2002-21-0007

Improving Supply Chain Communications

(Dismantling the Tower of Babel)
Jim McElroy
National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (NEMI)

Barbara Goldstein
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Copyright © 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT • Greater flexibility — creating access to the factories

and the best-of-breed software applications required
The electronics manufacturing industry has evolved from to manufacture a diverse set of complex products.
vertical integration to outsourcing and distributed
manufacturing. Unfortunately, the processes used to • Reduced costs — promoting factory utilization.
communicate within the new supply networks still contain OEMs no longer need to maintain factories filled with
many company-specific elements. Through our high-capital equipment; rather, they can rely on EMS
roadmapping efforts, the National Electronics providers who can smooth production loads over a
Manufacturing Initiative (NEMI) has identified a number of number of customers.
gaps that, if addressed, could simplify and improve
supply chain communications in the electronics industry • Global response — providing better support for a
and beyond. Our earliest efforts focused on machine-to- global customer base through use of globally
machine communications on the shop floor and enabling distributed manufacturing facilities and suppliers.
distributed equipment to be monitored via the Internet.
Next, we tackled the exchange of detailed product • Shortened development schedules — enabling
information between original equipment manufacturers OEMs to hire necessary capabilities, eliminating the
(OEMs) and electronics manufacturing services (EMS) need to bring up new lines or develop new
providers. Most recently, work has focused on processes.
development of a single data exchange format to enable
the exchange of complete, accurate data for printed • Reduced time to market — promoting the OEM's
wiring board manufacturing. ability to deliver products faster and in more markets.
The OEM focuses on design while the EMS provider
deals with volume ramp.
INTRODUCTION
The outsourcing trend gathered significant momentum
In ancient times (i.e., the 1970s), electronics through the 1990s and continues today. Bear Stearns’
manufacturing was concentrated within large, vertically fifth annual Electronics Manufacturing Outsourcing
integrated companies. As computers and software were Survey (2002)1 found that 87% of OEMs surveyed plan
applied to automating information exchange within the to increase their outsourcing in the coming year and
enterprise, companies developed proprietary cited 70% as their long-term outsourcing goal.
communication systems for transferring manufacturing Automotive-related companies were among the top four
data from one department to the next throughout the market segments in terms of anticipated growth of
manufacturing process. outsourcing, citing an expected 93% increase for the
next year.
In the 1980s, large electronics OEMs began down the
“slippery slope” of outsourcing. With an increasingly
competitive market, outsourcing became a key strategy 1
for survival, promising several advantages: “OEMs plan to increase their outsourcing, survey says,”
EBN, May 6, 2002
(www.ebnews.com/story/OEG20020506S0033).
The ability to rely on a broadly distributed supply network As outsourcing continues to increase, the lack of tight
gives OEMs enormous flexibility. They can rapidly integration between trading partners has become a
modify their manufacturing capacity by adding or significant problem. Concern about the obstacles posed
subtracting new suppliers for any element of the by a lack of interoperability among computers, software
production process with little or no impact to their and manufacturing hardware systems within the
investments because they own a shrinking percentage automobile industry prompted the Automotive Industry
of the manufacturing capability. With this model, OEMs Action Group (AIAG) to create the Collaborative
that previously were required to predict the exact Engineering and Product Development Steering
acceptance of any particular product or product version Committee in late 2000.3 In announcing the new
can now dynamically respond to changing market committee, AIAG stressed the need for common industry
conditions. standards to enable interoperability, noting that the issue
is becoming even more pressing as more OEMs push
On the shop floor, manufacturers want to be able to “mix manufacturing, product and systems design
and match” software and equipment, choosing the best requirements down into their supply chains. In 2001,
piece of machinery for the job, regardless of vendor. AIAG received funding from the National Institute of
Along these same lines, OEMs want the flexibility of Standards and Technology (NIST) to conduct an industry
assembling the best team of suppliers possible to pilot project supporting the deployment of standards for
manufacture a specific product, based on area of the exchange of product data management (PDM)
expertise, price structure and even geographic location. information in the automotive industry.4 The pilot is
In either case, interoperability is key — interoperability of addressing such issues as requirements, data/schema
equipment from different vendors on a production line, development, software development and deployment.
and interoperability of systems among a diverse group of
suppliers. IDENTIFYING GAPS

