Pursuing ESD Control in 2001

The senior vice president of the ESD Association discusses recent triumphs in ESD control, as well as future challenges.

Stephen A. Halperin

Q. With 2001 almost upon us, what are the critical issues the ESD Association will be addressing in the next year?

A. Probably the most important development in the last year, and one of the biggest developments in ESD in the last 20 years, was the ANSI approval of ESD 20.20 in August 1999. Every major corporation tends to have an approach to ESD that they not only apply within their own facilities but also encourage from each of their suppliers. Often those guidelines are different from one corporation to another. With the major growth in contract manufacturing, many contract manufacturers maintain separate production lines and separate specifications, including ESD specifications, for each of their customers. ESD 20.20 is a comprehensive ESD-control program outline that sets the requirements in five different areas for controlling ESD in any sensitive environment, and it crosses all these lines and levels the playing field.

Using 20.20 as a program guideline, an organization has an ISO-level certifiable program for effective control and a guideline for developing a program that meets its specific needs. In other words, a trained, certified registrar can certify a facility to 20.20 standards. For the first time, we not only have a clear guideline for ESD control in static-sensitive environments, we have the means to design programs to meet specific needs and certify that those needs have been met. Since August, the association has not only trained one of 56 targeted registrars and certified its level of performance, but has also performed its first witness audit at the certification of a major corporation.

Many organizations have already reviewed 20.20. We probably distribute 700 downloads a month from our Web site. There's this groundswell of demand from the industry for trained ISO-level auditors and certified registrars. There is a demand for people trained to understand the development of programs that meet 20.20 so companies can develop and implement new ESD programs, or adapt their current ESD programs to the guidelines of 20.20. There are organizations that wish to provide training services as independent and third-party consultants, advisors, or specialists. There are corporate suppliers of products and materials that want to be sure they're supplying products that meet the standards referenced by 20.20. So the critical issues facing the association over the next year are providing that training and support to industry, so registrars receive certification, auditors receive training, and companies receive the information they need. This is a big challenge for the next one to three years, because it is, for the first time, a program that supports all aspects of the industry. It is the single most important event that has happened in the electronics industry for ESD control in the last 20 years.

Q. What are the primary focus areas for new standards, and why those areas?

A. Not speaking for our standards chair Ron Gibson, but from an association point of view and from an officer's point of view, we're probably most concerned about the updating of EIA 541, a packaging standard. The reason we're concerned is multifold. First, the packaging of any electronic device plays a major role in that device's protection and reliability as affected by transport and handling. And second, the current document 541 is quite dated, over 10 years old. Our standards team has made a concerted effort to update and test new methodologies for electrostatic-control packaging, and this has become a priority for revision over the next year.

Q. The ESD Association represents the United States' interests in electrostatics to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). What are the association's priorities in its relationship with IEC?

A. IEC has specific interests as it relates to electronic devices per se versus controlling electrostatics in industry. We make efforts in both areas to support not only IEC efforts but to represent ANSI and the U.S. effectively. I think you have to look at what's happening in industry internationally. So many multinational corporations are subjected to different guidelines and different standards depending on their location. Even military organizations identify with a variety of different standards. These organizations are not only impacted here in the U.S. but often internationally.

It's becoming a very complex issue. We have to harmonize. We spend a considerable amount of time discussing impact, not from a U.S. point of view but from an international point of view, because many of the companies our members represent are multinational. We feel we have to support industry and its development through the dissemination of responsible, effective, and applicable standards. So we focus very heavily on testing our documents and providing open, objective communication with industry specialists worldwide. We have a very broad-based membership that participates not only in our standards but also in our educational programs and our symposium programs.

We have information flow across industry and international boundaries, so our documents over the years have become exceptionally valuable and have become key references for existing international standards and military standards as well. So our real focus is on how we can enhance harmonization. For example, our technical advisory group has already presented 20.20 to IEC. Now it's up to IEC to assess the value of 20.20 and harmonize it with existing documents. In IEC, we're focusing on harmonization with specific program guidelines and reference documents. We've gotten to the point where, when you look at 20.20 and at some of the guidelines or recommendations for specific ranges of performance, you'll find that even though it's a U.S.-generated document, the information and recommendations often incorporate limits established internationally. The message we're sending to our industry is that we're not only sensitive to its needs and guidelines, but we're willing to adapt in certain areas that make the process of harmonization easier. Harmonization is in the communication and mutual understanding of what industry needs really are. We as an association make this an extremely high priority, and we work very closely with representatives in different countries who participate in IEC.

Q. A focus of this year's EOS/ESD Symposium was ESD control in the magnetic-recording industry. What do you see as the challenges facing this industry, and how is the industry
responding?

