referenced in the 1995 National Technology Roadmap for Electronic Interconnections.

C. Current State of the PWB Industry

Table 2 shows the value of U.S. PWB production from 1980 through 1994. While losing ground in relative terms in the world market, the PWB industry grew in absolute terms over these 15 years. In 1994, production in the domestic market was $6.43 billion, nearly 2.5 times the 1980 level, without adjusting for inflation; in real dollars, that equates to 1.5 times the 1980 level.

There are two types of PWBs that account for the value of U.S. production shown in Table 2: rigid and flexible. Rigid PWBs are reinforced. For most panels, this reinforcement is woven glass. Rigid PWBs can be as thin as 2 millimeters (mils) or as thick as 500 mils. Generally, rigid boards are used in subassemblies that contain heavy components. Flexible PWBs do not have any woven glass reinforcement. This allows them to be flexible. These boards are normally made from thin film materials around 1 to 2 mils thick, typically from polyimide. As shown in Table 3, rigid boards account for the lion's share of the U.S. PWB market. In 1994, nearly 93 percent of the value of U.S. PWB production was attributable to rigid boards. Of that, approximately 66 percent was multilayer boards. ⁽¹²⁾

As shown in Table 4, Japan dominated the flexible PWB world market in 1994; but North America, the United States in particular, about equaled Japan in the rigid PWB market.

There are eight distinct market segments for PWBs: ⁽¹³⁾

Automotive: engine and drive performance, convenience and safety, entertainment, and other applications for diagnostic display and security.

Business/Retail: copy machines, word processors, cash registers, POS terminals, teaching

machines, business calculators, gas pumps, and taxi meters.

Communications: mobile radio, touch tone, portable communication, pagers, data transmissions, microwave relay, telecommunications and telephone switching equipment, and navigation instruments.

Consumer Electronics: watches, clocks, portable calculators, musical instruments, electronic games, large appliances, microwave ovens, pinball/arcade games, TV/home entertainment, video records, smoke, and intrusion detection systems.

Computer: mainframe computers, mini-computers, broad level processors, add-on memories, input devices, output devices, terminals, and printers.

Government and Military/Aerospace: radar, guidance and control systems, communication and navigation, electronic welfare, ground support instrumentation, sonar ordinance, missiles, and satellite related systems.

Industrial Electronics: machine and process control, production test measurement material handling, machining equipment, pollution, energy and safety equipment, numerical control power controllers, sensors, and weighing equipment.

Instrumentation: test and measurement equipment, medical instruments, and medical testers, analytical nuclear, lasers, scientific instruments, and implant devices.

As shown in Table 5, the computer sector absorbs the greatest proportion of U.S.-produced rigid and flexible PWBs. Comparing rigid and flexible board usage, the communications sector uses a higher proportion of rigid boards and a lower proportion of flexible boards, while the military uses a higher proportion of flexible boards relative to its use of rigid boards.

PWB producers are divided into two general groups: manufacturers that produce PWBs for their own end-product use and manufacturers that produce boards for sale to others. Those in the first group are referred to as original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or captives, and those in the second group are referred to as independents or merchants. As shown in Table 6, independents accounted for an increasing share of all PWBs in the United States. ⁽¹⁴⁾ Their share of the total domestic market for rigid and flexible PWBs increased from 40 percent in 1979 to 83 percent in 1994. For rigid PWBs, independents accounted for 93 percent of the market in 1994. ⁽¹⁵⁾

Table 7 shows PWB sales for 1990 and 1995 of the ten major OEMs in 1990. IBM's sales decreased during this period, but it sold its military division during the period. AT&T's sales increased, but in 1996 the PWB producing division of AT&T became Lucent Technologies. Lucent Technologies is now an independent producer. Digital's PWB segment became independent Amp-Akso in 1995, so 1995 sales for Digital are noted as na, or not applicable. Amp-Akso, as an independent producer, had sales in 1995 of $105 million. Hewlett-Packard and Unisys were no longer in the industry in 1995 and hence their 1995 sales are noted as $0. During this period, the major OEMs experienced the continuing market effects associated with their strategic decision to cut back or eliminate R&D in PWBs.