However, the reality is that significant work is often One of NEMI’s primary activities is to roadmap the future
required to integrate a new application or piece of manufacturing technology needs of the North American
equipment into a manufacturing line. Similarly, electronics industry, identifying the key technology and
establishing a working relationship with a new supplier infrastructure developments required to ensure
can be quite complex, requiring a lengthy negotiation of competitiveness over the next decade. We compare
business processes, data formats, and application-to- what is needed to what currently exists, identifying gaps
application data hand-offs. The dream of a true “plug- that industry must address. We then organize projects
and-play” environment and “agile” manufacturing with that involve leading OEMs, electronics manufacturing
maximum flexibility is still elusive. services (EMS) providers, suppliers and solution
providers in developing solutions.
A recent survey by management consulting and systems
integration firm NerveWire, Inc.2 found that companies The NEMI roadmaps have identified several areas where
that were most tightly integrated with their trading standard interfaces could simplify and improve the
partners said their initiatives generated an average 40% manufacturing process, both on the factory floor and
increase in revenue, 30% reduction in cost, and 35% within the supply chain. Follow-on projects have
increase in customer retention rates. However, despite addressed those issues for which NEMI’s member
the advantages of tight integration with customers, companies could collaboratively develop solutions.
suppliers and business partners, few companies had
attained high levels of integration with outside parties. Initial efforts focusing on machine-to-machine
Only 2% of companies surveyed were highly integrated communications resulted in a set of specifications that
for product development and only 3% for became part of the IPC CAMX (Computer Aided
manufacturing/operations. Industries having the highest Manufacturing using XML) standards. The next area of
levels of “collaborative commerce” were focus was the exchange of information between
telecommunications services, high-tech manufacturing manufacturing partners (i.e., OEMs and their EMS
and financial services. Lowest levels of integration were providers and suppliers). This led to the development of
found among industrial manufacturing, energy and another set of specifications — the PDX (Product Data
public agencies. eXchange) standards — plus a still-ongoing effort to

3
“Interoperability is Focus of Automotive Industry Supplier
Group,” Manufacturing News, December 13, 2000, Volume
2 7, No. 22.
Press release: “Collaborative Commerce Survey Reveals
4
that High Levels of Integration with Customers, Suppliers Press release: “AIAG Wins NIST Grant to Conduct Product
and Business Partners Generate Significant Business Data Interoperability Pilot,” October 3, 2001, AIGI
Benefits,” April 15, 2002, NerveWire, Inc. (www.aiag.org).
(www.nervewire.com).
converge competing approaches to CAD/CAM data NEMI’s Plug and Play Project addressed the issues of
exchange. All of these projects are in collaboration with how to quickly integrate new pieces of electronics
IPC. assembly equipment into a shop floor line management
system and how to manage the vast amounts of data
In all cases, NEMI’s objective is to promote open industry available in today’s electronics manufacturing
standards and not proprietary solutions. We bring environment. It also addressed issues relating to the
together users and suppliers to define needs, develop collection of shop floor data from disparate pieces of
solutions, demonstrate those solutions and build a base equipment and how that data could be transferred
for industry-wide implementation, as discussed below. between remote locations via a Web browser. Activities
focused on three areas:
PLUG & PLAY FACTORY PROJECT
• Definition of standards for a software framework that
The Factory Information Systems (FIS) chapter of the will allow interoperability among software and
