In Part 2 of this Blog series I will cover my inspiration for this design project as well as the initial project creation. I am going to leverage a multimedia Blog format to make this a little more entertaining.

This blog has three videos, use the navigation bar on the left to view all three.

Stay tuned for Part 3 where I will create the system level block diagram and use that to drive top down design refinement.

Just a short note to welcome a new member of the IESD Product Marketing Team, Phil Davies. Phil joins us from the Honda Formula 1 motor racing team where he was their Electronic Design Manager and has over 15 years of experience in the application of electronics and electrical systems. His experience includes a wide range of tools, including the use and deployment of CATIA V5 & Enovia, Siemens NX & TeamCenter, SAP, and VeSys. I’m certain with his expertise he is going to be able to make a significant contribution to our efforts in the coming years.

Phil’s initial product focus will be on the Enterprise tools (MCAD/PLM integrations & extensibility) but with his experience deploying enterprise level software in the real-world, I’m looking forward to working with him in many other areas. Perhaps importantly (as someone with VeSys Classic experience) he has been subjected during his first week to a barrage of usability tests. It was good to see him trip over some of the things mentioned in my earlier postings, and that's given us a chance to review the changes we are proposing with him. Useful feedback.

On a lighter note, at a COMDEX conference Bill Gates is reported to have said (you can read the full text here)

So now we have a Formula One engineer who has spent the last 15 years trying to get a car around a track as quickly as possible contributing to the design of our software... I would welcome suggestions of the impact that might have.... but perhaps if F1 engineers designed software... It would run incredibly quickly, but you would need to replace most of the libraries each time you used it. I'm sure you could do better!

We knew it was going to be a challenge… but when we laid out the objectives for VeSys 2.0, one of the key VeSys Classic traits we wanted to capture was the ease-of-use. Although there would be some things we just wouldn’t be able to address in the very first release, we worked hard to nail some of the basics:

1.      The tool can be installed easily on a single machine in one go (no more AutoCAD install!)

2.      All the services are automatically set-up for the user, they just click and go! Really, they shouldn't need to know they exist at all.

3.      We provided a rich set of starter symbols and library parts all with simulation models attached and a project showing how they could be used

4.      There’s a test drive AVI supplied that takes a user through a front-to-back-nothing-to-completed-harness-design process

5.      Although we had added the power of users, we’d made it easy to create & edit them

All of this, we thought, would mean that you could download an evaluation copy and be happily experimenting with the tool in minutes, not hours. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting (is that a UK only phrase?), so we carefully watched beta-users… when we spotted them struggling we made changes. In short, we did everything you were supposed to do. We were very successful, the first wave of new users were up and running in minutes.

Can you feel the but coming?

We did get a lot right, but what’s to come really shows the a few misplaced assumptions can have a disproportionate impact on usability. What I’m going to do is go through 4 of the 5 things above (the Test Drive has been very well received, people just want more of them!) and illustrate what we got wrong (and what we are going to do about it).

The Easy Install

Lesson Learned: Sometimes it’s better to just give up

There is a technical issue that we found with the installer pertaining to Windows permissions and over-active security software, but that’s not the really interesting bit… There’s no way around it, if the user doesn’t have permission to install software, or to write to certain directory then they don’t and there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s not even that we crashed or just bombed out. The installer dutifully slogged on doing what it could. There’s the mistake… We should have just given up and told the user they didn’t have the right permissions. In this case, nothing is better than something (that didn't completely work).

Automatic Service Set-up

Lesson Learned: Too much information

You’ve run the installer, you are asked to reboot, you do. You log back in and go to the programs menu and the VeSys group… now… all of the services VeSys needs to run are up and running silently in the background just as they should. However, as we know some users don’t or can’t run services we have the capability to manually start and stop the services. We put the icons to do this (Start and Stop VeSys Manager) in the program group. Users are smart, they see the Start VeSys Manager icon and they think “I should run that before running VeSys”. They get an error saying it couldn’t start. Well it couldn’t. So the user thinks the install hasn’t worked, time to pick up the phone or send an e-mail to the sales guy or CSD.

What we should have done is leave those applications for the system admins to use, and not make them as visible to users. Everything was fine, and if the only icon they had had was “VeSys” they would have clicked that all would have been well.

