Shrinking timelines for hardware engineering have arrived in areas where many teams developing printed circuit boards do not feel prepared. Revisions of the product that took longer times to make and move to manufacturing review are expected to be completed far faster, particularly in industries with electronics associated with connected devices, industrial equipment or compact consumer devices.
These conditions are changing expectations of PCB design solutions. Customers are looking carefully at the speed of moving design modifications across stages of layout reviews, simulations and fabrication preparation without producing new verification bottlenecks further down the road.
Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.
This does not relate to the need to incorporate additional capabilities into design platforms; the goal here is the reduction of bottlenecks between stages already stuffed with dependencies. Increasingly dense circuitry designs, higher density of component placement and greater interplay between electrical and mechanical engineering teams cause delays when it comes to handling revisions.
Engineering teams used to thinking of PCB design platforms as tools for drafting the layout now pay more attention to the software as a layer of coordination between decisions about the layout and the schedule for production. This affects software purchasing conversations in practical terms. Workflows for importing designs, managing revisions and matching manufacturing needs now play a more significant role, as redesign iterations are becoming costly.
Small hardware companies seem particularly susceptible to this trend. Big corporations can cover additional verification rounds with engineering capacity, while smaller operations are forced to rely on a few experts who will perform layout validation, comply with requirements and arrange fabrication in parallel. Any delay in handing off the design will cause the postponement of procurement or prototyping by days or even weeks.
PCB solution vendors find themselves dealing with more divided audiences as well. While some customers seek simulation capabilities, others will look for consistent output or a strong library management system. These differences have produced a fragmentation in the industry because each engineering challenge has its own definition of what a streamlined process looks like.
A new problem has appeared regarding onboarding. Experienced engineers are still hard to replace, although some software requires high levels of familiarity with the workflow. Training time has become a factor in evaluating solutions for PCB design, particularly for electronics engineering teams that include embedded software developers or people responsible for production.
Distributed engineering also complicates matters. Reviews of the printed circuit board layout could involve employees operating from different locations or independent contractors working on a limited basis. Software platforms that confuse the user on versioning or the owner of a particular design can introduce issues in fabrication reviews, which are detected much later down the line.
None of this means that there is an impending revolution coming to the PCB design solutions segment. Many teams prefer well-established design platforms and are reluctant to change their existing workflow. The work with the layout is too close to fabrication for electronics engineering teams to replace existing solutions easily.
Nevertheless, conversations about PCB design software are starting to go beyond the questions of interfaces or feature sets. Engineering deadlines vary considerably across electronic markets, which prompts discussions of whether there might be too much room for delays in design processes.