1996 NEMI roadmap identified several areas requiring equipment produced by different vendors.
research, development and/or implementation. Among
these were manufacturing application interoperability, • Development of process-specific machine
equipment integration and multi-site integration. The communication interface standards for surface
roadmap recommended that NEMI launch an mount equipment, to be based on SEMI's Generic
interoperability demonstration and development project Equipment Model (GEM) specification.
that would assist in development of the infrastructure
required to develop factory automation software. This • Establishment of a test bed manufacturing line at the
recommendation led to creation of the NEMI Plug & Play Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta) to prove
Factory Project to develop an open, vendor- the concepts developed by the project.
independent environment for electronics assembly,
inspection and test equipment and related software. Central to the Plug & Play effort was development of a
software framework, based on XML (extensible mark-up
Several factors make interoperability a must-have on the language), the universal format for structured documents
shop floor. As mentioned previously, the ability to and data on the Web, which encodes data into a format
choose the best software and equipment for the job and that is both human and machine-readable. The
to reconfigure quickly are important concerns. It is also framework provides a common interface among all the
necessary to enable the kind of monitoring capabilities hardware components on a PCB manufacturing line,
that today’s production environments demand. enabling equipment and software from various vendors
to work together in a seamless fashion. It also allows data
As manufacturing becomes more distributed, product to be collected from all machines on a line — regardless
managers can no longer walk out to the manufacturing of vendor or location — and displayed inside a Web
floor to monitor production operations but must rely on browser. An initial framework was defined by the Plug &
remote monitoring. Widespread adoption of new Play efforts, and work is ongoing at Georgia Tech’s
enterprise resource planning (ERP) applications has Framework Implementation Project to develop a more
increased the need for detailed operational information complete framework.
from production equipment. Smaller electronic
components coupled with increased board density often The Plug & Play Project also developed specifications
means errors are not as readily detected and prevented which have become part of IPC’s CAMX standards.
unless equipment parameters and performance are These standards facilitate interoperability among
closely monitored. By implementing a line-wide hardware and software components on the shop floor
monitoring application, OEMs and EMS providers can (see Table 1). Based on XML, these standards provide a
achieve more efficient surface-mount technology (SMT) common interface among all the hardware components
assembly operations, increasing equipment utilization, on a PCB manufacturing line. They also leverage
improving quality, and decreasing cost. While some GenCAM, the industry standard that defines how
vendor-specific line monitoring packages have been product data for PCBs should be described, including
available, such packages do not address the desire to information needed for tooling, manufacturing,
integrate equipment from different vendors. assembly, inspection and testing requirements. A fourth
CAMX standard will result from the framework project at
Unfortunately, most electronics manufacturing plants Georgia Tech.
have sophisticated pieces of equipment that exist in
isolated “islands of automation.” Manufacturing One of the key factors in the success of the Plug & Play
personnel must either physically walk up to the machine Project was a testbed at Georgia Tech’s Manufacturing
to gauge its performance or sort through reams of data to Research Center in Atlanta which implemented and
piece together a picture of how the line is performing. evaluated proposed solutions from the project team.
 Standard Title Status

