In 2018 the US Department of Commerce conducted an industrywide survey of all the nation’s printed circuit board manufacturers. Fabricators groused about the scale of the paperwork, which was massive, as well as the focus of the questions, which in many cases required extraordinary data mining to provide the sought-after information. Still, the rationale for the Bare Printed Circuit Board Supply Chain Assessment was sound: That American PCB capacity issues extend beyond military needs into the medical, automotive and telecom sectors, and that Washington was largely unaware of the degree the nation’s supply base has degraded relative to the rest of the world over the past two decades.

The findings made it into an interagency report titled “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States” and was provided to President Trump that same year, showing bureaucracy is still capable of moving at times. Even better, they correctly summarized the situation:

 In multiple cases, the sole remaining domestic producer of materials critical to DoD [is] on the verge of shutting down their U.S. factory and importing lower cost materials from the same foreign producer country who is forcing them out of domestic production.… The case of printed circuit boards likewise highlights the growing risks to the industrial base.… Today, 90% of worldwide printed circuit board production is in Asia, over half of which occurs in China; and the U.S. printed circuit board sub-sector is aging, constricting, and failing to maintain the state of the art for rigid and rigid-flex printed circuit board production capability. With the migration of advanced board manufacturing offshore, DoD risks losing visibility into the manufacturing provenance of its products, as many domestic manufacturers have offshore manufacturing facilities or relationships. In addition to the potential dissemination of design information, many of the offshore facilities do not meet or comply with DoD quality requirements.

Fast forward to today. Has the effort paid off?

It depends on whom you ask. The interagency report called for “relief from unlawful and otherwise unfair trade practices.” The ongoing tariffs speak – loudly – that the message was received at the highest level of government.

The report also mentioned the DoD Executive Agent for Printed Circuit Board Technology. But it failed to advocate for funding, and today there appears little progress. While the position exists, critics say the infrastructure needed to make it an effective part of an improved and lasting procurement process is MIA.

A critical agency of Commerce Department is the Bureau of Industry and Security. One mission of BIS is to “work with industry to protect the health and vitality of the US defense industrial base, resulting in a stronger US economy.” But BIC’s presentation in support of the President’s fiscal 2020 budget ignores printed circuits.

There is a disconnect between the goals of the Defense Department and those of Commerce. The former is concerned with security, the latter the entire industrial marketplace. The EA’s role is tied to the former and is highly political. Funding comes from earmarks, subject more to legislative whim than an overarching strategy. IPC seems to recognize this, stating that “direct funding is needed for the PCB EA to competently fulfill the congressional mandates.”

I would argue automotive, medical and telecom are equally important to the US, especially in the wake of 5G and the concerns over Huawei, because our strength lies not just in our capacity to make weapons but our ability to leverage our economic might in pursuit of national objectives. As such, I wonder whether the EA would be more effective as a part of Commerce, rather than Defense.

I put the question to Chris Mitchell, vice president of global government relations at IPC. Mitchell continues to believe the EA is best placed within Defense, which has access to resources and is philosophically in line with the industry's concerns over supply chain resiliency, innovation and security.

That said, he adds that the challenge for the EA and industry is to raise the profile of our concerns among decision-makers in government. where electronics manufacturing hasn’t always fared well.

I do wonder if, in this age of government by tweet, a more aggressive approach would be more effective. And I worry, if we cannot find consistent funding for the spot in a decade-long upturn, how we will do so in a recession.

Mitchell seems convinced progress is there. There is “real change” taking place at the DoD, he says, where a host of factors are leading a charge for greater transparency over the entire supply chain. “Electronics is an ecosystem, and the entire ecosystem needs to be strong for Defense to have its needs met. International, technological and economic events are driving policy-makers to have a greater appreciation for this ecosystem.” The EA, it seems, is a reflection of the greater electronics manufacturing industry’s ability to attract the government spotlight. Is that enough?

• Prev
• Next