Getting Started with Starter Data

Lesson Learned: The First Step is the Hardest

VeSys Classic, and perhaps more importantly AutoCAD, is a file based application. When you start it up you get a blank sheet. When you click save, it just has to ask you way to save the file. As long as you can see how to add a device and a wire, you are pretty much good to start exploring.

VeSys 2.0 opens up with an empty screen. What had become obvious to our beta testers; that you needed to click New Project, create a new design (more on that later) and then get going… turned out not to be obvious to those who hadn't just watched Nuri (the Product Manager for VeSys and the CHS Interactive Flow). All those users see is an empty screen. Then, if they do figure out they need to create new project (easy enough, one click and give it a name) they still have a blank sheet. We had left the New Design button in a context menu. Again, we and our beta testers had become blind to this. New users… got stuck. There are two perspectives on this… one is that you are only three mouse clicks and a couple of keystrokes away from getting stuck in… the other is that unless you know how to find the button.. it might as well be impossible.

Easy User Management

Lesson Learned: Even easier than do something… is doing nothing

I mentioned above that AutoCAD and VeSys Classic just drop you into a blank sheet. Off you go. Before the application even starts up, we ask for a user name and password.

That’s fine, in fact it’s a real benefits of the tool, controlling which users have permissions to do which things (see Correct by Constriction). Except that if you are evaluating the software what you really want to do is just click on the application and get stuck in, rather than being challenged to prove you are worthy to connect. Again, the system admins may want to get things set-up, but evaluators or a one-man design consultancy just would rather we didn’t ask.

So what are we going to do about it?

In the end, none of these problems have not been solved over a quick conversation, and in-fact early tool users didn't see them as important enough to report to us, it took over a month before I happened to be in a meeting where a user half mentioned the problems. However, we really don't believe that these kinds of issues match our design brief, so we are going to fix them. Sadly they came a little too late to make it into the first Service Pack, but we are going to resolve them immediately afterwards (some of the work is already done). I'll make sure I keep you the readers up to date on exactly when and how we will be delivering the changes, but we are not going to sit on them for a minute longer than we need to.

Control is a good thing. It helps us as designers improve quality, to ensure that mistakes aren't made that impact your customers. CHS is designed with control (and therefore constraint) in mind. From tagging wires with valid option expressions to selecting valid names for components (selecting, not entering, from a list of pre-defined names) to full physical wire synthesis untouched by human hands and guaranteed to implement the signals in a device or system led design perfectly for every configuration of every vehicle, different levels of control are available to our users. I think we all know this, however, when a software tool we are using tells us that we can't do something, gives a list to choose from rather than a free text field, or just does it automatically... it can be hard to believe that the software is making our lives better.

In general we design CHS to allow configuration of which controls are in place. You can restrict what individual users, or groups of users, can or can't do. You can restrict what operations anyone can perform on designs at a particular release status. Of course, you can just not set any of that up and let every user do everything at every stage. I'm sure we all agree that's probably not a good thing for all but the smallest of organizations.

However, with control (and therefore correct by construction, you just can't make the mistake; you're not allowed to or the task is completed automatically) there are however some perceived costs, and in general it's the engineer, the individual working on the wiring/harness/system design that feels them most directly:

• Flexibility: There are always times where (especially in this industry driven by change) there's a quick way to do it, and the absolutely right way of doing it. As problem solving creatures, we like to find the quickest route to solving the problem. However, we should question the benefit if in our haste we introduce a new problem...
• Control: Automating a manual task is not always seen as liberating, but sometimes a sense of lack of control can be introduced; how do I know it's right? Of course the reality is that software is much better at the repetitive tasks we are most likely to make mistakes whilst completing.
• Creativity: We all believe that design is about more than just clicking the mouse-button, that there is a genuine creative process. Automation or constraints can make us feel that the opportunity for creativity is removed. Although the perception is understandable, I suspect the reality is the opposite. Because we are not having to worry about if we typed a name correctly, or got the option expression for one out of the millions possible build-able vehicle  configurations, we can get on with finding innovative solutions to new problems
• Configuration: Setting up constraints, getting the right data in can be seen as another overhead. Again, this is typically just perception. Once the data is there, it's re-used countless times. More importantly, it can normally be easily imported from other tools in use around an organization (especially tempting if the data is constantly changing... web-services anyone?)

