Need to Save PCB Design Time?

Transcription

1 Need to Save PCB Design Time? Winning in Electronics by Managing Printed August 2011 Michelle Boucher, Colin Kelly-Rand

2 Page 2 Executive Summary While all industries struggle with time-to-market pressures, this pressure is even more intense in the electronics industry. The speed at which technologies evolve and competitors either introduce new products that outdate others, or fast followers undercut profit margins, means the window for capturing market share for optimal revenue opportunities continues to decrease. Engineers need to be able to efficiently collaborate across the Printed Circuit Board (PCB) development team as well as other engineering disciplines. The complexity of PCB data combined with the rapid pace of changes means there is a lot of risk that data will become out of synch which will result in manufacturing delays and excess cost that ultimately means being late to market. This report offers guidance to help companies better manage their PCB design data so that they can improve engineering efficiency while maintaining data integrity to meet cost and quality targets. Research Benchmark Aberdeen s Research Benchmarks provide an in-depth and comprehensive look into process, procedure, methodologies, and technologies with best practice identification and actionable recommendations Best-in-Class Performance Aberdeen used the following four key performance criteria to distinguish Best-in-Class companies with top performers achieving the following results: 22% decrease in PCB development time over the last two years 90% of products released on time 90% of cost targets met 89% of quality targets met at design release Competitive Maturity Assessment When compared to all other competitors, firms enjoying Best-in-Class performance shared several common characteristics to manage PCB data including: 94% more likely to promote greater reuse of PCB data 73% more likely to streamline access to relevant PCB data 76% more likely to improve collaboration with third parties Required Actions In addition to the specific recommendations in Chapter Three of this report, to achieve Best-in-Class performance, companies must: Perform a design for manufacturability validation during layout Implement version control for each data element on the PCB Control access to PCB data based on user role This document is the result of primary research performed by Aberdeen Group. Aberdeen Group's methodologies provide for objective fact-based research and represent the best analysis available at the time of publication. Unless otherwise noted, the entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by Aberdeen Group, Inc. and may not be reproduced, distributed, archived, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent by Aberdeen Group, Inc.

3 Page 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary...2 Best-in-Class Performance...2 Competitive Maturity Assessment...2 Required Actions...2 Chapter One: Benchmarking the Best-in-Class...4 The Business Need for Better PCB Data Management...4 The Maturity Class Framework...9 The Best-in-Class PACE Model...10 Best-in-Class Strategies...10 Chapter Two: Benchmarking Requirements for Success...14 Competitive Assessment...14 Capabilities and Enablers...16 Chapter Three: Required Actions...20 Laggard Steps to Success...20 Industry Average Steps to Success...20 Best-in-Class Steps to Success...20 Appendix A: Research Methodology...22 Appendix B: Related Aberdeen Research...24 Figures Figure 1: PCB Design Data Considered Critical IP...4 Figure 2: Top Pressures Driving Improvements to PCB Data Management...5 Figure 3: Top Challenges of Managing PCB Design Data...6 Figure 4: Top Challenges of Handing PCB Data to Manufacturing...8 Figure 5: Top Strategies for Managing PCB Design Data...10 Figure 6: Top Strategies to Support Collaboration with PCB Design Data..11 Figure 7: Where the Source of Innovation Is Coming From...12 Figure 8: How PCB Design Data Is Integrated with the Rest of the Product...13 Figure 9: Best-in-Class Capabilities to Manage CAD Knowledge...16 Figure 10: Best-in-Class Technologies to Support PCB Data Management..18 Figure 11: Enterprise Systems to Manage PCB Design Data...18 Tables Table 1: Top Performers Earn Best-in-Class Status...9 Table 2: The Best-in-Class PACE Framework...10 Table 3: The Competitive Framework...15 Table 4: PCB Data that PLM Is Less Suited to Manage...19 Table 5: The PACE Framework Key...23 Table 6: The Competitive Framework Key...23 Table 7: The Relationship Between PACE and the Competitive Framework...23