A. I look at the magnetic-recording industry as an exceptional example of where device sensitivity, particularly in GMR and TMR, has reached an all-time peak in terms of true sensitivity, and the industry has responded in terms of seeking a multitude of input. Just going through the symposium papers and poster sessions, I think we had 10 poster sessions on MR, and we had two entire sessions on new technology and symposium papers presented on MR. This is one response of the industry and the people who support that segment of the industry. The other thing that's interesting is that device and material manufacturers and ionization technologies are offering more definition and selection of products. So it's not just the electronics industry or the MR segment of the industry, but also the suppliers, the users, and the technologists who are responding.

The next MR-like issue facing the association is RF and wireless applications. To give you an illustration, at the symposium Steven Voldman of IBM received tremendous feedback at a 3 1/2-hour session he presented on RF-related applications and concerns. It was very exciting, because looking at the wireless applications and that industry segment today at the consumer level, the proliferation is phenomenal. But there are problems, and like the MR segment of the industry, the RF segment is one of those growing areas of concern, and we hope to address the subject through tutorials and solicitation of papers for the symposium.

Q. What challenges does the ESD Association face in educating companies as to the necessity of ESD control?

A. We have answers, but first you have to understand that there's a problem. There isn't a segment of the industry, when it comes to electronics assembly or device manufacturing at the front-end level, that is not affected by electrostatics. People feel that, in wafer form, they don't have any problems until the die is cut. But that's not true. There are tremendous problems throughout the industry, across all segments that use electronics. We view the problem to be a management gap in terms of the priority to make and ship rather than to focus on the productivity, quality, and reliability information (potential symptoms of ESD problems) produced after the fact. Many companies and industry segments are quite knowledgeable and capitalize on the value of ESD controls. Others are just not as sensitive to the need to control ESD for productivity, quality, and profitability.

But there's one thing that all management will respond to, and that is their primary customer needs. As those organizations, particularly major customers, become more aware of the potential impact of 20.20, they turn to their suppliers and say, "We need to solve this problem; here is one approach to solving it." And we think that 20.20 will help close the gap between management's need to produce and support their customers, and the impact of ESD on that process. Once they understand the role of 20.20 in terms of controlling ESD, there are enough guideposts that they can quantify its impact.

Q. How do you see the association helping engineers develop ESD-compliant products and processes?

A. There's a litany here, and we focus on this litany. It's reborn every year when we look at this question of how we can impact industry. The first level of our response is to introduce new technology, whenever possible, through our symposium efforts. Because we document these technologies in our past proceedings, they are always available.

Our second level is the development and the ongoing refinement of device-testing standards. Probably one of the greatest achievements of our standards organization is in the development of device-testing standards so that engineering interests can not only confirm their designs but support their development. If you don't have a reference for what you have developed through device and product design, if you can't test it and quantify its performance, how are you going to know? Now that you make a device, how do you control the process that protects the device? And that comes from 20.20 because it covers the environment, the materials, and the people in all aspects, from training on through the process. If I say in my plan that I'm going to use a new guideline to control my process in which ESD protection is critical, who is to say I've done it properly? If I have a good reference, a guideline like 20.20, I can have my facility certified and confirmed by an independent, ISO-level third party.

There is a vertical structure depending on the interests and the commitment of an organization, but that's only one side of the coin. Where do you get the people? How do you develop the people? This is the third level of our response. We develop people through providing multitracked education through our national tutorial, which includes basic and factory issues and intermediate and advanced design. We're trying to provide input to all levels of the organization that have to make decisions and design processes and products. We're trying to cross the multiplicity of lines in terms of subject matter. The RF industry often has different interests than the MR industry, for instance.

We provide education through our local chapters and regional tutorial programs. We prepare individuals to take professional-level certification exams from an independent third party, in this case NARTE. Not only can you certify a facility, you can certify an individual's knowledge level in dealing with either the technical or engineering issues in relationship to the process and product. The association's point of view is that we want to provide engineers, engineering teams, and corporations with a multiplicity of input. We're not going to design products for them, any more than we do market analysis for people who make static-control materials. But to provide guidelines, information, and education, to promote some harmony in the industry, to help the industry develop ESD-control technology—that's the challenge, and that's where the fun is, when you get right down to it, because this is the heart of the association.

Stephen Halperin can be reached at shalperin@halperinassoc.com. For more information about the ESD Association and the EOS/ESD Symposium, visit http://www.esda.org.

Stephen A. Halperin has been active in the EOS/ESD Symposium and in the ESD Association for more than two decades. He is currently the senior vice president of the ESD Association (Rome, NY), and the president of Stephen Halperin & Associates Ltd. and Prostat Corp. (both located in Bensenville, IL). Halperin spoke with assistant editor Joshua Glover concerning recent trends in ESD control and the association's plans for the future.

Back to November/December Table of Contents