sign in sign up
<<
Home , Consumer electronics, Electronics industry, Engineering

The Evolution of Electronic and its Impact on Methods of Kevin Leahy and Dr. Gary Oster

Regent Global Business Review 8 regent.edu/rgbr Innovation is the creative development of a specific in new products, materials, -aided product, , idea, environment, or process with tools, and processes. With the the fundamental goal of pleasing customers and rapid expansion of technology and extracting value from its commercialization (Rogers, packaging technology, entirely new design 2003; Oster, 2011). Purposeful differentiation and manufacturing disciplines also have evolved. must continue apace to avoid being overtaken by This has changed the and focus of innovation, historically known competitors, as well as those who significantly increasing the diversity of design teams have yet to appear on corporate (Hamel, 2002). and the need for collaboration across technical and If the rate of change outside the exceeds business disciplines. that inside the company, survival is highly unlikely (Slater, 2004). In this decade, failure to address The Historical Evolution of Electronics environmental pressures has caused thousands of companies to slash product development programs, and the Impact on Innovation reduce the size of the workforce, merge with other From the first issued to Alexander Graham companies, or close down entirely. To survive and Bell for the Telegraphy in 1876 (Inventors Hall thrive in the hyper-competitive global marketplace, of Fame, 2011), through the of the first corporations, therefore, must produce a steady handheld cell phone by John F. Mitchell of Motorola stream of innovation (Kelley, 2005). Every company in 1973 (Absolute , 2011), to the most is required to have a “pipeline” filled with upcoming modern personal cell phones of today, the nature of innovation releases and must do everything within product innovation has taken on as many forms as its power to abbreviate the time required for the the changes in the characteristics of the . development of new . Product innovation throughout the electronics has evolved into a highly choreographed The nature of innovation by modern product interdependence of , materials, design development teams and the opportunities facing next methods, modeling tools, and manufacturing process generation innovators can be understood through a development. close examination of the history of the modern cell phone and the associated advances in electronics Consider the contrasting characteristics of the technology. As electronic systems have become more internal workings of multiple generations of electronic complex, the elements within them have become systems represented by the two distinctively different more highly integrated in both functional and illustrations below. The figure on the left depicts physical characteristics. These systems have evolved an electronic circuit card assembly characteristic of from large “boxy” structures with many discrete electronic systems dating as far back as circa 1960 parts, to highly integrated structures with aesthetics with the introduction of the first circuit board designed to catch the eye of the consumer. Consider (Wagner, 1999). There are three distinct elements the evolution of the from a large “box” of this assembly: 1) the mechanical structure that in the trunk of a car into a modern, highly complex houses the delicate electronics, protecting it from the multi-function handheld cell phone. The increased ‘human’ environment (not shown in photo) (Karger complexity, packaging density, and functionality of & Murdick, 1980), 2) the (brown) printed circuit card, modern cell phones is metaphorically representative synthesized from epoxy glass or polyamide materials of the change in the composition, skill mix, and and metallic inner and outer layers, which provides tightly collaborative focus of the product development the electrical and mechanical interconnection teams who innovate to create them. In , a medium for the electronic components (Wagner, comparison of the technologies used in a modern 1999), and 3) the discrete and varied electronic cell phone with those of the first generation mobile components that are mounted on the printed circuit phone serves as a useful metaphor for exploring the card to create the electronic functionality of the changes in the nature and focus of innovation within (Katz, 1977). The photograph on the right the over the past thirty to forty represents a highly known as a years. This evolution has resulted in innovations

© 2012 School of Business & Leadership 9 September 2012 multi-chip module, typical of a modern cell phone, telephone industry began its torrid growth (Farley, with much greater functional complexity than the 2005). Preceded by an extended period of dominance circuit on the left. There are only two distinct physical by telephone technology, cellular telephone elements of this assembly: 1) the highly integrated systems represented a major threat to the established (gray and gold) mechanical and electrical package, industry. Product innovation, process innovation, synthesized from or materials and market characteristics, the competitive environment, metallic inner and outer layers, that now provides both and organizational change progress methodically with the housing to protect the electronics and the electrical the establishment of a dominant design, and stabilize and mechanical interconnection of the electronic or slow in their rate of change with the length of time components, and 2) highly monolithic a dominant design satisfies the needs and wants of the and discrete components that combine the functional consumer (Utterback,1994). The introduction of these capabilities of the early generation systems into much new semiconductor technologies, and the associated more densely integrated electronics (Leahy et al., they enabled, represented “the 1994; Crafts, 1996; Tummula, 1999). The electronic invasion of a stable business by radical innovation” systems of today use “highly integrated and low- (Utterback, 1996) to the telephone industry. The cost packaging that can improve extensive delay in the introduction of cell phone and reduce cost and size by about a factor of ten” technologies throughout the U.S. market was caused (Tummula, 1999) over comparable printed circuit card by bureaucratic challenges, non-stop lawsuits by the assemblies illustrated in the figure on the left. The major phone companies attempting to protect their former distinctions between many of the individual major landline investments, and independent functions are no longer physically discrete in the common carriers and their suppliers who sought an modern multi-chip module. Remarkably, the structure equal playing field.