4 Page 4 Chapter One: Benchmarking the Best-in-Class Research from Aberdeen's February 2010 report, Why Printed Circuit Board Design Matters to the Executive: How PCBs Are a Strategic Asset for Cost Reduction and Faster Time-to-Market, found that the top challenge of Printed Circuit Board (PCB) design is increasing product complexity. With this complexity comes the need to manage a lot of complex data. In addition, this complex data is very dynamic as concurrent design processes mean the data is constantly changing as the design evolves and different people work on it. How do the unique considerations of PCB design data such as constraints, components, and libraries impact the data management process? What challenges must be addressed to streamline access to the right PCB design data at the right time? Are there opportunities to further improve the data management process for PCB design? To answer these questions, Aberdeen studied the experiences of 133 companies in April and May 2011 through a survey and interviews. The Business Need for Better PCB Data Management Before we can start talking about better data management for PCB design, we first need to understand which data types should be considered. To define this, survey respondents were asked what PCB design data is considered critical intellectual property (Figure 1). Figure 1: PCB Design Data Considered Critical IP Percentage of Respondents, n= % 75% 50% 25% 0% 92% 72% 62% 33% Design data Libraries Constraints Work in process All Respondents While the PCB may be considered just one part in the overall product, Figure 1 shows that there are actually a variety of different data types that are involved with the development of that one part. Since they are seen as critical Intellectual Property (IP), each must be managed. It is not too surprising that design data consisting of items such as schematics and layouts is considered to be critical IP. However, perhaps less obvious data types include libraries containing items such as symbols, footprints, models, and reuse blocks. Also, performance and manufacturing constraints should be

5 Page 5 included. Even work in process is considered to be important to a third of survey responses and considering the extremely fast pace at which PCB designs evolve and are released, this makes sense. Work in process includes the latest changes and who made them, visibility into the latest version of each data type, and an "audit trail" to provide traceability to ensure the multiple data types remain in synch. Clearly, managing PCB design data is rather involved and traceability is needed for each data type. To understand the business pressure driving companies to improve how PCB design data is managed, survey respondents were asked to pick the top two external pressures impacting them the most. Time is clearly the top pressure (Figure 2). Figure 2: Top Pressures Driving Improvements to PCB Data Management Limited time to develop PCBs Collaboration across engineering disciplines 32% 55% It's very tedious to manually keep schematic, layout, and FPGA signals in sync during the early design phases. The plan to solve this issue is to investigate more modern, integrated tools, which offer robust version control with visual comparison of differences between versions and automatic detection of signals being out of sync. There is lots of wasted effort checking and re-checking entire schematics for very complex designs. ~Product Development Staff, Aerospace and Defense Contractor Manufacturing delays due to PCB design data inconsistencies Need for better predictability of design cost & progress Rising manufacturing cost due to PCB design data inconsistencies 21% 19% 19% All Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% Percentage of Respondents, n=133 Time is often the top pressure on product development and that pressure is even more extreme in the electronics industry. The fast pace of market change means that products that are late to market have a shorter window for revenue opportunities before a competitor comes out with a newer version. This can reduce demand for the late product and drive down prices. Not only does this hurt profitability, but it may not even allow enough time to recoup development costs. To address this, the development process must be as efficient as possible, which includes streamlining access to PCB design data. Given the time pressures, there is no time to waste working on the wrong version of a file. As a result, the many different engineers working on the PCB including radio frequency, analog, and digital engineers, need methods to efficiently collaborate on the design. In addition, effective collaboration means the collective expertise of the development team is utilized which results in a more efficient process. The need to facilitate this collaboration is further driving the need for better data management of the PCB data.

6 Page 6 Ineffective processes for managing PCB data results in data inconstancies. This results in releasing incorrect or inconsistent information to manufacturing which causes errors that lead to delays and higher costs. The impact of both hurts profitability. Finally the need to have better visibility into the design progress is driving better data management practices for PCB data. Better visibility leads to improved predictability which makes it possible to make adjustments as needed to meet the significant time-to-market pressures. What Issues Must Be Addressed to Improve Data Management for PCB Design Data? Clearly there are significant business pressures driving improvements to the management of PCB data. However, improving this process requires an understanding of what makes it difficult in the first place. To understand this, survey respondents were asked to pick the top three challenges of managing PCB design data. The top five are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Top Challenges of Managing PCB Design Data "We had a problem when we sent multiple versions of a substrate to manufacturing for manufacturability review. Manufacturing assigned different version numbering than engineering. Due to a tight internal schedule they proceeded to work-inprogress." However, engineering was unable to determine which design had been approved for build until images of the substrate were provided. This inability to make a decision to go-ahead put the project on hold, adding time to an already tight schedule. ~ Engineering Staff, Taiwanese DRAM Manufacturer Integrating PCB design data with existing data management tools 45% Complexity of PCB data 44% Exchanging data with different sites, 3rd parties, and partners 42% Managing multiple Engineering Change Orders (ECOs) 33% Getting the right data to the right people at the right time 32% All Respondents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentage of Respondents, n=133 The PCB is generally one of many parts that goes into a product. The enclosure for the PCB as well as other mechanical parts are developed using tools tailored for mechanical design. Given that all the parts will go into one final product, it makes sense to store everything in one central location. However, nearly half of survey respondents report integrating PCB data with existing data management tools such as Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Product Data Management (PDM), and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) as a top challenge. Clearly there is a need to better integrate the management of PCB data with existing solutions. Part of the reason why this integration is so difficult is because of the complexity of the PCB data. All of the different data types described in Figure 1 must be managed. In addition, the complex relationships and

