February_EDFA_Digital

edfas.org 37 ELECTRONIC DEVICE FAILURE ANALYSIS | VOLUME 21 NO. 1 memory), enabled by having the best tools, that makes a difference.” Our final panelist is a rare guest for ISTFA. Chetan Kumar is a senior manager from Medtronic, a world- renowned medical device company. His team is respon- sible for all engineering activities throughout the product life cycle of microelectronic components sourced from external suppliers. This includes concept definition, sourcing, qualification, manufacturing integration, and the operational performance of all components. Although Kumar does not work in the failure analysis lab directly, he interacts dailywith the failure analysis teams regarding product quality, reliability, and customer issues. Kumar holds a unique position regarding failure analysis needs and the importance of determining the root cause of medical device failures. In the past few years, panel discussions focused on delivering information to the audience, primarily from our panelists’ point of view. This year, however, we strove to encouragemore interaction between the panelists and the audience. Our belief is that open communication is the best way to share varied opinions and to obtain the most valuable inputs from all involved. With this mindset, our panelists causally sat “Tech Talk” style during the panel discussion andwere ready to answer audience questions. for our work to be value added. We enjoy our profession and want it to make a difference. Together, the audience and our panel explored the topic, “Is this failure worth analyzing?” Each panel participant openly answered all of the inquires that our ISTFA attendees posed. We dis- cussed how to reach the decision on whether to analyze or not, along with typical consequences that come with each choice. A hot topic was whose perspective is most impactful whenmaking the decision to analyze. The panel emphasized the need to remain customer-centric along with mindfully managing the analysis work. During our 90-minute session, thequeries never ceased, the conversa- tion was lively, and valuable lessons were shared among all in attendance. Following are some highlights: Whenaskedwhoseperspective ismost impactful when making the decision to analyze or not, the consensus among thepanelistswas that dependingon the functionof the failure analysis labs, the order of impact is as follows: Customer (is king!) → Customer quality engineering → Requestor (internal yield, product, and manufacturing group) → Lab management → Failure analyst The customer is themost impactful ondecisionmaking for failure analysis (FA). Most companieswork closelywith customers tounderstand failurebackgrounds andconduct data analysis before deciding if full FAwill go forward. For special fields and applications such as automotive and medical devices, every single failure is treated seriously in order to find the root cause and take actions for correc- tion and prevention. Our panelists declared that the failure history is one of the most important factors to be considered, along with customer requirements, when asked how to reach the decision on whether to analyze or not. If the failure is related to a known issue, signature analysis can be used for closing the case, assuming corrective actions “IT IS THE FA ENGINEERING EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE (COLLECTIVE MEMORY), ENABLED BY HAVING THE BEST TOOLS, THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.” “OUR BELIEF IS THAT OPEN COMMUNICATION IS THE BEST WAY TO SHARE VARIED OPINIONS AND TO OBTAIN THE MOST VALUABLE INPUTS FROM ALL INVOLVED.” And it was off to the races…the 2018 ISTFA panel dis- cussion started with immediate audience engagement. After a brief hello to the attendees and aword of introduc- tion fromthe panel, questions fromthe audience instantly streamed in. As failure analysts, we all fervently desire “OUR PANELISTS DECLARED THAT THE FAILURE HISTORY IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED, ALONG WITH CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS, WHEN ASKED HOW TO REACH THE DECISION ON WHETHER TO ANALYZE OR NOT.”