Figure 1. Two electronic assemblies of varying functional complexity and physical integration. (Source: Adapted from The3rdStudio, 2011) of modern electronic packages and the electrically During this period of nearly forty years, the numerous interconnecting printed circuits are monolithically disciplines required to transform the telephone combined in a manner analogous to the combination industry, the skills needed to develop a modern of sand, rebar, and stone that form to make . electronic systems product, the complexity and sophistication of the modeling tools, the variety of The rapid growth of cellular telephone systems the materials used, and the physical and functional was predicated upon the introduction of low-cost complexity of the product have changed significantly. and availability of digital switching The introduction of these technological advancements (Kumar, 2004). Although the integrated circuit was into the telephone industry represented a radical invented in 1958 by Jack Kilby at Instruments, departure from the dominant design it was more than two decades before the cellular of the landline telephone systems, requiring

Regent Global Business Review 10 regent.edu/rgbr a multidimensional effort of diverse teams to illustrated in the first column of Figure 2 below. New transform the telephony industry. The physical and design disciplines were developed as the complexity functional changes of the electronics that enabled this of these electronic systems evolved. This increased transformation required different forms of innovation the multidisciplinary nature and composition of the by electronics product development teams. This design team, reflected by the additions and changes to illustration reflects not only the growth in functional the design disciplines shown in the second column in and physical integration of modern electronic systems, Figure 2, enabling the additional complexity of product but also mirrors higher levels of collaboration within and process innovations. the product development team and their coordination

Figure 2. A comparison of disciplines for typical electronic assembly design teams for circa 1970 and 2000 illustrates changes in areas of focus for product and process innovation. (Source: Adapted from Tummula, 1999; IPC, 2011)(Source: Adapted from The3rdStudio, 2011) across business development, and , and The skills reflected in these two examples provide legal teams to innovate at multiple of the evidence of the change in focus for successful product development and deployment. innovation within modern product development teams.

The Changing Focus and Methods Even more exciting is the increased of interdependency of design activities over this nearly of Innovation within a Product fortyyear period of technological development. To Development Team further understand the nature of this higher degree of collaborative interdependency, consider the A typical circa 1970 design team, responsible for characterization of electronic systems in Figure 3 below. the development of an electronic assembly, would This comparison, over the period of approximately be comprised of an array of electrical, mechanical, thirty years, shows an increase in functional complexity materials, and manufacturing engineering disciplines. of an electronics assembly ranging from 200 to nearly Within each of these , the team also 500 times, with an associated tenfold cost reduction! would include specialists in a wide range of areas, as

© 2012 School of Business & Leadership 11 September 2012 This is due to the increased levels of integration of activities for the circa 1970 design team. packaging and semiconductor systems, enabling the more ‘monolithic’ assembly of modern electronics

Figure 3. A comparison of key attributes illustrates the changes in electronics over a 30-year period. (Source: Tummula, 1999; Unno, 2007) and higher use of automated production. These very characteristics reflect the radical nature of the threat The Globalization of Development presented to the landline telephone industry when and Production implemented in the new wireless architecture. The development and production of new products

