In some of my previous blogs, I discussed different aspects of the obsolescence management problem and offered up a variety of solutions, culminating in the semiconductor lifecycle management (SLiM) program.
The majority of original semiconductor suppliers are focused on commercial or industrial markets, and the military market is either an afterthought or not considered at all. These suppliers plan their product line introductions and discontinuances around the lifecycle of the high-volume, short-lifetime commercial programs. When the product demand for these programs decline, the supplier then offers up a last-time-buy (LTB) to support the customers who need product out in the future. These suppliers do not plan with the military/aerospace customer in mind; they simply announce last-time-buys, raise prices, and then exit the business.
Commercial and industrial users can successfully work around the LTB requirements. They can forecast the long-term demand for their products, translate this into product needs, and then make business decisions about how much money they are willing to commit today for the ability to continue their product life. These companies can look at a variety of financial factors to determine if spending extra money today will be justified in order to ensure meeting their end customer demand in the future. They can weigh the risks of not being able to obtain more devices or having to pay higher prices later against the investment required to purchase excess inventory. They can also consider a product redesign and can upgrade to newer components.
In theory, the military/aerospace contractor should be able to use the same analysis techniques as discussed above, and they certainly do. However, the military contractor does not have the flexibility to commit to LTB purchases in the same way a commercial company can. Since they are driven by program funding, the military/aerospace contractor cannot commit dollars that have not yet been awarded, even when they are fairly certain that the demand will be there in the future.
So, the contractor is limited to only purchasing enough products to satisfy already awarded contracts and is forced to put future program extensions into the fickle hands of the obsolescence marketplace. The product redesign option is rarely a good option due to the high costs of redesign and requalification.
Working with a SLiM provider can offer a solution to the LTB funding dilemma. The successful SLiM supplier can offer a bridge between the strict LTB dates and the long-term demand for military/aerospace programs. By involving the SLiM supplier with both the military contractor and the original semiconductor supplier prior to the conclusion of the LTB process (or ideally even before the process starts), the SLiM supplier can offer a variety of solutions to continue production of the obsolete devices.
These solutions can include the purchase of inventory to be stored for the military contractor; the purchase of die to be stored for future builds as needed; the transfer of product information including device, package, and test information; and can ensure the uninterrupted supply of devices as military programs get extended.
The issue here looks to be ,not whether there is a technical solution available to take care of End of life situation but whether the govt funding will be awarded at that time for such a purchase.
Here in my opinion , it would be the defence department's responsibility to allocate upfront approved budget for such LTB based upon the defence contractors recommendations and the then( at the time of LTB) goverment's responsibility to honour such advance commitements.
This is like buying a 20 year insurance policy with guranteed returns at maturity to take care of the exingencies at that time.
Bolaji--at the same time, it strikes me that moving more toward commerical products--as the mil/aero marekt has been doing-- was supposed to eliminate some of the uncertainty around component sourcing. Commercial products are thought to be more easily and widely avialble so therefore less dependent on things like funding. It was a good theory while it lasted.
Excellent discussion. It is certainly true that manufacturers overlook the military market when issuing LTBs. The ability to forecast is one thing that most could improve, but assuming good forecasting, government contractors simply cannot spend money that they have not yet been awarded.
There are companies who offer programs to support this problem with special purchase agreements and long term storage capabilities. In some cases this means making a proxy LTB for a customer, and other times it means making a wafer purchase during the LTB cycle and storing die until it is needed and funding is available. While the end cost of products with these programs may be marginally higher than the original selling price, they are much more affordable than re-design and qualification costs, as others have commented on.
@Bolaji - In addition to the items you mention, the volume of components in the mil/aero arena is often a lot smaller than commercial applications. Generally, the commercial applications drive the market on that basis.
Barbara, The last-time-buy issue is a complicated one for all manufacturers but as you noted, it is even more perplexing for companies in the military market. The problem is complicated by the size of the sector and the limited number of companies that can or that are allowed to participate there. Getting certified is only the beginning, servicing an industry segment where products last 20 or more years is an additional burden.
I've never thought of the funding vs. LTB decision. It seems obvious now--every year, the US government has to hammer out a budget and military spending is always an issue. It makes an already-difficult forecast situation even worse. Commerical users of chips can't get it right--it must be even worse in mil/aero.
The qualification testing required for military applications is also a factor. In the case of component obsolescence, military contractors may also have the option to redesign and upgreade to a newer replacement. But the cost to do so is ofter far greater than it is for commercial applications, because the military application must be tested to far more rigorous environmental standards, and must be approved and funded by the government.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This