In comparison to the information in Table 7 on OEMs, Table 8 shows that the major independents' sales have generally increased. As a whole, their sales increased at a double-digit annual rate of growth over the time period 1990 to 1995. The major independent shops do not conduct R&D, but they continued to enjoy increasing sales of their technologically simpler PWBs.

Independent manufacturers of PWBs, for the most part, are relatively small producers, as shown in Table 9. ⁽¹⁶⁾ In both 1991 and in 1994, the vast majority of independent producers had less than $5 million in sales. The number of small independents appears to be declining sharply. Whereas 33 companies had sales greater than $20 million in 1991 (with 16 of those having sales greater than $40 million), 50 companies had sales above $20 million in 1994 (with 18 of those having sales over $50 million and 5 of the 18 having sales over $100 million). On the other hand, the number of companies with less than $5 million in sales fell to about 600 in 1991, around 450 in 1994, and the declining trend is continuing.

Table 2

__________

Source: IPC (1992, 1995a).

__________

Source: IPC (1992, 1995a) and Business Communications Company (1994).

__________

Source: IPC (1995b).

__________

Source: IPC (1995b).

__________

Source: IPC (1992) and Flatt (1992).

Table 7

__________

Note: na denotes not applicable. Digital's PWB producing group became independent Amp-Akso in 1995. Amp-Akso PWB sales in 1995 were $105 million.
Source: Flatt (1992) and personal correspondence with Kirk-Miller Associates.

__________

Note: na denotes not applicable. In 1995, these companies were either no longer in the market or no longer among the top ten producers.
Source: Flatt (1992) and Miller (1995).

__________

Source: IPC (1992, 1995a).

A. Roles and Relationships among Members of the Joint Venture

Although Digital Equipment (DEC) was one of the companies involved in the original NCMS proposal to ATP, it participated in the project for only 18 months. Its decision to withdraw was, according to NCMS, due strictly to financial conditions at the corporation at that time. DEC's financial condition did not improve-- ultimately leading to the closing and sale of its PWB facilities.

Three companies joined the joint venture to assume DECs research responsibilities: AlliedSignal in 1993, and Hughes Electronics and IBM in 1994. Also, Sandia National Laboratories became involved in the joint venture during 1992, as anticipated when NCMS submitted its proposal to ATP for funding. Sandia subsequently obtained an additional $5.2 million from the Department of Energy to support the research effort of the joint venture. These membership changes are summarized in Table 10.

The PWB research joint venture can be described in economic terminology as a horizontal collaborative research arrangement. Economic theory and empirical studies suggest that research efficiencies will be realized when horizontally related companies form a joint venture, due to the reduction of duplicative research and the sharing of research results. ⁽¹⁷⁾ This conclusion is supported in the case study here, as evidenced by the quantitative estimates of cost savings reported by the members, and by the specific case examples cited in support of the cost-savings estimates.

Characteristics of the joint venture member companies are summarized in Table 11. AT&T, Hughes, IBM, and Texas Instruments were four of the leading domestic captive producers of PWBs when the project began; they were also members of NCMS, the joint venture administrator. Although in the same broadly-defined industry (i.e., they are horizontally related), two of these companies, AT&T and IBM, were not direct competitors in PWBs because their PWBs were produced for internal use in different applications. AT&T produced PWBs primarily for telecommunications applications while IBM's application areas ranged from laptop to mainframe computers. Although Hughes and Texas Instruments produced for different niche markets, they did compete with each other in some Department of Defense areas. Hamilton Standard, no longer a producer, purchases boards to use in its production of engines and flight control electronics. AT&T and Texas Instruments are not involved in these latter two product areas. In contrast to all of the other companies, AlliedSignal is a major supplier of materials (e.g., glass cloth, laminates, resins, copper foil) to the PWB industry. In addition, it is a small-scale captive producer of multilayered PWBs.

__________

Note: Funding under the ATP award to the PWB research joint venture commenced in April 1991. The ATP funding period ended in April 1996.

B. Organizational Structure of the Joint Venture

A Steering Committee, with a senior technical representative from each of the participating organizations worked collectively to direct and control the four research teams to ensure that each was meeting the technical goals of the project. NCMS provided the program management, coordination, facilitation, and interface with ATP for the PWB project. NCMS coordinated and scheduled activities and provided the interface between the administrative functions of accounting, contracts, and legal functions related to intellectual property agreements.