often occurs simultaneously in a number of countries This evolution resulted, in part, from the worldwide. Engineering staff need significant aforementioned design disciplines working in a training and experience in working across borders much more collaborative than ever before. of , languages, , leadership models, Electrical systems today must understand and and habits (McCall, 2002). In a global marketplace coordinate a wider range of engineering disciplines to where the advantages of knowledge dissipate rapidly, balance electrical requirements than their counterparts innovation becomes even more important (Skarzynski, of yesteryear (Bevan & Romenesko, 1999). Electrical 2008). Unfortunately, there is currently a significant and mechanical specialists must collaborate in the shortage of leaders and regular employees who possess complex design of highly functional and physically international exposure and experience (Black, 1999; integrated monolithic semiconductor and packaging Rosen, 2000). circuitry (Bevan & Romenesko, 1999). Mechanical and electrical engineers also must develop highly integrated In addition to enabling with a diverse team models of structural, thermal, and electrical properties scattered around the world, intentional diversity is of a packaging design (Bevan & Romenesko, 1999). important in domestic operations. True diversity Finally, materials and manufacturing engineers must includes age, race, country of origin, experience, gender, work closely with electrical and mechanical engineers , etc. Innovative institutions especially look in the design of new materials systems and associated for “T-shaped people” (Kelly, 2005). Their primary skill manufacturing processes, well in advance of the (the vertical part of the “T”) is deep and technically completion of a design, to ensure the manufacturability expert, but they also harbor many additional interests of a balanced affordable product (Yang & El-Haik, and experiences (the horizontal part of the “T”) that 2009). These and many other collaborative activities help them to engage with others and consider a broad are more complex and interdependent than similar range of possible options. Insatiably curious amateurs

Regent Global Business Review 12 regent.edu/rgbr often are preferred over bored narrow subject-area Of even more importance is the requisite change experts (Oster, 2011). In addition to diverse capabilities, in relationship between producer and prospective employees also must have diverse attitudes (Bennis & customer. Every innovative idea must focus on the Biederman, 1997; Hamel, 2002), with the ability to needs and experience of customers. Because the work across disciplines outside their individual areas of ultimate goal of innovation is to effectively satisfy expertise and . The ability and willingness human needs and wants, new methods to ascertain to understand and capitalize on the diverse perspective their spoken and unrecognized requirements must be that comes from this cross-disciplined collaboration implemented (Nonaka, 1991; Hamel, 2002; Davila, has proven to be an underpinning of innovative et al., 2006; May, 2007). Using empathic study based organizations (Gryskiewicz, 1999). on firsthand of and with customers, relations are developed that reveal their Implications for Future Innovation life frustrations and the products, services, ideas, environments, and processes that meet those realized throughout the Electronics Industry and unarticulated needs (Brown, 2005; Christenson, Author and researcher Dr. Rao Tummula highlighted 2005; Hagel, 2005; Lojacono & Zaccai, 2005; Suri, the increased importance of electronic packaging in our 2006). modern world (Tummula, 1999). The ever-increasing demand for has resulted in A wider range of skills, complementing the significant growth in this industry. Tummula suggests specialization skills identified in Figure 2 above, suggest that product development engineers no longer have the rich opportunity for highly-collaborative innovation time to learn on the job. They must commit to formal by future product development engineers and their cross-disciplinary training throughout their careers to counterparts in global business and marketing remain effective as innovators in this complex discipline development. They also suggest innovation that goes (Tummula, 1999), well beyond the conventional beyond the now classical multidisciplinary product training characteristics of heritage scientific and development team. Engineers today and in the future engineering disciplines. The results of a survey of the not only will collaborate across engineering specialties; electronics industry, taken by Georgia Institute of their collaboration will extend across both engineering Technology Packaging Center (Tummula, and business cultures in a new global marketplace to 1999), suggest a wide range of educational needs for realize new forms of product and process innovations. our next generation of electronics product development engineers. Classical training at most in Concluding Thoughts “fundamentals of engineering,” “cross-disciplinary training,” and “fundamental ” will no longer be Global business is experiencing change and upheaval adequate (Tummula, 1999). Indeed, the recent records as never before. Reviewing the changes that have of many widely respected and historically innovative occurred in one industry, cellular , serves as U.S. companies lack examples of new product lines a helpful metaphor for change in most other industries. and business generation, often due to absence of As change continues, employees will need continual updated institutional learning (Lynn, Morone, & education and new skills to help them adjust to the ever- Paulson, 1996). The coming two decades will see changing environment. Skills enlargement, including an even more rapid convergence of , capabilities previously possessed only by corporate (including ), artificial executives, will be necessary for employees to function intelligence, , , , in the volatile global . Only those equipped and (Lacohee, Wakeford, & and motivated to make nonlinear changes will survive Pearson, 2003). Product development engineers of the decidedly nonlinear future ahead. today need expanded training to include: “knowledge of manufacturing processes,” “communication skills,” “ skills,” “business economics,” “foreign language and ,” and “global markets” (Tummula, 1999).