The response to a computer doing something for you that you used to do, or telling you you are not allowed to do what you want to do is sometimes an uncomfortable one. We all feel that our minds, our technical ingenuity adds some very real value to the work we are performing, and it does. However, when you look at the impact of mistakes, it's perhaps important to look at the true cost of total freedom. We can't just consider the direct costs either, there's an impact on the brand as well which can be much harder to measure (and indeed to overcome). Here are a few interesting bits of data about recalls (it should be noted that these are in general automotive in general rather than specifically electronic or electrical). Let's start with an estimated impact on customer loyalty.

These figures are quite old now (2000, it's surprisingly hard to find publicly accessable data one can link to in a blog), but it causes you to stop and think about whether or not the internet may have made the impact greater, as the speed of information trends ever upwards. The numbers aren't small either: US Auto Recall Statistics: 1993-2004

So the impact is real, and software like CHS and VeSys have a real contribution to make to solving the problem. I believe that instead of there being a cost of loss of flexibility or creativity that correct by construction methodologies actually have a benefit for engineers. The safety net that software and automation provide allows them to be more creative and responsive, safe in the knowledge that the software is not going to allow them to make a potentially costly mistake.

What do you think? Where do you think the right balances between constraints and freedom can be struck?

A Moment of Reflection

We released VeSys 2.0 at the end of March, and when it came to preparing for our regular operations review I took the opportunity to ask Nuri (the Product Manager for VeSys) to put together a couple of slides describing the first 30 days of its life. There is a lot to be proud of but as I have a habit of saying to my team, it's the negatives that tell you what you need to do to be better.

First Things First

Our original goal was not for the first release to be instantly adopted by existing VeSys users (a loyal bunch, who quite rightly really like the product), we knew that to get all of the tweaks and tuning, as well as the migration tools required, would take a little longer to get into VeSys 2.0. So VeSys 2.0 was targeted at new users, but we made sure that it was very easy for VeSys Classic customers to get their hands on the new version and start giving us that all important feedback.

They have not disappointed! However, before we get to that I wanted to tell you a story about Apple (please, no groans from those that know me... it's relevant I promise!).

This Blog is not Sponsored by Apple but…

Apple have a product called iLife, you get it free when you buy a new Mac but you do have to buy upgrades that are released after you've bought your Mac. One of the key parts of the Suite is a tool called iMovie. It's a wonderful tool that allows Prosumers (highly skilled amateurs) to put together amazing family videos, and I've even used it for putting together the occasional product video. In 2008 Apple released a new version. In the words of Steve Jobs “completely replacing one of the key apps with something that takes it to a whole new level”. Although for new users (and given those users are probably new to Apple computers and OS X, and therefore in “Learning Mode”) there were no great shakes, what they saw probably made sense. For existing users the story was very different, and they expressed significant frustration and anger. What had Apple done? Well firstly, some of the features users were used to were gone. However more importantly, they had completely dropped the normal video editing convention of having an infinitely long timeline, for a new paradigm. For those of us who were long standing iMovie users, there were lots of things that didn’t make sense. Some of the changes didn’t even seem justifiable. Why would they do it this way for no tangible benefit?

Of course, the initial reaction softened over time, as we all learned the new interface. However, there were still missing features (no migration tools, old projects could be brought in as raw footage, but were no longer editable), together with a horde of smaller features that we had grown to depend on. Apple did listen, and a few weeks after the initial release, made the old iMovie available for download for those that had upgraded the overall suite, but wanted to stick with the old movie editor.

Roll forward to the next release of iLife… and iMovie takes center stage. The missing features were largely back in, all of the important ones anyway, but much more importantly for those of us who had been using the “Classic” version it was a real “I get it now” moment. The presentation wasn’t made by Steve himself, but instead by the engineer who had proposed the re-write, who had had The Big Idea. He took the stage and took the time to show that Apple had listened about the missing features, and they were there, but then when it to show how the new editing paradigm had been evolved… he demonstrated what had been his vision. Tasks that were previously not supported in the original version, were there. Things that had been hard, or very manual, were there and the re-write had enabled them to take the software in directions they simply could not have gone in before. I don’t use iMovie Classic anymore.