7 Page 7 dependencies between data types such as the schematic, layout, and BOM must remain in synch. If they go out of synch, inconsistent information is released to manufacturing which, as we saw in the pressures, drives up cost and adds delays that can not be tolerated. Case Study A Communication Equipment Supplier At a global communications technology company, the complexity of the different data types that goes into its products makes data management a challenge. To address this complexity, PLM is used to manage both the MCAD and ECAD data. This works extremely well to track both design revisions and the BOM, says a PCB Designer at the company. It creates a very nice snapshot of the product that is an excellent reference. Like most companies, an efficient change management process is critical. PLM does a great job helping us identify which files have changed, which is very useful, comments the PCB Designer. However, we need a better way to manage PCB work in process. The pace of change is so fast that we may be working on one set of changes and then a second set comes in. This can get confusing and can lead to potential errors or the wrong version of the design gets implemented. The ability to make better decisions about whether to implement a change is also important. To support opportunities to boost profitability, we need the flexibility to swap out components for a lower cost alterative. Often suggestions come from manufacturing or internal sourcing, after the design has been complete, comments the PCB Designer. To take advantage of these suggestions we need the ability to quickly determine the impact of that proposed change on criteria such as performance and footprint as well as the board layout and schematic. Currently, the expert knowledge of engineers is critical to making sure the process works, but having access to the lower level details of the PCB design data at the fingertips would streamline the process, making it easier to take cost out while still meeting tight schedules. Considering the extremely fast pace in which devices evolve, managing all of the integration is extremely challenging. In fact, survey respondents report spending 26% of their time just correcting data integrity issues, precious time that could be spent on value added development work. The remaining challenges are related to effective collaboration which creates an even greater need to keep data in synch. The multiple engineering disciplines involved require good collaboration, but to further complicate this, the engineering team is often spread across multiple locations or may even work for different companies. The extremely fast pace of changes means that while one change is worked on, another set of changes is likely to come in. The speed at which they come in, combined with the number of different file types impacted and the complexity of the PCB design data, makes the change management process uniquely complex. All engineers on the distributed team must be notified of changes that "Better tools that define the process for interfacing and handing PCB data back and forth with design service bureaus would really help us. We could use tools that improve these processes: Schematic to PCB Layout process Library sharing/control process Process for handing layout data back and forth Process for review with service bureau A defined process would help avoid errors such as out of sync databases, libraries changed without knowledge, and poor communication of design changes/corrections." ~Tim Brennan, Northrop Grumman

8 Page 8 impact them and have access to the right data in a timely manner as there is no time to waste working on outdated data. This challenge is so significant, survey respondents report spending 31% of their time searching for PCB related information. This includes time spent providing others with information, preparing for design reviews, and searching for the latest data to implement design changes. The result is less time to spend on innovating. Why Is the Hand-off to Manufacturing Creating Pressure for Improvement? Survey respondents report that on average, Engineering Change Orders (ECOs) cost $1,984 to implement during development. However, once that design has been released to manufacturing, the cost skyrockets 5.4 times to $10,625. Given this, it makes sense why the impact of data integrity issues on manufacturing is a top pressure. To better understand why this is so difficult to address, survey respondents were asked to pick the top two challenges of handing off PCB design data to manufacturing (Figure 4). Not too surprising, the top challenge is about time. Given that the top pressure on development teams is shortened development schedules, they do not have a lot of time left at the end of the development cycle to verify for manufacturability. The different formats from each design tool as well as the number of files that must be sent make it difficult to bundle everything for manufacturing. Then, what is sent may not even be right since it is so easy for data to become out of synch. Finally, manufacturers require different formats which further adds to the complexity of the process. "A formal data management solution for PCB data would be very valuable. Currently our PCB data resides in folders writeable by virtually anyone in the company. We have had instances where work has been overwritten because two designers had been working on the same files. These problems delayed time-to-market by several days." ~Dave Elder, PCB Design Manager, Tait Radio Communications Figure 4: Top Challenges of Handing PCB Data to Manufacturing Time required to verify manufacturability 59% Different processes and formats for each design tool 35% Incomplete/inconsistent/incorrect data sent to manufacturing 33% Managing the volume of files sent manufacturing 28% Different configurations & formats required for each manufacturer 24% All Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% Percentage of Respondents, n=133

