The time is now for serial inventor Joe Fjelstad’s answer to simplifying component assembly.

Joe Fjelstad is a renowned innovator, environmental advocate and the visionary mind behind the Occam Process, a groundbreaking advancement in electronics manufacturing. In this in-depth conversation, Fjelstad shares the journey of Occam, its transformative potential, and the wisdom gathered over his illustrious career.

Beaulieu: Joe, how did you first conceive the idea for the Occam Process? Was there a specific problem or challenge in the electronics industry that inspired it?

Fjelstad: The idea came on the heels of the lead-free movement which began in the mid to late 1990s. Like many others (and having had environmental leanings since before the first Earth Day in the early 1970s) I was in favor of the lead-free initiative, but some independent digging found it was not necessary based on what I and many others uncovered. Lead in electronics solder represented less than 0.5% of all lead used annually on a global basis.

With my longtime friend and industry maven Harvey Miller, who recently passed away at 102, we called into question the wisdom of eliminating metallic lead from solder, more specifically electronic solder. We were chided for it, at one point caricatured as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza at a lead-free event, although we knew the dragon was real, not a windmill. However, the EU Parliament went forward with the ban, sadly, without a full scientific analysis of the prospective impact. The risk, it turned out, was minimal, but the financial costs globally have thus been a staggering waste.

The estimated cost of the transition to lead-free solders in electronics due to the EU’s RoHS Directive has been significant:

• Approximately $32 billion to achieve initial compliance with the RoHS directive for R&D, process changes and product reengineering.
• $3 billion annually for maintaining compliance with lead-free standards, including continuous testing, monitoring, and certification.

Based on these estimates, over the nearly two decades since the directive was enacted, in 2006, this means approximately $54 billion in additional costs. Sadly, there has been no measurable environmental benefit and research into the impact of lead-free solders continues to this day with no strong consensus to its benefit.

The concept of the Occam Process sprang from my thinking how one might assemble electronics without solder and sidestepping its many shortcomings. It was simple: eliminate solder from the manufacturing process and eliminate at the same time both the problem and the potential or perceived risks.

Figure 1. The Occam solderless assembly process eliminates solder while otherwise leveraging conventional techniques.

Beaulieu: Can you explain the core concept of the Occam Process in simple terms? What sets it apart from traditional methods?

Fjelstad: First, let’s look at traditional manufacturing. For decades, the electronics industry has first built the interconnection structure (printed circuit board) and then attached components, typically using tin-lead solder, which has a relatively low melting point and forms very reliable solder joints. The Occam Process turns that on its head, reversing the steps. That is, components are first placed and fixed in their designed locations and the interconnection process joins them to make a functional electronics assembly. Since the vast majority of electronic components use copper interconnections and printed circuits are created by copper plating, the combined steps will complete the construction without the heat associated with soldering. It’s quite simple and there is always a devil in the details. However, it can be dealt with by creative thinking.

Beaulieu: What does the Occam Process mean to you personally? How does it reflect your vision for the electronics industry?

Fjelstad: I am fundamentally an inventor and have been most of my career. I am motivated by simplicity. William of Ockham in the early 15th Century famously said, “It is vanity to do with more that which can be done with less:” words I encountered in high school and have stayed with me for almost 60 years now. In my previous startup experiences with chip packaging innovator Tessera and at my own startup SiliconPipe, I applied that principle, taking to heart the words of another more modern philosopher, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, who stated that “perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” Many of my patented inventions from 15 to 20 years ago are just now being put into practice. For example, at SiliconPipe we described structures that are just in the past few years being adapted to 3-D and heterogeneous integrated packaging structures. My Occam Group partners believe that the Occam concept will finally be adapted as well, once it is fully understood and appreciated by the electronics industry. To put another point on it, the PCB and assembly industries are largely unchanged in my 53 years. I could have time-traveled from 1972 to any shop in the world today and understand exactly what was happening. I would be very impressed with the improvements in processing and in feature size reductions, but the basics are unchanged. Occam seeks to offer a step function improvement in every critical area of electronics product, cost, reliability, size reduction, performance improvement. We believe it is all possible.