Change is Good

I’m sure you see where I have been going with this. Whilst our revolution is not in the editing paradigm, it is in the fundamental architecture of VeSys, and where we can take it in the future. It’s not that we couldn’t have done some of the things we will release in new versions without the replacement of VeSys, but they would have been dramatically harder to achieve. In fact out of the box VeSys 2.0 has drawn in customers that had previously rejected VeSys because of things that would have taken much longer than the entire development time of VeSys 2.0 to deliver.

For existing users for whom the benefit of VeSys 2.0 is not yet sufficient or obvious, you still have VeSys Classic. However, right now we are busily working on the migration tools, adding things that Classic did that 2.0 doesn’t (and trying to do them just that little bit better), and some other more immediate actions in order to respond to some of that negative feedback we received in the first 30 days.

I’m going to address some of that feedback in some subsequent blogs (I’ve gone on long enough today), and talk about the progress and timing of the migration tools (I don’t share Steve’s love of secrecy!), but for now… Thank you very much for all the feedback, we are listening, we are making changes in response, and please use this community to tell us what you think we need to know.

I've now had this blogging capability enabled for me since December of 2008, and this is only my second post (the first has been eaten by the community upgrade in February, but I suspect that's probably for the best). I recently noticed one of my colleagues blogging about CHS over on the main Mentor web-site (http://blogs.mentor.com/paul_johnston/) and realized that I had really not engaged properly here. Of course, reading other people's blogs is a humbling experience, but I will do my best to provide commentary on our industry, products, and perhaps a little technology in general.

Perhaps we should start with a little about my role at Mentor Graphics? I have the rather numbing title of Product Marketing but before you stop reading... my team is charged with technical marketing. What does that mean? Essentially every enhancement request submitted goes past one of the members of my team, who may contact you to ask questions about it, and they take those in order combine them with other enhancement requests if it's not unique or perhaps related to another. Of course, in a few cases we may reject an enhancement request (we might already support what the user wants to do, or it's simply out of scope for the tool), but not before we've understood perhaps the most important question... why you are asking for the enhancement. We might just have an even better solution for you. We then work with customers and the engineering teams to develop the use-cases or requirements documents before handing them over to engineering (perhaps not immediately) to be implemented. Once that's happened we manage beta-tests, early access for Mentor's own staff, and producing various presentations/AVIs and the like to help customers quickly get to grips with the new functionality. If you've watched the Test Drive that's shipped with CHS 2008.2 and VeSys 2.0 you'll get the general idea (that particular one was the work of Vincent Pinto, and he's set the bar very high for the next set). As with everything there are a hundred other little things we do from training our own staff, to visiting customer sites before and after sales doing demos and the like.

One of the things Paul did in his first post was to lay out some of the topics he would be discussing, so I thought I would do the same seeing as that I would not have sat down to start this without some idea of the topics I wanted to cover:

1) Many of our customers are working in the automotive industry, and as the old Chinese curse goes (I have no idea if this is really an old Chinese curse, but if it isn't it should be, it's very clever)... "may you live in interesting times". Well, it's certainly "interesting" right now. Of course with big changes can also mean big opportunities, and whilst we may or may not have hit the bottom of the curve it certainly feels time to start looking forward. Of course things are also interesting in the Aerospace market, although there are many many differences (scale of the data generated, rates of change, I could and will go on), there is also much that both can learn from each other.

2) VeSys 2.0 is a brand new version of VeSys (a very well loved tool for those of you who have been focused on CHS). We are now a couple of months into the first release of the software, and we have some lessons learned I would like to share and perhaps explain a little about the whats and whys behind developing the product as well as the next steps for us

3) CHS is another exciting product line (much larger in scope than VeSys or its predecessors TransCable & LCable) and much of this community is filled with (and it's hard to believe it's grown this quickly in just over 6 months) discussions and documents talking about it. There are a couple of threads I'd like to draw out of the community and comment on a little more, as well as keeping you all up to date with news about the tool.