Table 11

__________

Note: n.p. denotes not a producer of PWBs.

The joint venture was organized to "mimic a company with a chain of command," according to one member of the Steering Committee. According to this member:

If it was not organized this way then no one would be accountable. Most of the people had this project built into their performance review. If they failed on the project then they failed at work. The structure also allowed ease of reporting. The information flowed up to the team leader as the focal point for information distribution. The team leader would then report to the Steering Committee of senior managers who were paying the bills.

The joint venture's research activities were divided into four components:

• Materials
  
• Surface Finishes
  
• Imaging
  
• Product (research; not product development)

Prior to proposing to ATP's 1990 General Competition, the members of the research joint venture conducted a systems analysis of the PWB manufacturing process and concluded that fundamental generic technology development was needed in these four components of the PWB business.

Each component consisted of a combination of research areas which:

• provided significant improvements to existing processes

• explored new technology to develop break-through advances in process capabilities.

A multi-company team of researchers was assigned to each of the four research components. The four research teams were involved in 62 separate tasks.

Each team had specific research goals as noted in the following team descriptions.

Materials Team: The majority of PWBs used today is made of epoxy glass combinations. The goal of the Materials Team was to develop a more consistent epoxy glass material with improved properties. The team was also to develop non-reinforced materials that exceeded the performance of epoxy materials at lower costs. Better performance included improved mechanical, thermal, and electronic properties (e.g., higher frequency) to meet improved electrical performance standards.

Surface Finishes Team: Soldering defects that occur during assembly require repair. The goal of the Surface Finishes Team was to develop test methods to use during fabrication to determine the effectiveness of various materials used during the soldering process and to develop alternative surface finishes. These test methods can be applied during fabrication to ensure the PWB meets assembly quality requirements.

Imaging Team: The goal of the Imaging Team was to investigate and extend the limits of the imaging process to improve conductor yield, resolution, and dimensional uniformity.

"Product" Team: Originally, this team was known as the chemical processing team. Its goal was to investigate the feasibility of additive copper plating and adhesion of copper to polymer layers. Based on input from the industry which revealed that this was not the best research path to take, its focus changed as did its name. The revised goal of the Product Team, after studying roadmaps and specification predictions, was to develop high density interconnect structures. (The "Product" Team, like the other teams, carried out research.)

Given the generic research agenda of the joint venture at the beginning of the project, the organizational structure seemed conceptually appropriate for the successful completion of all research activities. At the close of the project, this continued to be the opinion of the members. As a member of the Steering Committee noted:

There is better synergy when a management team directs the research rather than one company taking the lead. Members of the Steering Committee vote on membership changes, capital expenditures, licensing issues, patent disclosures and the like. As a result of this type of involvement, there are high-level champions in all member companies rather than in only one.

C. Technical Accomplishments ⁽¹⁸⁾

NCMS released a summary statement of the technical progress of the joint venture at the conclusion of the project. The PWB Research Joint Venture Project accomplished all of the originally proposed research goals and the project exceeded the original expectations of the members. Based on the NCMS summary and extensive telephone interviews with each team leader, the following major technical accomplishments at the end of the project have been identified. ⁽¹⁹⁾ The accomplishments are also summarized in Table 12.

Materials Team: The major technical accomplishments of the Materials Team were the following:

(1) Developed single-ply laminates that have resulted in cost savings to industry and in a change to military specifications that will now allow single-ply laminates. ⁽²⁰⁾

(2) Developed a new, dimensionally stable thin film material that has superior properties to any other material used in the industry. This outcome has resulted in a spin-off NCMS project to continue the development of this material with the goal of commercialization by 1998.

(3) Identified multiple failure sources for "measling". ⁽²¹⁾ The findings revealed that PWBs were being rejected, but that the real source for the board's failure was not being correctly identified as a problem with the adhesion of resin to the glass.

(4) Completed an industry survey that led to the development of a Quality Function Deployment (QFD) model (discussed below). The model defines the specifications of the PWB technology which are considered most important to customers.

(5) Completed an evaluation (and compiled a database) of over 100 high performance laminates and other selected materials that offer significant potential for improving dimensional stability and plated through-hole (PTH) reliability. Revolutionary materials exhibiting unique properties, and potentially eliminating the need for reinforced constructions, have been identified.

