Tips for Outsourcing or Hiring an Electronics Failure Analysis Service – Part 2

In part one of this series of tips for outsourcing or hiring an electronics failure analysis service, we examined the wide variety of information that should be gathered before sending a failing part out for analysis. The construction of a detailed packet of data, including a problem description, a background or history of the failing device, and any auxiliary documents like layouts or schematics that may be necessary in chasing down the root cause of failure of a device is an involved process – but, once such a dataset has been assembled, the struggles of choosing a lab to entrust it with can begin in earnest. Just as one would not want to drop an expensive supercar off with any random shadetree mechanic, a one-of-a-kind failure should be sent to a lab with the  best (and most relevant) capabilities, experience, and a proven track record, in order to help ensure the best results.

When determining which lab has equipment and capabilities that best match up with a given sample, it is often necessary to consider the unique features of the failing device. Analysis of a high speed, low noise amplifier, fabricated using III-V semiconductor technology and used for wireless communications, requires a completely different set of test equipment and techniques than the disassembly of a microelectromechanical system (or MEMS) used for measuring acceleration as part of the accident detection system in a car. To elaborate on the prior example, a lab that has focused on the equipment necessary to test wireless technology – high frequency oscilloscopes, expensive active probing systems, and the like – may not have invested the same amount of money into the precision grinding, polishing, and chemical containment systems that are required for MEMS analysis. Similarly, a lab that primarily deals with counterfeit inspection of legacy electronics may not have the deprocessing or high resolution imaging capability to tackle defects at the more modern technology nodes with features measuring 90 nanometers or smaller. To that end, it will often be necessary to speak with FA engineers at multiple potential suppliers, conducting a sort of survey of the types of techniques that may be available that are applicable to a given failure.

Though electronic failure analysis equipment is important when hiring an electronics failure analysis service, it is not the sole consideration; equally important is determining whether the lab personnel have the experience not only to run the equipment, but to correctly interpret the results. The issue of proper interpretation can become especially pronounced when sending parts to overseas test or FA facilities; though, inevitably, their services may be much cheaper, and some may indeed provide a quality service, their work often fails to go into the level of detail necessary for a truly beneficial failure analysis. Keeping this in mind, it is absolutely necessary to vet the background of a lab’s employees; fortunately, many of the best labs will publish the curriculum vitae of their key employees, allowing potential customers to easily see the breadth and depth of products that the FA engineers have had direct, in-depth exposure to. As an example, a lab boasting an employee who has published several papers on inspecting electronic components for counterfeiting will almost certainly be an excellent source for performing authenticity assessments on samples from a suspect supplier.

Finally, another consideration in evaluating a lab when outsourcing electronics failure analysis is examining their track record of successes and failures. Naturally, coming out and directly asking the marketing staff of the lab is an exercise in futility (unless of course the particular marketing rep is in a particularly disgruntled mood); however, one of the best ways to determine a lab’s history is through word of mouth. Given the vast array of manufacturers and the relatively small number of electronics failure analysis labs, there is a good likelihood that a colleague or other professional contact has used a given lab at some point in the past, and can give a frank evaluation of their capabilities. Indeed, this effect helps to ensure that independent FA labs perform all due diligence and explore all failures to the extent of their capabilities – the last thing any lab wants is to be associated with bad results.

Finally, once the painstaking process of evaluating and choosing a lab has borne fruit, the failing sample can be sent off to be torn down into its constituent parts, deconstructed in detail in order to determine the root cause of the given failure and allowing constructive corrective action to be taken to prevent any further fallout. Choosing a lab for outsourcing electronics failure analysis services is certainly a daunting task, especially given all the various elements that must be considered; fortunately, some labs have taken much of the effort out of the equation, collecting a great deal of the necessary information in one place for the convenience of any potential customers.

Tips for Outsourcing or Hiring an Electronics Failure Analysis Service – Part 1

Inevitably, in any product’s life cycle, there will arise an obstacle that may seem insurmountable: products may experience unexpected levels of inexplicable malfunctions after hitting store shelves, low production yields may wipe out any hope of profitability, or any of a number of other issues can rear their heads. When faced with such gremlins, manufacturers often struggle to find the best approach for solving their woes – without being able to pin down the problem, finding a solution is impossible. External failure analysis services can often be invaluable in such situations; however, the task of choosing a lab – and providing them with the information needed to ensure their success – can be difficult as well. Fortunately there are some tips that can help in the process of hiring an electronics failure analysis service, to ensure that the necessary results are obtained.