9 Page 9 The Maturity Class Framework To understand successful approaches for managing PCB design data and the business impact it has on companies, Aberdeen benchmarked the performance of study participants and categorized them as either Best-in- Class (top 20% of performers), Industry Average (mid 50%), or Laggard (bottom 30%). The top pressure creating a need for better management of PCB design data is time. Good collaboration results in greater efficiency and will further reduce time. Data quality issues also have an impact on time and driving up costs. Indications of success with managing PCB design data will be those companies that are addressing these pressures. Consequently, four key performance measures that indicate success with this were used to distinguish the Best-in-Class from Industry Average and Laggard organizations. The performance of each of these tiers is displayed in Table 1. These metrics show success with keeping development schedules on time, reducing development time, and meeting both cost and quality targets. Table 1: Top Performers Earn Best-in-Class Status Definition of Maturity Class Best-in-Class: Top 20% of aggregate performance scorers Industry Average: Middle 50% of aggregate performance scorers Laggard: Bottom 30% of aggregate performance scorers Mean Class Performance 22% decrease in PCB development time over the last 2 years 90% of products released on time 90% of cost targets met 89% of quality targets met at design release 1% decrease in PCB development time over the last 2 years 74% of products released on time 75% of cost targets met 80% of quality targets met at design release 9% increase in PCB development time over the last 2 years 54% of products released on time 56% of cost targets met 67% of quality targets met at design release The Best-in-Class are able to support collaboration across the development team, leading to greater efficiency and allowing them to decrease development time by 22% while their competitors have only seen minor improvements or increases in development time. Their methods lead to greater consistency which results in greater predictability, allowing them to meet scheduled launch dates. This has also allowed them to do a better job of avoiding data integrity issues that hurt quality and drive up costs.

10 Page 10 The Best-in-Class PACE Model Successful management of PCB design data requires a combination of strategic actions, organizational capabilities, and enabling technologies that are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: The Best-in-Class PACE Framework Pressures Actions Capabilities Enablers Limited time to develop PCBs Streamline access to relevant PCB data Improve communication / collaboration across the PCB development team Best-in-Class Strategies Constraints are edited in design context 'What if' scenarios optimize designs Data access is controlled based on role Schematics, PCB layout, and BOM are synchronized Each data element on the PCB is under version control Errors due to data integrity issues tracked Given the performance advantages enjoyed by the Best-in-Class, they are clearly doing a better job of addressing the challenges of managing PCB design data to improve overall efficiency. Figure 5 shows the top strategies implemented by the Best-in-Class to manage PCB design data. Figure 5: Top Strategies for Managing PCB Design Data Centralized library management Component management DFM validation during layout Work in process version control Constraint management Centralized PCB simulation results Enable better synchronization between schematics and layout 63% 73% Streamline access to relevant PCB data Eliminate errors due to data integrity issues Promote greater reuse of PCB data 18% 30% 31% 35% 52% 50% Best-in-Class All Others "We needed to improve the use of a common set of parts, so we created a library of common resistors, capacitors, inductors for re-use." ~~ Product Development Staff, Aerospace and Defense Contractor 0% 25% 50% 75% Percentage of Respondents, n=133 To address the pressures of increasing manufacturing costs and delays due to data quality issues, the Best-in-Class are seeking to eliminate errors due to data integrity issues as well as enable better synchronization between the schematic and layout. Given the impact of data integrity issues on both cost

11 Page 11 and schedule delays, it makes sense that this would be a top strategy for the Best-in-Class. However, it is not an easy strategy to execute successfully. In fact, 23% of all survey respondents report that they are currently planning to implement this strategy and another 25% indicate they are trying, but it is just not working well. Clearly there is a lot of room for improvement to make this process easier. Further looking to address time-to-market pressures, the Best-in-Class are 73% more likely than their peers to streamline access to relevant PCB data and 94% more likely to promote greater reuse of PCB data. These strategies improve efficiency by reducing the time needed to search for information as well as taking advantage of existing work. However, again, these are strategies that make sense, but are easier said than done. Twentyfour percent (24%) of all survey respondents indicate that they are currently in the process of trying to streamline access to relevant PCB data and 27% indicate they have tried and it is not working well. Clearly most recognize the value of design reuse and the time it saves as a whopping 42% of all survey respondents report that they are currently planning to promote greater reuse of PCB design data yet 22% have been trying and still are finding they can not get it to work well. Given the significant time-to-market pressures on the electronics industry, better methods for streamlining access to PCB design data as well as making it easier to reuse are needed. Given that the need for collaboration is a top pressure and several of the top challenges manifest themselves as a result of the need for better collaboration, survey respondents were also asked about their top strategies to support collaboration. Figure 6 shows the top strategies of Best-in-Class companies. Figure 6: Top Strategies to Support Collaboration with PCB Design Data Improve communication / collaboration across the PCB development team 39% 50% Provide better access control over data 39% 48% Improve collaboration across engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical, software) 31% 43% Improve communication / collaboration with 3 rd parties 17% 30% Best-in-Class All Others 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentage of Respondents, n=133

