Product Segmentation in Pick Place Machines?

Okay guys (and my fellow lady lurkers), I am trying to determine WHAT the segmentation is for the products in the pick and place industry.

For example, I know in screen/stencil printing, there are manuals, there are semi-automatics, mid- and high-range automatics. In p&p, however, I'm clueless.

I have spoken with Siemens - who gave me one set of segments: high speed, flexible/fine pitch, super high speed and high-speed flip chip. Panasonic, however, thought that was a totally bizarre market segmentation, and suggested medium volume, high volume, multi-functional and fine-pitch and a small segment called "micro electronics."

In a market research study from 1997, I find the following segments - low volume, medium volume, high volume and fine pitch.

What is it REALLY? Is it subjective across different companies? Is there not real industry standard?

Arrrgh!

Jennifer

reply »

| Okay guys (and my fellow lady lurkers), I am trying to determine WHAT the segmentation is for the products in the pick and place industry. | | For example, I know in screen/stencil printing, there are manuals, there are semi-automatics, mid- and high-range automatics. In p&p, however, I'm clueless. | | I have spoken with Siemens - who gave me one set of segments: high speed, flexible/fine pitch, super high speed and high-speed flip chip. Panasonic, however, thought that was a totally bizarre market segmentation, and suggested medium volume, high volume, multi-functional and fine-pitch and a small segment called "micro electronics." | | In a market research study from 1997, I find the following segments - low volume, medium volume, high volume and fine pitch. | | What is it REALLY? Is it subjective across different companies? Is there not real industry standard? | | Arrrgh! | | Jennifer | I believe most machine vendors will try to convince you their label is correct. As usual its all about "spin". Subjective is correct. Each vendor must position themselves in the market with a distinct advantage. Often times that merely involves advertising rather than equipment performance. It would be nice to see a standard metric for equipment funcion.

Dean

reply »

| Okay guys (and my fellow lady lurkers), I am trying to determine WHAT the segmentation is for the products in the pick and place industry. | | For example, I know in screen/stencil printing, there are manuals, there are semi-automatics, mid- and high-range automatics. In p&p, however, I'm clueless. | | I have spoken with Siemens - who gave me one set of segments: high speed, flexible/fine pitch, super high speed and high-speed flip chip. Panasonic, however, thought that was a totally bizarre market segmentation, and suggested medium volume, high volume, multi-functional and fine-pitch and a small segment called "micro electronics." | | In a market research study from 1997, I find the following segments - low volume, medium volume, high volume and fine pitch. | | What is it REALLY? Is it subjective across different companies? Is there not real industry standard? | | Arrrgh! | | Jennifer |

Jennifer,

Since manufactures have different speed ratings (usually not to accurate) i classify P&P machines as follows.

Chip Shooters - speeds vary from 20,000 to 96,000 cph Multi Placers - speeds vary from 5,000 to 10,000 cph Fine Pitch (20 mil)speeds vary from 2,500 to 10,000 Ultra fine pitch (12 mil) speeds vary from 2,500 to 7,500 cph, for flip chip, cob, bga's odd-form, etc. Proto-type Placers - speeds 500 to 1000 cph bench top placers - semi auto - speed operator controlled

Thanks, Roger Scalia

reply »

| | Okay guys (and my fellow lady lurkers), I am trying to determine WHAT the segmentation is for the products in the pick and place industry. | | | | For example, I know in screen/stencil printing, there are manuals, there are semi-automatics, mid- and high-range automatics. In p&p, however, I'm clueless. | | | | I have spoken with Siemens - who gave me one set of segments: high speed, flexible/fine pitch, super high speed and high-speed flip chip. Panasonic, however, thought that was a totally bizarre market segmentation, and suggested medium volume, high volume, multi-functional and fine-pitch and a small segment called "micro electronics." | | | | In a market research study from 1997, I find the following segments - low volume, medium volume, high volume and fine pitch. | | | | What is it REALLY? Is it subjective across different companies? Is there not real industry standard? | | | | Arrrgh! | | | | Jennifer | | | | Jennifer, | | Since manufactures have different speed ratings (usually not to accurate) i classify P&P machines as follows. | | Chip Shooters - speeds vary from 20,000 to 96,000 cph | Multi Placers - speeds vary from 5,000 to 10,000 cph | Fine Pitch (20 mil)speeds vary from 2,500 to 10,000 | Ultra fine pitch (12 mil) speeds vary from 2,500 to 7,500 cph, for flip chip, cob, bga's odd-form, etc. | Proto-type Placers - speeds 500 to 1000 cph | bench top placers - semi auto - speed operator controlled | | Thanks, | Roger Scalia | | Dearest Jennifer,

Ooooops! Forgot which one I was writing - please forgive me. Ah yes, SMT and you, you see even we don't get it right. If you combined all our answers, you would get close - as close as when we get frustrated.