The first step that must be taken whenever outsourcing an FA job – even before a lab has been selected – is the construction of a detailed background information set describing the problem. Designers and manufacturers have access to a wealth of information: design specifications, drawings and computer models of the device’s layout, in-depth schematics, and simulation data are all things that a manufacturer may take for granted that are unavailable to external labs, yet may be key to uncovering the root cause of the problem. Similarly, manufacturers generally have the “whole picture” of how a device may have failed – they know how long the sample was in service, whether the failure of the device appears to be an isolated incident or representative of an epidemic, and so forth. Like any other scientific pursuit, failure analysis does not occur in a vacuum (except for the rare cases calling for failure analysis on vacuum cleaners); this type of background knowledge can be vital in determining the course an analysis may take, as an analyst may be cued to look for different root causes depending on the history of a device. As an example, environmental contamination may be a relatively unlikely cause for failure for a device that broke down in a tightly-controlled cleanroom; however, for a cheap consumer device like a remote control or an MP3 player, there are innumerable sources for potential contaminants to force their way into the circuits of a device.

Just as an in-depth history is vital for an analyst to quickly and efficiently drive a failure to resolution, an accurate, concise description of the issue plaguing a device is absolutely necessary. Just like taking a car into the mechanic, a failure analyst can diagnose an issue more efficiently if the problem description is more in-depth than “funny noise when driving”. Any problem reported by the client will, at some point, need to be translated into a testable condition by the FA team – providing the most complete description of the problem possible will allow an analyst to properly design a test program to isolate the root cause of the failure. In the same vein, it is often beneficial to provide a sample that is working properly along with the failing sample; by giving a golden unit to compare against, it is possible to employ techniques that greatly increase sensitivity to small defects, by allowing analysts to separate normally-occurring phenomena from those stemming from the failure of the device. For so-called “functional failures”, in which cases a device is still mostly operational (i.e. is not short- or open-circuited), but may not give a correct output, the use of a correlation sample is almost mandatory, since the normal operation of such a device will often create many of the indicators (photoemission, thermal hot-spots, et cetera) that analysts use to isolate failure sites – in order to find the true failure, they must have some way of filtering out those sites that are inherent to the normal operation of the device.

Once the initial data about a failure has been collected and filtered for any unnecessary or sensitive data in order to ensure the best results from a given failure analysis job, the next step is to evaluate and choose a lab to handle the project. In part two of this series, we will discuss the sorts of things to look for when choosing a lab, in order to provide the greatest probability that a given issue will be resolved successfully.

Electronic Component Failure Analysis Labs – A Safety Net

Electronic component distributors are faced with a myriad variety of risks when dealing with the vast array of devices available on the contemporary market. The looming specter of counterfeit or fraudulent devices, combined with the expected stresses of dealing with run-of-the-mill complaints and RMAs, can be an overwhelming combination of potential problems that must be overcome. In order to surmount these obstacles, diligent distributors must often enlist outside assistance. Fortunately, electronic component failure analysis labs are perfectly poised to help these suppliers struggle through any quality issues they may face.

The problem of dealing with potentially counterfeit, fraudulent, or “grey market” devices is a relatively new issue facing suppliers of electronic components. Given that the core competencies of any electronic component failure analysis lab – detailed inspections, x-ray imaging, acoustic microscopy, electrical testing, and decapsulation, to name a few – are precisely the tools that are needed for analyzing a component to determine its authenticity, partnerships between suppliers and FA labs are only natural. By establishing such a partnership, distributors can create an in-line authenticity checkpoint, sacrificing a few samples from each lot to ensure that the whole group of parts is, in fact, what it claims to be.

Though counterfeiting is indeed a serious problem for component suppliers, an equally costly issue is posed by customers who return parts and claim that they are malfunctioning. Without a proper investigation, a supplier may be forced to offer refunds or credits due to these complaints – often, the end user attempts to lay blame with the supplier for selling faulty parts. Again, electronic component failure analysis labs can be a great boon to suppliers in these situations; by opening up the offending part and performing an in-depth failure analysis, it is often possible to determine whether the part was indeed faulty as supplied or was inadvertently overstressed by the customer.

Cooperation between suppliers and electronic component failure analysis labs is not only natural, but can be a great benefit to both parties. Distributors gain the ability to claim that their parts are verified by an independent failure analysis lab – a claim with undeniable marketing value – while the failure analysis lab gains the invaluable experience and exposure to a huge breadth and depth of different devices. Ultimately, these partnerships allow both firms to work towards a common goal – that of delivering defect free services on time, every time.