12 Page 12 The Best-in-Class are looking for ways to not only improve collaboration across the PCB development team, but also across other engineering disciplines as well, including mechanical and software engineers. This creates a need to share work in process data within the PCB development team, but then also ensures the relevant data is available to engineering disciplines outside of the PCB team. Given that each engineering discipline has its own design tools, unique approaches are needed to make sure the right information gets to the right person at the right time. The Best-in-Class further this by making sure there is control over who has access to what and what they can do with it. This also becomes critical when collaborating with third parties, another action the Best-in-Class are taking. Aberdeen Insights Strategy Aberdeen's December 2009 Product Innovation Executive Strategy Guide, found that innovation is critical to growing and protecting market share. An interesting trend is where companies are focusing their efforts to add innovation to their products. Aberdeen's November 2010 Using Product Analytics to Keep Engineering on Schedule and on Budget report found that Best-in-Class discrete manufacturers are 30% more likely than competitors to use electronics and embedded software to bring innovation to their products (Figure 7). Figure 7: Where the Source of Innovation Is Coming From Mechanical Components (includes materials used) 40% 54% "The component library provided in our vendor s product did not address all of our requirements, resulting in inconsistent schematic symbols and package outlines. To solve this problem we implemented a MS Access database with a component librarian to assure accuracy and consistency. This effort reduced footprint errors, and reduced engineering time spent developing symbols and footprints." ~Mike Perkins, Electrical Engineering Manager, L-3 Communications Embedded Software and Electronics 46% 60% Best-in-Class All Others 0% 20% 40% 60% Percentage of Respondents Source: Aberdeen Group, November 2010 Clearly with electronics being a major source of innovation, and consequently, revenue growth for company, PCB development is a critical part of the future success of a company. The increasing importance of the PCB means new methods must be deployed to manage the critical IP associated with it. With this management comes the need to integrate with the rest of the product. continued

13 Page 13 Aberdeen Insights Strategy Figure 8 shows the top ways PCB design data is integrated with other design data such as MCAD and software. Unlike the Best-in-Class, the lesser performing competitors are more likely to manually integrate design data from other engineering disciplines. The Best-in-Class are 73% more likely than competitors to integrate PCB data with an internally developed solution and 27% more likely to integrate with PLM. However, 31% are also doing a manual integration. This means the Best-in-Class are taking several different approaches without a definitive one that works best, although manual integration is probably the least desirable. The key point is that the data should eventually be integrated and it is an important step to executing a strategy for better collaboration across engineering disciplines. Figure 8: How PCB Design Data Is Integrated with the Rest of the Product Integrated with a customized, company developed solution 22% 38% "We design PCBAs for integration into DC motors. Conflicts can occur between the component layout of the board and components of the mechanical design. In one case, we had to re-design due to the heat impact of the mechanical parts on electronic components. In another, we had to re-design because the stack-up of the two teams did not match up and mechanical parts came into contact with electronic components. Each case cost us significant delays and tooling and other development costs." ~Ryan Gaul, W.E.T Automotive Systems Manually integrated 33% 61% Integrated with PLM 26% 33% Integrated with ERP 17% 15% No integration done 4% 12% Best-in-Class All Others 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percentage of Respondents, n=133 In the next chapter, we will see what the top performers are doing to achieve their success.

14 Page 14 Chapter Two: Benchmarking Requirements for Success Chapter One demonstrated the pressures driving companies to better manage PCB design data and the challenges associated with it. Chapter Two explores the capabilities and enabling technologies the Best-in-Class use to address the pressures and challenges and execute their strategies, allowing them to enjoy a competitive advantage. Case Study An Automotive Supplier For one electronics supplier both meeting customer needs and improving product development efficiency is paramount. To support this, they are currently using PLM to manage the data, but are looking to expand upon that to make the PCB development process more efficient. To achieve this, they are adding a front-end electronics tailored suite of applications built especially for electronics workflow management. The diverse set of the products requires the company to create many different product variations using the same set of components. To meet the demands of short development cycles, design reuse is critical so they look to select existing components from the PCB library. Currently, searching for these components is a very manual process. To save time, they are in the process of implementing a vendor supplied PCB data management solution. They need the ability parametrically search for components and reusable blocks so, for example, they could enter in a range of capacitance and have the software system identify what capacitors meet that requirement. This more dynamic approach to component selection could save on costs and time, comments management at the company. Ideally, they would like to have this integrated through the PLM system so that all required design data could be accessed seamlessly from one application Another capability that would really help us would be a better file sync, something like a sandbox ability, says the management at the company. This would allow engineers to have more flexibility to iterate very quickly, which will result in greater innovation in less time. Such a solution would require the data management software to manage multiple copies of a design, acknowledge all the changes that were made by different engineers, and maintain version control over all the copies. Fast Facts Compared to all competitors, the Best-in-Class are: 94% more likely to promote greater reuse of PCB data 73% more likely to streamline access to relevant PCB data 76% more likely to improve collaboration with third parties Competitive Assessment Aberdeen Group analyzed the aggregated metrics of surveyed companies to determine whether their performance ranked as Best-in-Class, Industry Average, or Laggard. In addition to having common performance levels, each class also shared characteristics in five key categories: (1) process (the approaches they take to manage PCB data); (2) organization (who data is exposed to); (3) knowledge management (how the knowledge in the