IPC 2501 Generic Computer Aided Manufacturing using XML working draft
(CAMX) Framework Definition (in development at
Georgia Tech)

IPC-2541 Generic Requirements for Electronics Manufacturing published

Shop-Floor Equipment Communication Messages
(CAMX)

IPC-2546 Sectional Requirements for Shop-Floor Equipment published

Communication Messages (CAMX) for Printed Circuit
Board Assembly

IPC-2547 Sectional Requirements for Shop-Floor Equipment published

Communication Messages (CAMX) for Printed Circuit
Board Test, Inspection and Rework

Table 1. IPC CAMX Standards — Plug & Play Factory Project

This testbed allowed implementation difficulties and OEM’s information systems with those of its suppliers.
architectural incompatibilities to be identified in the However, most companies are still struggling to achieve
academic environment rather than on the production effective integration of design and production functions
floor, thus reducing the risks and costs associated with within their own enterprises, a difficult task even when
adoption of standards that emerged from the project. In manufacturing is a captive activity. Such problems are
addition, the time to develop standards was greatly amplified for the EMS provider, which must be able to
reduced as proposals were tested and feedback accept designs produced by a variety of systems and
generated in months rather than the years associated return both product and formatted information back to its
with the more typical process where standards feedback OEM customers. Additionally, mergers and acquisitions
is not available until drafts are released and have been a predominant means of growth among EMS
independently implemented. providers, and integrating the systems of multiple
companies often threatens the efficiencies intended by
VIRTUAL FACTORY PROJECT the acquisition/merger. EMS providers are faced with
the challenges of linking homegrown, purchased-but-
In the 1998 NEMI roadmap, issues of interoperability, customized and commercial “shrink-wrapped” systems to
transaction automation, supply chain integration and create internal interoperability.
tracking of product and process data were among the
industry needs identified in the FIS and Supply Chain There are several factors contributing to the challenge of
Management chapters. The roadmap stressed the need information integration:
for supply chain communication standards — both on the
shop floor and between manufacturing partners. • OEM and EMS providers alike have their own
proprietary systems or customized commercial tools.
In response, NEMI organized the Virtual Factory
Information Interchange Project (VFIIP) to develop • Acquisitions and mergers have created the need to
standards for the bi-directional exchange of information integrate numerous, often incompatible, platforms
between OEMs, EMS providers and component and applications.
suppliers for board and final assembly. Efforts centered
on the exchange of technical engineering and • Integration is not a static task, but must always be
manufacturing data, with the goal of giving companies reevaluated as systems are upgraded or partners
the means to increase efficiencies, shorten time to change.
market and improve return on investment (ROI).
While there are numerous proprietary formats for
With production being outsourced at an increasing rate, exchanging information among systems, there has been
rapid product introduction depends on quickly linking an
a lack of widely adopted standards that could help make interfaces, worked with NEMI and IPC to integrate the
communication within the supply chain more efficient. PDX standards into its own Cluster 2 and Cluster 7
As a result, EMS providers often have teams of people Partner Interface Processes™ (PIPs®). These PIPs relate
whose full-time jobs are to interpret customer data. The to distribution and update of production information and
larger the EMS provider and the more customers it to the exchange of technical data for manufacturing.
serves, the more staff it must have to build and maintain
hundreds of translation applications to import and export The three organizations coordinated closely to ensure
data between its systems and those of its customers and consistency of naming conventions and structure
suppliers. between the IPC standards and RosettaNet’s
dictionaries and specifications. All of the Cluster 2
Standards-based interfaces would enable EMS Product Information PIPs (2C2-2C10) have been voted
providers to realize significant cost and time savings by into production. These interfaces correspond to IPC-
not having to develop and maintain a separate 2578 and enable distribution and periodic update of
proprietary system for each customer. It would also free product and detailed design information, including
resources for more value-added services. OEMs would product change notices and product technical
benefit from faster turnaround times and lower costs. In specifications. The 7C6 PIP, which corresponds to IPC-
addition, standardized interfaces could allow the 2577 (distribution of quality information) has also been
automation of some information exchange tasks that released. Additional Cluster 7 Manufacturing PIPs are
were previously done by hand and, therefore, help currently in development. These PIPs will allow the
eliminate costly and time-consuming errors. exchange of “as-built” factory floor information,
collaborative design and quality information reporting.
The Virtual Factory Project developed specifications for
four PDX (Product Data eXchange) standards (see Table As with the Plug & Play Project, demonstration of the
2). This suite of XML-based standards gives partners a standards was important to their development and to
way to exchange product content and changes in a moving quickly from draft to published specifications.
common language. These standards will, for example, Project participants began integrating these standards
enable trading partners to automatically load bill of into prototype implementations even before they were
materials (BOM) information, update and track approvals published as final standards.
of engineering change orders (ECOs), exchange
product genealogy information, and encode approved DATA EXCHANGE CONVERGENCE PROJECT
vendors lists (AVLs) and approved manufacturers lists
(AMLs). Exchange of CAD/CAM data for printed wiring board
fabrication, assembly and test, is based on methods
VFIIP worked closely with IPC and RosettaNet on more than 30 years old. The inefficiencies of these
development of these specifications. IPC created the exchanges are estimated to cost the electronics industry
2570 series specifically for standards resulting from hundreds of millions of dollars every year in scrapped
NEMI’s Virtual Factory Project. (NEMI is not a standards- product, delivery delays and unnecessary design
making body.) RosettaNet, an industry consortium revisions and manufacturing cycles. A single data
focused on development of open e-business process exchange format would help lower costs by enabling the

Standard Title Status

IPC-2571 Generic Requirements for Electronics Manufacturing Supply published

Chain Communication — Product Data eXchange (PDX)

IPC-2576 Sectional Requirements for Electronics Manufacturing published

Supply Chain Communication of As-Built Product Data —
Product Data eXchange (PDX)

IPC-2577 Sectional Requirements for the Supply Chain (B2B) proposal

Communication of Quality Product Data

IPC-2578 Sectional Requirements for Supply Chain Communication of published

Bill of Material and Product Design Configuration Data —
Product Data eXchange (PDX)