Beaulieu: It’s been 17 years since you first disclosed and patented the Occam Process. Why has it taken so long and why now do you feel the time has come?

Fjelstad: It indeed has been a long journey. Most inventors know that the adage “build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door” is flat-out wrong. Inventions in general are about change and change is hard. I worked at Boeing’s Electronic Support Division as a young process engineer in the late 1970s and would complain about the challenges of implementing change to improve our processes due to resistance. An old Korean War vet who sat behind me then would say: “You’ve got to remember, Joe, everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.” It has always been true.

My early talks about the Occam Process were understood and largely enthusiastically embraced by many industry mavens, including some of the most respected scientists and engineers in the PCB industry, but overcoming the inertia of legacy practices has been a Sisyphean effort. But the original logic still holds and recently there has at last been a significant uptick in interest and action driven in good part by interest shown by some in the military electronics industry. Moreover, I now (hopefully) no longer appear a lone mad heretic wandering the desert as I now have a new cadre of highly respected technologists and industry leaders in the Occam boat with their oars in the water and pulling in the right direction. They are enthusiastic and one cannot purchase enthusiasm.

Beaulieu: How do you see the Occam Process impacting the sustainability of electronics manufacturing? What specific environmental benefits does it offer?

Fjelstad: The sustainability and environmental advantages of Occam are many. The elimination and minimization of high-temperature thermal processes brings many benefits in terms of minimizing energy waste and opportunities to use alternative lower-cost (and potentially much-better-performing) materials but also in terms of greater reliability, which extends product life and keeps products from entering the waste stream prematurely. We believe also that with intelligent material choices the product at its end of life can be treated more like a high-grade and high-value ore rather than a waste product. There are lots of options to explore in this regard and we intend to explore as many as practical with available resources.

Beaulieu: In terms of technology and innovation, what advances does the Occam Process enable that were previously unattainable?

Fjelstad: There are a number of prospective benefits that cannot be had easily using legacy methods but they do require greater discipline throughout the design and manufacturing process than it appears is currently exercised. When I first showed the concept to my friend Bernie Siegal a dozen years ago [Ed: Siegal founded SEMI-THERM], he said: “Your approach will allow electronic system designers to solve the thermal problems on the front end rather than at the end and that has some great benefits.”

Electronic reliability experts know well that heat management is one of the biggest concerns among developers. When one reads about the looming challenges facing AI, heat, its generation, management and mitigation are some of the biggest concerns facing developers. I’m not saying that Occam alone can solve the problem, but I believe the concepts involved could improve the situation.

Beaulieu: How does the Occam Process enhance the reliability and performance of electronic devices? Can you provide any real-world examples or use cases?

Fjelstad: As I said earlier, heat is a major concern in the reliability of electronics. There is in fact an inverse relationship between the heat experienced and electronics reliability, the greater the heat the product is subjected to, the shorter the expected life. However, it is anticipated that the nature of Occam construction should make interconnections more reliable due to the elimination of solder, which has long been the weak link in the electronics reliability chain as most failures have historically been traced to a broken solder joint. We hope to finally have the kind of data we believe will prove out the concept in the coming months.

Beaulieu: What feedback have you received from industry leaders and manufacturers regarding the adoption of the Occam Process?

Fjelstad: In general, from the first introduction of Occam, industry experts, leaders and technical mavens have been supportive of the Occam concept and many have agreed to serve as company advisors and lend their names in support. One reliability expert, Werner Englemier, told me, “Joe, this will put me out of business.” I replied, “No, Werner, I intend to put you into a whole new business.” Sadly, Werner passed away before that could happen.

Beaulieu: What are the cost implications of implementing the Occam Process compared to traditional manufacturing methods? How does it affect production efficiency?