15 Page 15 PCB data is managed); (4) performance management (the ability of the organization to measure its results to improve its PCB data management practices); and (5) technology (the appropriate tools used to support PCB data management). These characteristics (identified in Table 3) serve as a guideline for best practices, and correlate directly with Best-in-Class performance across the key metrics. Table 3: The Competitive Framework Process Organization Knowledge Performance Technology Best-in-Class Average Laggards Constraints are edited in their design context 77% 60% 53% 'What if' scenarios are conducted to optimize design 48% 30% 9% Access to data is controlled based on user role 78% 63% 45% Schematics and PCB layout are synchronized 96% 79% 77% Schematics and BOM are synchronized 78% 64% 47% There is version control for each data element on the PCB 61% 48% 24% Errors due to data integrity issues are tracked 52% 45% 30% Technologies currently in use: 91% Centralized library management 83% Component management 70% DFM validation during layout 52% Work in process version control 48% Constraint management 43% Centralized PCB simulation results 71% Centralized library management 67% Component management 46% DFM validation during layout 46% Work in process version control 36% Constraint management 30% Centralized PCB simulation results 60% Centralized library management 52% Component management 26% DFM validation during layout 32% Work in process version control 27% Constraint management 16% Centralized PCB simulation results

16 Page 16 Capabilities and Enablers Based on the strategies deployed to support PCB data management, the findings of the Competitive Framework and interviews with end users, Aberdeen s analysis of the Best-in-Class reveals where companies must focus to improve their ability to manage PCB design data. Processes, organizational responsibility, knowledge management, performance management, and technology all play a role in supporting this. Process The Best-in-Class are 28% more likely than the Industry Average to have the ability to edit constraints in their design context. This helps to manage the design complexity by enabling constraints to drive the design work flow. In addition, it makes it a lot easier to visualize the impact of the constraint which helps to reduce errors. The Best-in-Class are 60% more likely than the Industry Average to conduct what-if scenarios. This allows them to more fully understand the impact of their design decisions to arrive at a more optimal design that simultaneously meets quality and cost targets while still releasing designs on time. Organization Good collaboration is critical to working efficiently and shortening development time. To support collaboration within the PCB development team, across engineering disciplines, and with third parties, the Best-in-Class are 24% more likely than the Industry Average to control access to PCB design data based on role. This means there is control over who can view it, as well as who can edit it and when. Knowledge Management Managing the knowledge contained within the PCB design data is the key to Best-in-Class success. These capabilities are shown in Figure 9. "Multiple variants of parts can confuse a central library user. PLD pin naming between various designs should be manageable, especially for heterogeneous parts. Managing various designs, and design revisions, needs improvement such as multiple datasheets for the same component and easy to use and implement obsolescence management." ~Robert Turzo, Senior Hardware Designer, DRS Technologies Figure 9: Best-in-Class Capabilities to Manage CAD Knowledge Percentage of Respondents, n= % 96% 78% 78% 75% 58% 61% 50% 40% 25% 0% Schematics and PCB layout are Schematics and BOM are synchronized There is version control for each data element synchronized Best-in-Class All Others on the PCB

17 Page 17 The significant time pressures on the PCB development team means time is too valuable to waste on fixing data integrity issues. However, the complexity of the data as well as the speed at which changes come in means there is a lot of opportunity for data to quickly become out of synch. To address this, the Best -in-class are 27% more likely than their competitors to put each data element on the PCB under version control. They also ensure the schematics, layouts, and BOM are synchronized. Performance Management In order to ensure processes are continuously improved, the Best-in-Class are 16% more likely than the Industry Average to track errors due to data integrity issues. When errors occur, this allows them to understand what happened to avoid repeating the problem in the future. In addition, by tracking these problems, they identify if their corrective actions are having a positive impact. Technology The Best-in-Class use a variety of tools to support the management of PCB design data (Figure 10). Key to their success is the many data elements they manage and make centrally available. The data elements include libraries, components, constraints, and simulation results. This supports their strategy to promote greater reuse and saves time because central management means time isn't wasted searching for information. In addition, the Best-in- Class are 26% more likely than their competitors to put work in process under version control. This helps them address the speed at which changes come in and ensures the development team continues to work with the latest version of the data. The Best-in-Class are also 56% more likely than their competitors to use front and back annotations. Front annotations send changes to the schematic to the corresponding layout. Back annotations do the reverse and send changes from the layout to the schematic. This ensures the schematic and layout remain synchronized, reducing the chance for data integrity errors. Finally, the Best-in-Class are 79% more likely than competitors to do a Design for Manufacturability (DFM) validation during the layout. This helps them catch potential problems during the design process when it is less expensive to address them. This process helps the Best-in-Class avoid problems that cause delays during production which helps them meet product launch dates. We have problems managing the data itself. Specially, we have trouble with data linked to PCB. For example we need to have easy issue/revision tools for associated data describing some constraints for the PCB. Good revision tracking tools would really help to provide a good history of decisions taken to implement one specific constraint instead of another. ~Julio Dilisa, Business Analyst CAD/CAM, Thales Alenia Space