4) Technology in general... I am, for want of a better word, a geek. A nerd. What's been interesting over the last 10 years is that being a geeky nerd has turned out to be a pretty good thing to be, and I'm very proud to be one. My desire to play with the very latest bleeding edge tech positions me (and hopefully as a result my employer!) well to exploit new technologies as they come along. Before I make any comments, I should perhaps think about a little disclosure. I am a Mac user. I have an iPhone. That does not mean I hate Microsoft (there are some products I'm not in love with, but the same is true for Apple), and I have been happily using the Windows 7 Public Beta (it's a real step in the right direction, and there are things in it that I immediately missed back on the Mac)... That said, you may find the occasional mac-ish comment/sentiment posted here.

5) User Interface & Design... if I let myself I could really get lost in this area, I love seeing and using good design (not just software, or phones) and the very creative process behind it. Of course for most readers it's what you do all day every day. Perhaps sadly, if you've done your job well the end user isn't even aware of the fact you've done your job well. It just works.

6) This community is a topic all of its own. We've put a lot of effort into making this a useful resource for VeSys & CHS customers, and it's probably worth exploring why we did, whether or not we are getting it right, as well as what we might do differently or better in the future.

That's it for now (feels like there should be 10), please do pop over to Paul's blog, it's very good and I hope you'll enjoy this one. Regardless, there's a comment button just below, tell me what you want to hear and I'll respond or try and find someone you can. For now let me leave you with one of my favorite quotes:

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de St. Exupery, Wind, Sand and Stars, 1939

That's it, the end of the second first blog. I feel committed now.

Sinse I got into the PCB design tool writing business back in 1967 (hard to believe I'm still alive) with IBM, there has been a focus on creating better schematic, place, route and manufacturing data generation capabilities.  And we as EDA vendors still have to continue to improve what we supply to our users for the design of the PCB:  Keep up with the latest PCB fabrication technologies.  Handle increasing FPGA and IC complexities (speeds, pin counts and densities, interconnect methods).  Improve productivity for the layout and schematic entry processes.  Provide easy to use and accurate analysis tools such as power and signal integrity, thermal, and EMI.  Provide infrastructure for library and data management.  ..........

But is this enough?  I claim the answer is no.   There is much more to the development of an electronic product than just the PCB.  There is the enclosure that will contain the PCB(s) that we design.  There are government regulations that the product must meet.   There are decisions we make that can effect (positive or negative) the cost of the product, the ability to quickly reach volume production (yields), the ability for manufacturing to produce enough of the product (component availability) to meet your companies market goals, will the pcb fit in the enclosure and will we be able to manage the heat dissipation,...

So EDA vendors need to "extend out of the box" of just supplying good PCB design solutions.  We need to provide capabilities that enable the PCB designer to interact with all of the other disciplines in the product development process and bi-directionally negotiate on decisions that can effect the other domains.  For example, if the mechanical desinger decides that the shape of the enclosure must change and it now interferes with the PCB or the PCB's components.  This change proposal should not be the sole decision of the Mechanicl designer but electronically negotiated with the designers of the effected PCBs.

Or if the PCB designer decides to change a component, that change proposal should be communicated to procurement, manufacuring, test,.... to insure that we have not adversely effected the ability to deliver the product in the right volumes at the right cost.

At Mentor I believe we understand the need to deliver these capabilites that fall outside the of the core PCB design process.  Thus our strategy of delivering some of the new Collaboration functionality we have seen over the past year and will contiue to see.

Dear all,

As of April 1, 2009, Fujitsu Siemens Computers is trading under the name Fujitsu Technology Solutions. We will be operating under the Fujitsu brand as we are now a full member of the Fujitsu Group, one of the leading IT corporations in the world.

Our company will remain an independent entity within the Fujitsu Group with a focus on Europe, Middle East and Africa, plus India, and will continue its business under the name Fujitsu Technology Solutions.

We are glad that Fujitsu sees our company as the catalyst for their global business. Fujitsu Technology Solutions will continue to focus on Dynamic Infrastructures. Our company will drive the global R&D for the storage and for the PRIMERGY Intel Architecture server products and solutions. To enforce this plan, Fujitsu commits to investing into Research & Development capacities in Europe and build on our expertise to drive the global business in both areas. We look forward to benefiting from these opportunities together with you, our partners.

You can find more information at http://www.fujitsu.com/global/news/notices/n20090331-01.html.

Mentor just announced 2 products in significantly different areas of design  but with a very similar characterisitc.  We announced our HyperLynx Power Integrity product in January and just last week announced our FloEFD product.