Table 2. IPC PDX Standards — Virtual Factory Information Interchange Project

exchange of complete, accurate and intelligent data defining an industry-based solution. Solution providers
between the people who design printed wiring boards as well as users were asked to “vote” on two different
and printed circuit assemblies and the people who technical approaches — one using the XML version of
manufacture them. GenCAM as its foundation, and the other using
ODB++(X). Based on user requirements defined by the
Although Gerber is widely used for PWB fabrication, it technical team, missing features were identified, along
cannot handle all of the data required for manufacturing a with the approach to resolve those items (pulling from
complete product. As a result, Gerber files are typically the other format in most cases), and two proposals were
surrounded by many additional files, in several different developed.
formats, relating to other pieces of the manufacturing
process. Valor Computerized Systems’ ODB++ data NEMI used written surveys to solicit initial industry input
exchange format and IPC’s GenCAM®5 standards are on the proposals — first, from solution providers and,
the formats most often proposed for covering the full later, from users. The surveys also asked respondents
manufacturing process (i.e., from PWB fabrication to to project how long it would take to implement a
board assembly and test). Both have the potential of converged standard, to identify any major gaps in the
handling all data requirements. functionality of the two proposed formats, to identify
barriers to implementation, and to indicate whether the

Market GenCAM ODB Starting GenCAM ODB Starting

Segment Starting Point Point (raw Starting Point Point
(raw vote) vote) (weighted) (weighted)

EMS 0 8 0 13

OEM 5 12 10 22

PWB fabricator 0 8 0 13

Solution 8 5 10 7
provider

Totals 13 (28%) 33 (72%) 20 (27%) 55 (73%)

In early 2001, some of the electronics industry’s leading company would support a converged standard and the
manufacturers came together with their solution IPC standards process.
providers to “converge” the two leading data exchange
formats — IPC’s GenCAM standards and Valor’s ODB++ Users saw availability of industry-proven software
— in order to create a single exchange format. NEMI led solutions as a major driver behind how quickly a
a year-long effort to develop this converged standard, converged standard could be adopted and
serving as a neutral forum for soliciting industry input and implemented. Solution providers noted several factors
building consensus for a single solution. The proposed that would drive adoption schedules: time to
solution uses the ODB++(X)6 data format as a starting develop/verify products compatible with a converged
point and integrates strengths of the IPC GenCAM standard, level of customer pull/demand for products
specifications to create a standard data exchange format. that meet the standard, and dependencies on other
solution providers (e.g., interfaces to CAD tools).
The final specifications will define formats for the
interchange of design, manufacturing, test, fixture and Once the initial feedback was tallied and reviewed, a final
inspection information, etc. and will be controlled by industry vote was taken to determine which technical
industry through the open standards process of IPC. proposal to recommend for the IPC standards process.
Specifications will also be submitted to RosettaNet for Respondents voted only on the two proposed solutions,
incorporation in future PIPs in that organization’s new not on any existing implementation. There was no
Manufacturing segment (7A Design Transfer). appreciable difference between the results of the initial
surveys and the final vote.
The Data Exchange Convergence Project (as the NEMI
effort was called) involved more than 40 companies in The EMS and PWB fabricator segments were unanimous
in their preference for ODB++(X) as the starting point.
5
The OEM segment showed a solid majority (69%) for the
Generic Computer Aided Manufacturing same preference. While there is a clear preference for
6
The XML version of ODB++ ODB++(X) in the overall tally (73%), it is important to
note that the solution provider segment showed a Incremental demonstrations of an emerging standard’s
preference (59%) for GenCAM as the starting point. functionality can also accelerate the final standard’s
adoption. Such impending events can help keep a team
The decision process provided for weighted votes, on track, and provide visibility of the standard as it
based on size of company (as a rough indicator of evolves to a broader community. Actual commercial
industry influence). However, as Table 3 indicates, there partners make excellent “demo buddies,” as they can
was little difference between results of raw and weighted leverage demonstration-quality code into prototype
votes. implementations in a production exchange environment.