18 Page 18 Figure 10: Best-in-Class Technologies to Support PCB Data Management Centralized library management Component management 67% 62% 91% 83% Front and back annotations DFM validation during the layout process Work in process version control Constraint management Centralized PCB simulation results 50% 39% 52% 41% 48% 33% 43% 25% 78% 70% Best-in-Class All Others "Design data is located in multiple places in the company and is hard to find by engineers. Engineers spend time finding the appropriate design data. ~ Product Development Staff, Leading Semiconductor Manufacturer 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percentage of Respondents, n=133 Aberdeen Insights Technology Figure 10 lists many of the different data elements that should be managed to successfully support PCB development. There are several different solutions to managing PCB design data. Figure 11 shows the most differentiated approaches taken by the Best-in-Class. Figure 11: Enterprise Systems to Manage PCB Design Data Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) 30% 50% Internal company developed solution 36% 46% Product Data Management (PDM) 36% 42% Best-in-Classs All Others 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentage of Respondents, n=133 continued

19 Page 19 Aberdeen Insights Technology The Best-in-Class are 67% more likely than their competitors to use PLM to manage PCB data which clearly means there is a lot of value in using PLM to manage the entire system. However, some data types are less suited to be managed by PLM and work better as an integration into PLM. Table 4 lists the top five data types that respondents report they either do not use PLM to manage or find that PLM is not well suited to manage it. Table 4: PCB Data that PLM Is Less Suited to Manage PCB Data All Respondents PCB simulation models 65% Front / back annotations 63% PCB constraints 57% PCB design variants 50% PCB component placement 47%

20 Page 20 Chapter Three: Required Actions Whether a company is trying to move its performance to manage PCB design data from Laggard to Industry Average, or Industry Average to Bestin-Class, the following actions will help spur the necessary performance improvements: Laggard Steps to Success Implement version control for each data element on the PCB. The Best-in-Class are 2.5 times more likely than Laggards to have this capability. This helps to make sure engineers are working with the latest version of each data type. Control access to PCB data, based on role. The Best-in-Class are 73% more likely than Laggards to do this. This ensures data integrity as changes are only made when appropriate and by the right people. Perform a design for manufacturability validation during layout. The Best-in-Class are 2.7 times more likely than Laggards to do this. It helps them catch problems and avoid delays during production. Fast Facts 70% of the Best-in-Class perform a design for manufacturability validation during layout; 2.7 times more likely than Laggards and 52% more likely than the Industry Average 61% of Best-in-Class implement version control for each data element on the PCB; 2.5 times more than Laggards 78% of the Best-in-Class control access to data based on user role; 73% more likely than Laggards Industry Average Steps to Success Take advantage of front and back annotations. Front annotations send changes to the schematic to the corresponding layout. Back annotations do the reverse and send changes from the layout to the schematic. The Best-in-Class are 56% more likely leverage this as it helps to keep data synchronized, thus improving data integrity and reducing the chance for errors. Validate Design for Manufacturing (DFM) during PCB layout. The Best-in-Class are 52% more likely than the Industry Average to perform DFM validations during layout so that they can catch errors that would increase costs and cause production delays. Conduct 'what-if' scenarios to optimize designs. The Best-in- Class are 60% more likely to do this and it allows them to make more informed decisions enabling them to balance conflicting design criteria to keep costs down, quality up, and meet development deadlines. Best-in-Class Steps to Success Place work in process under version control. Fifty-two percent of the Best-in-Class are already doing this, but another 26% plan to implement it. Placing work in process under version control helps to manage the fast pace of changes. As a result, it is easier to