HyperLynx PI enables designers to perform AC and DC analysis on very complex power distribution networks required in today's PCBs to deliver sufficient clean power to the ICs.  FloEFD enables designers to perform thermal analysis on complete electronic products (PCBs, their enclosures, fans, heatsinks, ....).  Notice I used the word "designers" and not the phrase "company guru".   Both of these products are targeted and designed to be used within the design process by mere mortal designers not just that one person in your company who knows how to run an extremely complex piece of software.  The products are tightly integrated with the rest of the design process (in the case of FloEFD we coined the phrase "CAD-Embedded") and design data transparently extracted for your design.  The models and setup use wizards, etc. to guide you through the process.  The underlying algorithms do the analysis work and present you with results in easy to digest form.

Why is this important?  What has changed?

The basic reason is that the entire design process and interdependencies between different aspects of the design are getting closer and closer.  You can't efford to throw a design over the wall and wait for some person to apply their unique expertise for a couple of weeks and then come back with some suggested changes.  The layout of a PCB is so inter-dependent to power and signal integrity you must now have the tools to make the design decisions, real-time.  The heat management of  a product is very dependent on the design of the PCB (ICs used, placements, copper on layers, heatsinks,...) and the design of the enclosure.  

So the trend is to get these sophisticated tools to the point where the complex algorithms, setup, modeling and results are accurate, yet easy-to-use, easy-to-learn, and useable by us mere mortals.   All driven by the consistent business goals of our companies:   Get the most competitive product delivered, at the lowest development cost, to the market, on time!

Hi all

I would like to hear from anyone that is involved in the creation of stencil data from both a design perspective and also from the manufacturing perspective.

The Stencil is a metal plate that is used to screen solder paste on to a PCB at the start of the assembly process.

A standard stencil has a uniform thickness across it. A Step Stencil has variations in thickness across the stencil that allow for adjustments in the paste volume for specific areas of the board.

Thanks

Mark

I have been using Office 2007 for a little over a year now and as a contributor to the user interface design in Expedition PCB, I am wondering if the Ribbon Menu style that was implemented in Microsoft Office 2007 should be considered for our products.  Here is what it looks like in Word.

For those of you not familiar with this style, the "normal" File, Edit, View, Tools, Window, Help pull-down menus are replaced by menus that provide a ribbon of icons as opposed to the list of menu items.  My experience is as follows:

• The appearance is nice - it looks pretty.
• The height of the ribbon is significant and it obscures quite a bit of graphics area for edits.  On a notebook, especially a small notebook, the remaining editing area is quite small.
• It is difficult to memorize the locations of the less used functions.  The ribbon menus have been completely reorganized.  For example, if you want to edit your header, you would think it would be under the "Page Layout" ribbon; however, it is in the "Insert" ribbon.
• When hunting for certain functions, it is not uncommon to simply not find what is desired. After looking through every ribbon, I will then go to the obscure "Options" dialog that is hidden under the "Office" button.

• The menus change when resizing the application window - this makes it difficult for me to remember exactly where all the functions are.

• There is only one custom toolbar where you can add your most used icons, in the lower left as shown in the previous message.

You may be getting my drift that I don't particularily like these ribbon menus.     It is true, other than the nice appearance, I don't find other positives about them.  So I am wondering if any of you have had a different experience with Ribbon menus and if you could tell me why you like them.  Or if anyone has had other difficult experiences with Ribbon menus, please add to this discussion.

Regards,

Charles

The HDI Handbook - A comprehensive high-density interconnection resource for designers, fabricators and assemblers

First Edition, Written by Happy Holden, et al., Edited by Happy Holden and Diane Neer Here is the link to DOWNLOAD the HANDBOOK (53 MB ZIP)

I have finally finished my book on high density interconnects (HDI). Along with the help of 9 friends and fellow PWB experts, we have created a 631 pages book about HDI.

FOCUS: This book is not intended to introduce PCB Technology to the reader, that is effectively done by Coomb’s PCB Handbook. It does take up High Density Interconnects (HDI) and microvias in much more detail than where Coomb’s left off.