IPC has approved the creation of a new standards NEMI has also learned that actual standards can be
committee (2-17) to develop a “converged” data spread in much the same way that de facto standards are
exchange standard. The group held its first face-to-face spread. If a customer builds a standard into its supply
meeting at IPC Expo in late March 2002 and is targeting chain strategy, its key partners will also adopt the
the second quarter of 2003 for the first release of the standard. Similarly, if a key vendor commercializes a
data exchange standard. This release will cover board standard, its satellite vendors will follow suit. Standards
fabrication and assembly, supporting data transfer are seldom selected for their completeness or
among OEMs, fabricators and assemblers. robustness – they are more often adopted based on
Specifications will be developed so they are easily very pragmatic cost or business concerns.
extensible, ensuring that additional features and
capabilities can be added in future releases. Finally, standards should stake out a niche and protect it.
The Virtual Factory Project realized early on that
NEMI is currently focusing its efforts on recruiting all RosettaNet’s standards would need the same capability
companies that participated in the industry feedback and that the PDX standard contained, so NEMI worked
voting stages to participate in the standards process (in together with RosettaNet to integrate rather than
order to ensure broad industry involvement) and on replicate PDX into both groups’ formats. The effort was
creating industry acceptance. so successful that companies who were not a part of the
standards development process reported “discovering”
As standards activities progress, NEMI will encourage that PDX and RosettaNet manufacturing standards were
early adoption and implementation of the standards structured identically. Integration, when it is done right,
through tool development, partnerships with other speaks for itself.
consortia, and demonstrations. User support will also be
solicited to help ensure that solution provider
investments are timely and of high return. This effort
cannot be successful without strong participation of all ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
four of the industry sectors identified. In the end, a
standard can only be effective if users and solution Special thanks to Joanne Friedman of META Group.
providers embrace it.

CONCLUSION — LESSONS LEARNED

REFERENCES
The most viable approach for dismantling the “Tower of
Babel” that exists among supply chain partners is the 1. “OEMs plan to increase their outsourcing, survey
wide-spread use of consensus-based industry says,” EBN, May 6, 2002
standards. By agreeing to common interfaces, data (www.ebnews.com/story/OEG20020506S0033).
exchange formats and naming conventions, companies
can reduce the time it takes to transfer critical design and 2. Press release: “Collaborative Commerce Survey
manufacturing data to their trading partners without loss Reveals that High Levels of Integration with
of integrity. Customers, Suppliers and Business Partners
Generate Significant Business Benefits,” April 15,
A standard, no matter how robust, is only effective if it is 2002, NerveWire, Inc. (www.nervewire.com).
widely adopted. Just as products must be designed for
manufacturability, NEMI has learned that standards, too, 3. “Interoperability is Focus of Automotive Industry
must be designed with final adoption and Supplier Group,” Manufacturing News, December
implementation in mind. Not only must the end users of 13, 2000, Volume 7, No. 22.
a standard participate in defining its requirements, but
they must also take key leadership roles in the 4. Press release: “AIAG Wins NIST Grant to Conduct
standardization process to ensure that pragmatic Product Data Interoperability Pilot,” October 3, 2001,
concerns don’t fall victim to “creeping elegance.” AIGI (www.aiag.org).
CONTACT

Jim McElroy
Executive Director and CEO
National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative
2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 110
Herndon, VA 20170-4214
phone: (703) 834-2082
fax: (703) 834-2735
email: [email protected]

Barbara Goldstein
Strategic Advisor to the Director
Electronics and Electrical Engineering Lab
National Institute of Standards & Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8100
Building 220, Room B364
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8100
phone: (301) 975-2304
fax: (413) 431-2026
email: [email protected]

DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS

AML: approved manufacturers list; a list of computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) systems for
manufacturers and MPNs that are acceptable/ electronics manufacturing.
preferred/disqualified for use as a given OEM part
number. IPC: IPC-Association Connecting Electronics
Industries®; an international industry association of
AVL: approved vendors list; similar to, sometimes used
designers, printed circuit board manufacturers,
interchangeably with, AML; usually focuses on where a
electronics assembly companies, suppliers and original
part is purchased rather than who manufacturers the part.
equipment manufacturers; an ANSI-accredited standards
BOM: bill of materials; list of components required to body (www.ipc.org).
build a given product.
NEMI: National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative - an
CAMX: Computer Aided Manufacturing using XML; a
industry-led consortium focused on facilitating
set of IPC standards for shop floor communication
leadership of the North American electronics
(webstds.ipc.org).
manufacturing supply chain (www.nemi.org).
EMS: electronics manufacturing services; a company ODB: a CAD/CAM format used by printed circuit board
specializing in manufacturing electronic products for fabricators and assemblers. Originally developed by
other companies. Valor Computerized Systems, ODB++ has become a de
facto industry standard, providing for PCB design,
GEM: Generic Equipment Model for communications fabrication and assembly.
and control of manufacturing equipment; SEMI
standards that define the behavior of semiconductor OEM: original equipment manufacturer.
equipment as viewed through a communications link.
The SEMI E5 (SECS-II) standard provides the definition PDX: Product Data Exchange; a set of IPC standards
of messages and related data items exchanged between that utilize an XML encoding scheme to enable supply
host and equipment. The GEM standard defines which chain partners to exchange product content, changes
SECS-II messages should be used, in what situations, and subsequent manufacturing information in a common
and what the resulting activity should be. language (webstds.ipc.org).