(6) Developed a predictive mathematical model that allows the user to predict dimensional stability movement of various construction alternatives. ⁽²²⁾

(7) Developed the finite element analysis model (FEM), with the Product Team, that predicts PTH reliability.

(8) Developed a low profile copper foil adhesion on laminate process such that military specifications could be revised to allow for lower adhesion of copper. ⁽²³⁾

(9) Developed a plasma monitoring tool. ⁽²⁴⁾

(10) Filed a patent disclosure for a Block Co-polymer replacement for brown/black/red oxide treatments for inner layer adhesion. This substitute will facilitate lower copper profiles and thinner materials.

Surface Finishes Team: The major technical accomplishments of the Surface Finishes Team were the following:

(1) Improved test methods that determine the effectiveness of various materials during the soldering process, producing the conclusion that one surface finish (imidazole) is applicable to multiple soldering applications.

(2) Commercialized the imidazole surface finish through licensing the technology to Lea Ronal Chemical Company.

(3) Conducted a survey of assembly shops to determine parameters that manufacturers monitor in order to make reliable solder interconnections.

(4) Evaluated numerous other surface finish alternatives, and presented the data at the spring 1995 IPC Expo in San Jose; the paper won the Best Paper Award at the conference.

(5) Filed three patent disclosures: A Solderability Test Using Capillary Flow, Solderability Enhancement of Copper through Chemical Etching, and A Chemical Coating on Copper Substrates with Solder Mask Applications.

(6) Facilitated the adoption of test vehicles developed by the team for development use, thus saving duplication of effort. ⁽²⁵⁾

Imaging Team: The major technical accomplishments of the Imaging Team were the following:

(1) Developed and successfully demonstrated the process required to obtain greater than 98 percent yields for 3 mil line and space features. (At project start, the industry benchmark was 30 percent yield.) The team also obtained over 50 percent yield for 2 mil line and space features. (At project start, the industry benchmark yield was below 10 percent.)

(2) Developed and put into use test equipment and data processing software to evaluate fine-line conductor patterns for defect density, resolution limits, and dimensional uniformity. ⁽²⁶⁾

(3) Applied for a patent on conductor analysis technology and licensed the technology to a start-up company-- Conductor Analysis Technologies, Inc. (CAT), in Albuquerque, NM. CAT now sells this evaluation service to the PWB industry. According to NCMS, it is highly unlikely that a private sector firm would have developed this technology outside of the joint venture. Thus, commercializing this technology through CAT, Inc. has benefited the entire industry. ⁽²⁷⁾

(4) Evaluated new photoresist materials and processing equipment from industry providers, and designed new test patterns for the quantitative evaluation of resists and associated imaging processes.

(5) Developed and proved feasibility of a new photolithography tool named Magnified Image Projection Printing; this tool has the potential to provide a non-contact method of printing very fine features at high yields and thus has generated enough interest to form a spin-off non-ATP funded NCMS project to develop a full scale alpha tool. No results are yet available.

Product Team: The major technical accomplishments of the Product Team were the following:

(1) Developed a revolutionary new interconnect structure called Multilayer Organic Interconnect Technology (MOIT), described as the next generation Surface Laminar Circuit (SLC) technology; and demonstrated the feasibility of MOIT on 1,000 input/output Ball Grid Array packages and test vehicles using mixed technologies, including flip-chip. ⁽²⁸⁾

(2) Completed an industry survey related to subtractive chemical processes, additive processes, and adhesion. The results of the survey showed that there was not industry interest in the research area; as a consequence, a different research path was taken (with ATP's approval). ⁽²⁹⁾

(3) Identified chemical properties to enhance understanding of the adhesion of copper to base material, and magnetic-ion plating of metal conductive layers; also developed plated through-hole models and software that are highly efficient and cost effective to run.

(4) Developed evolutionary test vehicles that simulate Personal Computer Micro Interface Card Adapter (PCMICA) and computer workstation products. These test vehicles have been used to pull the development of new materials, surface finishes, and imaging technology by other teams.

(5) Performed several small hole drilling studies and minimum plating requirement studies for PTHs.

(6) Delivered a paper on the finite element analysis model (FEM), developed with the Materials Team, which won the Best Paper Award at the fall 1994 IPC meetings in Boston.