The 16 chapters cover:

Section 1: Introduction

The widespread use of new electronic components employing Ball-Grid Array (BGA), Chip Scale Packaging (CSP), and other evolving technology form-factors means new fabrication techniques must be used to create printed circuit boards (PCBs) that will accommodate parts with extremely tight lead pitches and small geometries. In addition, extremely fast signal rise-times and signal bandwidths challenge systems designers to find better ways to overcome the negative effects of inductance, noise, radio frequency interference (RFI) and electro-magnetic interference (EMI) have on their product’s performance. The use of PCBs incorporating microvia circuit interconnects is currently one of the most viable solutions on the market. Assemblies can be charted by their characteristics. The interaction of interconnect elements, such as assembly, PC boards, and components, are described by their metrics: assembly density, assembly complexity, component complexity and board density. Happy Holden

Section 2: The Interconnect Market

HDI products, size and market growth rates, examples of different HDI products using the three Platforms: 1. Consumer and mobile phones, 2. substrates and 3. large-high performance boards. The “HDI Vintage Chart” with the three ‘basic’ characteristics of HDI architecture. -Karen Carpenter

Section 3: Design of Advanced Printed Circuits

As the electronic products industry continues to push the envelope of extreme miniaturization, product developments teams are being forced further into the realm of high density interconnect. Design techniques and substrates labeled exotic only a few short years ago are now considered mainstream. In particular, build-up substrate usage has grown dramatically, and is now found in a large percentage of high production electronic products. This Section is to educate and inform you on the technologies, needs, issues and solutions available today for advanced substrate design. The focus will briefly cover the 4 changes to TH PCB design techniques required for HDI and the IPC Design Standard 2226. -Happy Holden

Section 4: Electrical Performance

The good old days of 10 to 16 MHz clock frequencies are gone. It used to be the chief design challenge in circuit boards or packages was routing all the signals in two layers and getting packages that wouldn’t crack during assembly. The electrical properties of the interconnects were not important because they didn’t affect system performance. But the world has changed in the past 10 years. Clock frequencies on chip now are over 3 GHz, and on board, are over 800 MHz. In most systems, as the clock frequency goes up, the rise time always gets shorter. A shorter rise time means signal integrity problems increase dramatically. Signal integrity is broadly concerned with the problems that arise from how the electrical properties of the interconnects affect system performance. -Dr. Eric Bogatin

SECTION 5: Materials

Many new materials now support HDI. The material performance and slash-sheets from IPC HDI Material Standard 4104 explain many of these. -John Andresakis

SECTION 6: The HDI Mfg Processes

Various HDI mfg processes and structures are explained. These utilize standard PCB processes but with greater miniaturization and higher density. -Happy Holden

SECTION 7: Small Hole Creation

The machines, processes, quality concerns and issues with creating small vias. -Michael Carano

SECTION 8: Metallization

Desmear & metallization (electroless) ,including the materials and processes for paste in vias. -Michael Carano

SECTION 9: Fine-Line Imaging and Etching

Image transfer processes, stripping & etching fine lines, registration, equipment, and materials for fine-line image transfer. -Michael Carano from columns written by Dr. Karl Dietz

SECTION 10: Plating and Finishes

Plating, pulse-plating, small-holes plating and filling, final finishes. -Michael Carano

SECTION 11: Testing

AOI and electrical testing of HDI -Dr. Christophe Vaucher

SECTION 12: Quality, Acceptability & Reliability

Performance of HDI Benchmarking, Vendor readiness, qualification, quality issues, lab techniques and equipment. -Happy Holden

SECTION 13: Assembly Topics

Via-in-pad issues, fine-pitch, soldering & voids, in-circuit testing -Matt Wuensch & Mark Laing

SECTION 14: Embedded Components

Embedded Resistors, Embedded Capacitors, Distributed capacitance and Embedded Actives, the materials and design tools -Happy Holden

Section 15: Advanced HDI & Next Generation Technologies

The use of more complex components with very high I/O counts and increasing speed has pushed the interconnect into the realm of photonics and opto-electronics. The materials, processes and test vehicles for optical waveguides in printed circuits are reviewed. -Happy Holden

Section 16: HDI Substrates & Packages

This Section is to educate and inform on the technologies, design issues and solutions available today for advanced IC substrate design. The focus will briefly cover the challenges of wire bonding, flip chip, stacked dies and packages and through-silicon vias that allow various System-in-Packages (SiP) and 3D architectures. -Per Viklund