21 Page 21 determine the latest version of the files to address the rapid changes coming in. Provide automatic notifications to others about changes that impact them. Thirty-five percent (35%) of the Best-in-Class plan to implement this capability. This helps to better manage changes so that engineers know when the data they are working on needs to be updated to reflect the latest changes. Consequently, they do not waste time working on outdated files. Implement the ability to trace the impact of an Engineering Change Order (ECO) to individual elements of the PCB design data. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the Best-in- Class are planning to implement this capability. This provides yet one more mechanism to understand the impact of an ECO to make better decisions about whether to implement it and to ensure all the affected elements are updated so that data does not become inconsistent. Aberdeen Insights Summary To support better collaboration across the PCB development team as well as across other engineering disciplines, companies must improve the way they manage PCB data. The complexity of PCB data combined with the rapid pace of change means there are many opportunities for data to become out of synch. However, not catching these errors means inconsistent or incomplete data is released to manufacturing which drives up costs and causes delays. In the electronics industry, time-to-market pressures are so great, there is no time to waste. In addition, shortened development schedules mean engineers do not have time to waste searching for information or correcting data integrity issues. To address this situation, the Best-in-Class are taking steps to streamline access to data as well as keep it synchronized. They are also recognizing each data element of the PCB (including even work in process) is valuable IP that must be managed. As a result of their actions, the Best-in-Class are able to reduce development time. In addition, they are able to release products on time, while meeting cost and quality targets.

22 Page 22 Appendix A: Research Methodology Between April and May 2011, Aberdeen examined the use, the experiences, and the intentions of more than 133 enterprises to understand how they manage PCB design data. Aberdeen supplemented this online survey effort with interviews with select survey respondents, gathering additional information on strategies, experiences, and results managing PCB design data. Responding enterprises included the following: Job title: The research sample included respondents with the following job titles: Executive level manager (5%); VP/Director (5%); Manager (23%); Engineers (48%); and other (19%). Industry: The research sample included respondents from a wide cross section of industries. The sectors that saw the largest representation in the sample were: aerospace and defense (27%), telecommunications (22%), industrial products and equipment (19%), consumer electronics (19%), computer equipment and peripherals (17%), and automotive (12%). Geography: The majority of respondents (53%) were from North America. Remaining respondents were from Europe (24%), the Asia / Pacific region (21%), and from the rest of the world (2%). Company size: Forty-seven percent (47%) of respondents were from large enterprises (annual revenues above US $1 billion); 38% were from midsize enterprises (annual revenues between $50 million and $1 billion); and 15% of respondents were from small businesses (annual revenues of $50 million or less). Headcount: Twelve percent (12%) of respondents were from small enterprises (headcount between 1 and 99 employees); 23% were from midsize enterprises (headcount between 100 and 999 employees); and 65% of respondents were from large businesses (headcount greater than 1,000 employees). Study Focus Respondents completed an online survey that included questions designed to determine the following: What is driving companies to improve how they manage PCB data The challenges of managing PCB data The actions these companies are taking to manage PCB data The capabilities and technology enablers they have in place to manage PCB data The study identifies emerging best practices to manage PCB design data and to provide a framework by which readers could assess their own capabilities.

23 Page 23 Table 5: The PACE Framework Key Overview Aberdeen applies a methodology to benchmark research that evaluates the business pressures, actions, capabilities, and enablers (PACE) that indicate corporate behavior in specific business processes. These terms are defined as follows: Pressures external forces that impact an organization s market position, competitiveness, or business operations (e.g., economic, political and regulatory, technology, changing customer preferences, competitive) Actions the strategic approaches that an organization takes in response to industry pressures (e.g., align the corporate business model to leverage industry opportunities, such as product / service strategy, target markets, financial strategy, go-to-market, and sales strategy) Capabilities the business process competencies required to execute corporate strategy (e.g., skilled people, brand, market positioning, viable products / services, ecosystem partners, financing) Enablers the key functionality of technology solutions required to support the organization s enabling business practices (e.g., development platform, applications, network connectivity, user interface, training and support, partner interfaces, data cleansing, and management) Table 6: The Competitive Framework Key Overview The Aberdeen Competitive Framework defines enterprises as falling into one of the following three levels of practices and performance: Best-in-Class (20%) Practices that are the best currently being employed and are significantly superior to the Industry Average, and result in the top industry performance. Industry Average (50%) Practices that represent the average or norm, and result in average industry performance. Laggards (30%) Practices that are significantly behind the average of the industry, and result in below average performance. In the following categories: Process What is the scope of process standardization? What is the efficiency and effectiveness of this process? Organization How is your company currently organized to manage and optimize this particular process? Knowledge What visibility do you have into key data and intelligence required to manage this process? Technology What level of automation have you used to support this process? How is this automation integrated and aligned? Performance What do you measure? How frequently? What s your actual performance? Table 7: The Relationship Between PACE and the Competitive Framework PACE and the Competitive Framework How They Interact Aberdeen research indicates that companies that identify the most influential pressures and take the most transformational and effective actions are most likely to achieve superior performance. The level of competitive performance that a company achieves is strongly determined by the PACE choices that they make and how well they execute those decisions.