And on it goes,

MoonMan

reply »

| Okay guys (and my fellow lady lurkers), I am trying to determine WHAT the segmentation is for the products in the pick and place industry. | | For example, I know in screen/stencil printing, there are manuals, there are semi-automatics, mid- and high-range automatics. In p&p, however, I'm clueless. | | I have spoken with Siemens - who gave me one set of segments: high speed, flexible/fine pitch, super high speed and high-speed flip chip. Panasonic, however, thought that was a totally bizarre market segmentation, and suggested medium volume, high volume, multi-functional and fine-pitch and a small segment called "micro electronics." | | In a market research study from 1997, I find the following segments - low volume, medium volume, high volume and fine pitch. | | What is it REALLY? Is it subjective across different companies? Is there not real industry standard? | | Arrrgh! | | Jennifer | If you read Jennifer Kohl's (who is from Siemens) in "Pathways to SMT" from SMT Magazine, Siemens segmentation makes sense. The focus is that each segment has it's own processing demands, each requires special placement considerations (vision, laser, mechanics, feeding, etc.). Until you start getting into 5 digit placement speeds I suspect most puchasers are looking into the technology, accuracy, flexibility; not the low, medium, high volume catigories. And I've yet to see a new company, who's never had any SMT equipment before, start with a full Fuji line.

It's not uncommon to see a flexible/fine-pitch machine inserted in a line after a chip shooter - this is high volume or multifunctional? That very same flexible/fine-pitch machine at another facility would operate as a standalone machine - is that low volume, medium volume, fine pitch or multifunctional? Still technology driven.

But that leaves out the low end bench top systems. But they're left out in most surveys anyway - go figure.

Hope this helps, Scott

reply »

| Dearest Jennifer, | | Ooooops! Forgot which one I was writing - please forgive me. Ah yes, SMT and you, you see even we don't get it right. If you combined all our answers, you would get close - as close as when we get frustrated. | | And on it goes, | | MoonMan

Okay Earl - my favorite little MoonDoggy - here's my quandary:

I *have* to come up with a market segmentation. Doesn't matter that it doesn't make any sense, doesn't matter that it doesn't apply to any particular manufacturer

I understand the logic that the market is segmented by the end-user groups and what they need to place and how fast. So, since this irrelevant documentation *has* to be created from the manufacturer's point of view, is it best to segment by speed? For example, the "100-5000 cph" category would encompass bench-top, most multi-placers, and prototype machines. The emphasis in that previous statement being on "most." This categorization would go on arbitrarily to 100K+, I would assume.

Will the IPC-9850 document "Surface Mount Equipment Performance Characterization" have any effect on how the market is lumped? My argument was to wait on this documentation until AFTER this has gone into effect / been accepted into the industry.

Sorry to be a pain in the neck - I'm almost as confusing as the industry seems to be, but I really appreciate your (and everyone else's!) input in this murky little world.

Jennifer

reply »

| | Dearest Jennifer, | | | | Ooooops! Forgot which one I was writing - please forgive me. Ah yes, SMT and you, you see even we don't get it right. If you combined all our answers, you would get close - as close as when we get frustrated. | | | | And on it goes, | | | | MoonMan | | Okay Earl - my favorite little MoonDoggy - here's my quandary: | | I *have* to come up with a market segmentation. Doesn't matter that it doesn't make any sense, doesn't matter that it doesn't apply to any particular manufacturer | | I understand the logic that the market is segmented by the end-user groups and what they need to place and how fast. So, since this irrelevant documentation *has* to be created from the manufacturer's point of view, is it best to segment by speed? For example, the "100-5000 cph" category would encompass bench-top, most multi-placers, and prototype machines. The emphasis in that previous statement being on "most." This categorization would go on arbitrarily to 100K+, I would assume. | | Will the IPC-9850 document "Surface Mount Equipment Performance Characterization" have any effect on how the market is lumped? My argument was to wait on this documentation until AFTER this has gone into effect / been accepted into the industry. | | Sorry to be a pain in the neck - I'm almost as confusing as the industry seems to be, but I really appreciate your (and everyone else's!) input in this murky little world. | | Jennifer | | Jennifer,

I do seriously empathize (is that even close to being spelled right? - I don't do it too often). We're all in the same quandry. This stuff changes daily, if not more often. However, in the meantime, I'd go with CPH for chip devices (yesterday's Fuji went 60 + million or more CPH - tomorrow it will go billions) and another rule for accuracy and repeatablility - even though they all have to be equal here with part sizes shrinking (part recognition and alignment plays another part here - you should factor that into the equation). One or more such suggestions aluded to this as K3, Scott, and others mentioned.

It's one thing to go faster than hell. It's another matter to place accurately fine pitch devices and everything in between. Thing is, it's all getting faster with lasers and improved optics.

Whoever said Fuji, Panasonic, and Sanyo goes fast wins - today. Whoever said MYDATA, Philips, Universal, Zevatech, Siemans places everyting well wins. Whoever said there's a cross over wins - today only. Philips went faster than anyone two or three years ago.

Sweet Jennifer, please forgive me at a time of total frustration, ignore the manufacturer's hype and go with what you'd do if starting a CM operation. Plot it out according to your customer's needs. This part of the conversation takes on new meaning as flexibility, dedicated production requirements, and even cell type manufacturing.

If you have high mix and low volume, you might go with MYDATA, Philips, Universal (name says it all), Siemens, and Zevatech. If you are going all out to hell with high volume (consistent), low mix go with Fuji, Panasonic, Sanyo, etc. I'm saying, again, it's all up to the person buying the equipment for a particular application - today only. Tomorrow, it will be different.

Maybe you should chart it all out in a spreadsheet then timeline for your presentation. This will work for today. Have I already said this?

Damn, I'm turning into a bitchy raving maniac over this. However, I care deeply for you. What was your name again?

MoonDoggyMan

reply »