Fjelstad: “Back of the napkin” projections indicate the potential for significant savings by using the Occam approach. The savings can be extracted from multiple areas mostly by reducing materials used and reducing processing requirements, but we sense that because of the projected intrinsic reliability improvements, testing can be reduced, which could be a huge savings. I have been somewhat paraphrasing some of the gurus of quality when I first heard myself saying as I was giving a talk about Occam at an aerospace conference that “We must first do the right things and then do those things right.” It might sound simplistic, but the logic is sound.

Beaulieu: What role do you think the Occam Process will play in shaping the future of the electronics industry, particularly with emerging technologies like IoT and AI?

Fjelstad: The industry is still largely wedded to its legacy methodologies, but I expect that will change when folks fully grasp the benefits. The heat problem generated by the higher operating speeds needs to be tamed and managed. Estimates are that several hundred gigawatts of new energy production will be needed globally by 2030 to support the full growth of AI alongside other technological and societal shifts. This translates to 200-500GW in new power production or more, depending on the rate of adoption and energy efficiency improvements.

Beaulieu: How does the Occam Process contribute to reducing e-waste and promoting circular economy practices in electronics?

Fjelstad: Some of the structures that I think will be most beneficial in terms of their performance improvement potential will also be most beneficial in terms of their environmental impact by making products significantly more reliable. If it doesn’t break it doesn’t need to be trashed; however, we know from the history of economics that the “engine of economics” runs on the premise that an individual’s wants will always exceed their needs. Thus, products will inevitably be discarded by those in First World economies. Fortunately, concepts envisioned for Occam construction make the retired product highly attractive for reuse and/or amenable to recycling with minimal effort.

Beaulieu: What markets or industries do you believe will benefit the most from the Occam Process, and why?

Fjelstad: When I first conceived of the Occam approach, I felt that the immediate benefits would be most attractive to military, aerospace, automotive and medical product developers and users where reliability was paramount, but I had at the time the idea that another target market would be the world’s poorest people for whom reliability was equally important. For the former group it was mission and application for the latter the fact that they simply could not afford unreliability on their few dollars a day of wages. Their electronics purchases are much like the First World purchase of automobiles and homes: the average person of the First World cannot afford to throw away their cars and homes.

Beaulieu: As someone who has transformed an idea into a groundbreaking innovation, what advice would you give to aspiring inventors and engineers in the electronics field?

Fjelstad: Keep your mind open and ask questions. I always liked these quotes from George Bernard Shaw for inspiration:

• “You see things as they are and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were, and I say, ‘Why not?’”
• “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

The combined message is beautiful: Dream and be unreasonable.

Beaulieu: Looking back on your journey with the Occam Process, is there anything you would have done differently or any lessons you learned along the way?

Fjelstad: I have never been much of a salesperson, which I should have had more skill in. I have always been more a sales tool than a salesman.

I have also had the misfortune of starting my new endeavors at inopportune moments. SiliconPipe was founded in the immediate wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Verdant Electronics/Occam during the 2008 market collapse, but I never have given up because many of my ideas have later been found by others to be of value and successfully brought to market, giving me confidence that the ideas were sound, just early. I think the time for Occam is now right.

Beaulieu: What is your ultimate vision for the Occam Process? How do you see it evolving in the next 10 to 20 years, and what legacy do you hope it leaves behind in the electronics industry?

Fjelstad: Most industry pundits continue to fawn over very sexy current point of the spear where factories cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. However, there are huge opportunities to build valuable and useful products that fit the Occam mold. I believe that the Occam concept, if delivered in totality, could greatly democratize electronics manufacturing allowing a designer to create their vision using the least number of transistors possible. There is much talk today of chiplets and the power they have. I do not disagree. I first wrote of chiplets as packaged IP block devices, the packages having a common grid pitch to make the device look like LEGO blocks. I did this almost 30 years ago. I do not know if others came to this conclusion on their own or if they read my writings. It does not really matter because it is the right idea. But we should talk and find a way to drive the industry toward a bigger more inclusive vision.

Dan Beaulieu is co-founder of DB Management Group and has more than 30 years of experience in the printed circuit board industry; danbbeaulieu@aol.com.