GenCAM: Generic Computer Aided Manufacturing; a PIP™: Partner Interface Process™ (PIPs™), developed
set of IPC standards that enable intelligent two-way data by RosettaNet to define business processes between
transfer between computer-aided design (CAD) and trading partners.
RosettaNet: a consortium of computer makers,
resellers, and users creating e-commerce standards for
transaction-centered data exchanges using a
standardized set of terms for product, partner and
transaction properties (www.rosettanet.org).

SEMI: Semiconductor Equipment and Materials

International; an international trade association of
companies participating in the semiconductor and flat
panel display equipment, materials and services markets
(www.semi.org).

XML: Extensible Mark-up Language; the universal

format for structured documents and data on the World
Wide Web (www.xml.or or 222.w3c.org).
APPENDIX A — CAMX STANDARDS

Specifications for the IPC Computer Aided Manufacturing Using XML (CAMX) standards (developed by NEMI’s Plug & Play
Factory Project) can be downloaded from http://webstds.ipc.org.

IPC-2501 IPC-2546

This standard provides a CAMX framework that defines This standard establishes requirements and other
protocols for exchanging messages on the factory floor. considerations for the interchange of information
It makes use of a message broker to exchange XML between shop floor electronic assembly equipment and
messages among clients in a domain and accomplishes factory information systems. Information may consist of
point-to-point and publish-and-subscribe attribute and parametric data, product data, process
communication. recipes, equipment monitoring and control, resource
utilization and material consumption.
IPC-2541
IPC-2547
This standard establishes requirements and other
considerations for the interchange of information among This standard establishes requirements and other
electronic manufacturing software equipment and factory considerations for the interchange of information among
information systems. Information may consist of attribute shop floor electronic inspection and test equipment and
and parametric data, product data, process recipes, factory information systems. Information may consist of
equipment monitoring and control, resource utilization attribute and parametric data, product data, fixture files,
and material consumption. test vectors, equipment monitoring and control,
resource utilization, image data, test and inspection
program sets, test event data.
APPENDIX B — PDX STANDARDS

Specifications for the IPC Product Data Exchange (PDX) standards (developed by NEMI’s Virtual Factory Information
Interchange Project) can be downloaded from http://webstds.ipc.org.

IPC-2571 IPC-2577

This standard defines an XML encoding scheme that This standard covers the sectional requirements for
enables a total product definition to be described at a product quality, quality manufacturing and quality repair
level appropriate to facilitate supply chain interactions. information including failure tracking. This standard
The standard is designed to transfer technical defines an XML encoding scheme that captures the
information including bill of materials (BOM), approved setting and updating of quality goals, communicating and
manufacturer list (AML), as-built product configuration, responding to quality excursions and reporting actual
and change (engineering, manufacturing, product) data from manufacturing and repair operations. The IPC-
information. 2577 standard defines how manufacturing and repair
product quality and information is exchanged between
IPC-2576 supply chain partners. Information represented in this
standard includes such things as; manufacturing site,
This sectional standard provides an XML encoding manufacturing date, part number, serial number,
schema to allow electronics manufacturing supply chain manufacturing quality results and failure tracking data.
partners to exchange as-built product configuration and
manufacturing process information. The information IPC-2578
represented by this standard may be used to continue to
support products throughout their life cycles. The This sectional standard provides an XML encoding
information represented in this standard includes: as- scheme to allow electronics manufacturing supply chain
built product characteristics related to form, fit and partners to exchange sufficient product data to enable
function; serialization; batch/lot information; distributed manufacturing. The information represented
manufacturing site; manufacturing date; part number; by this standard includes bills of material (BOM),
component and sub-assembly data. approved manufacturer lists (AML), approved supplier
lists (ASL), change history and engineering change
orders, and a high-level description of the components
listed on a bill of material.