© 2012 School of Business & Leadership 13 September 2012 Kevin Leahy is a doctoral student Dr. Gary Oster is professor of studying strategic leadership with the innovation and entrepreneurship at the School of Business & Leadership, Regent School of Business & Regent University. Leadership. Notes

Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. (1997). Organizing genius. Addison-Wesley, . Bevan, M., & Romenesko, B. (1999). Modern electronic packaging technology. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest. 22-33. Black, J., Morrison, A., & Gregersen, H. (1999). Global explorers. New York: . Brown, T. (2005). Strategy by design. Fast Company, 52-54. Brown, T. (2008). . Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92. Christenson, C. (2005). The innovator’s dilemma. Collins Business Essentials, New York. Coughlan, P., & Prokopoff, I. (2004). Managing change, by design. In R. Boland Jr. and F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as Designing (pp. 188-192). Stanford Business , San Francisco. Crafts, H. (1996). Multi-chip module packaging system. U.S. Patent Number 5,497,027. Davila, T., Epstein, M., & Shelton, R. (2006). Making innovation work. Wharton School , Upper Saddle River, NJ. Farley, T. (2005). Mobile telephone history. Telektronic, 3(4), 22-34. Gryskiewicz, S. (1999). Positive turbulence: Developing climate for , innovation, and renewal. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Hagel, J., & Brown, J. (2005). The only sustainable edge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Hamel, G. (2002). Leading the revolution. Plume, New York. History of mobile phones: , discussion forum and encyclopedia article. (2011). Retrieved from: http://www absoluteastronomy.com/topics/History_of_mobile_phones Inventor profile: Alexander Graham Bell. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.invent.org./hall_of_fame/11.html IPC (2011). IPC’s PCB advanced certification: Workshop and exam. IPC Association Connecting Electronics Industries. Retrieved from: http://dc.ipc.org Karger, D., & Murdick, R. (1980). Managing engineering and research: The principles and problems of managing the planning, development and execution of engineering and research activities. NY: Industrial Press. Katz, G. (1977). Method of assembling components on printed circuit boards. U.S. Patent 4,113,524. Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation. Currency Doubleday, New York. Kelley, T. (2005). The ten faces of innovation. Currency Doubleday, New York. Kumar, S. (2004). Mobile : Global trends in the 21st century. International Journal of Mobile Communication, 2(1), 67-86. Lacohee, H., Wakeford, N., & Pearson, I. (2003). A social history of the mobile telephone with a view of its future, BT Technology Journal, 21(3), 203-211.

Regent Global Business Review 14 regent.edu/rgbr Leahy, K., et al. (1994). Packaging system for a standard electronic module. U.S. Patent 5,359,488. Lojacono, G., & Zaccai, G. (2005, Winter). The evolution of the design-inspired enterprise. Rotman Magazine, 10–15. Lynn, G., Morone, J., & Paulson, A. (1996). Marketing and discontinuous innovation: The probe and learn process. California Management Review, 38(3), 9-37. May, M. (2007). The elegant solution. Free Press, New York. McCall, M., & Hollenbeck, G. (2002). Developing global executives. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104. Oster, G. (2011). The light prize: Perspectives on Christian innovation. Virginia Beach, VA: Positive Signs Media. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.), Free Press, New York. Rosen, R. (2000). Global literacies. Simon and Schuster, New York. Schrage, M. (2000). Serious play. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Schwartz, E. (2004). Juice: The creative fuel that drives world-class inventors. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Skarzynski, P., & Gibson, R. (2008). Innovation to the core. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Slater, R. (2004). Jack Welch on leadership. McGraw-Hill, New York. Suri, J. (2006, Winter). Informing our intuition: for radical innovation. Rotman Magazine, 52–57. Tummula, R. (1999). Electronic packaging research and education: A model for the 21st century. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest. 111-121. Unno, Y. (2007). High-density low-mass hybrid and associated technologies. High Accelerator Research Organization (KEK). 1-11. Used with permission by The3dStudio.com through “End User License Agreement,” 14 October, 2011. Utterback, J. (1996). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Wagner, G. (1999). History of electronic packaging at APL: From the VT fuse to the NEAR . Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest. 7-21. Yang, K., & El-Haik, B. (2009). : A roadmap for product development (2nd ed.). [Books24x7 version] Retrieved from: http://common.books24x7.com

© 2012 School of Business & Leadership 15 September 2012