Are Standards Driving New Interconnect Technology?
By Bob Hult, Bishop & Associates Inc.

While the output of committees is often criticized, there is little doubt that the electronics industry is experiencing a proliferation of standards-writing organizations. Groups that are actively generating new standards range from formal standards organizations, such as IEEE and VITA, to special interest groups (SIGS), industry consortiums, companies that participate in multisource agreements (MSAs), and select industry-leading companies.

Specifications may define a portion of a system, such as the bus structure or input/output interface, while others define the entire system’s mechanical and electrical platform.

In addition, environmental concerns have produced a series of mandates that are having a profound influence on the design of connectors. These mandates focus on the use of lead and other potentially hazardous materials used in connector manufacturing, the ability to recycle materials, and energy efficiency.

Some standards, such as Universal Serial Bus, define a specific interface, while others allow the use of any connector that can satisfy detailed performance test specifications. Another variation is the Quick Path Interconnect specification. This specification doesn’t define a connector, but includes one in its reference design, which implies support.

Standards bodies typically consist of members that bring diverse and sometimes conflicting interests to the table. Critics have complained that the choice of members is often based on political rather than technical considerations. Marketing demands may drive decisions that result in serious technical flaws in the final specification. The resulting standard may represent a series of compromises that do not necessarily achieve all of the original objectives. The question is: Are evolving standards responding to or driving the development of new interconnect technology? Based on a series of interviews for this article, the answer is a little of both.

Many OEMs prefer to design equipment around industry-accepted standards for a variety of good reasons. A standard assures performance to specification using components that are multi-sourced and competitively priced. Intermateability among competitive product is guaranteed. Reduced design and component qualification time using limited technical resources can bring a new product to market within its window of opportunity and at lower cost. Access to reference designs and programs that insure compatibility with other suppliers reduces the risk associated with new product development. A downside expressed by some engineers is that by the time a new standard is proposed, reviewed, and released, the technology could become obsolete. Basic elements of a device may be defined by the standard, potentially restricting the ability to add innovation.

Very large OEMs may be an exemption to this trend. Industry-leading OEMs may choose to utilize a standardized part that happens to satisfy all of their performance and packaging requirements. They tend to focus on their needs, rather than compromise to satisfy a standards body. If a component defined in a standard fails to meet their specific expectations, they have sufficient clout to drive their preferred connector vendors to tool exactly what they need.

Overall, it appears that designing new electronic products utilizing one or more standards is on the rise.

From the connector manufacturer’s perspective, there are positive and negative aspects to participating in the development of an interface standard. A successful standard can generate a potentially large market in a very short amount of time, reducing the risk associated with introducing a new interface. Typically, few part numbers are required to satisfy the specification, reducing the cost of tooling. If broadly accepted, the new interface may be expanded into an entire family of product as demand grows. The decision to become an active participant on a standards development committee is often driven by marketing considerations. The perception of leadership and market visibility are powerful incentives, as well as the new business opportunities it can generate. In some cases, key customers will encourage a supplier to get involved in the creation of a new standard in order to ensure their needs are being addressed by a preferred certified source.

Standards organizations typically demand that all specified components are made available for license to any competitor at a reasonable and non-discriminatory fee. The cost of connector development to the licensee is avoided, adding competitive price pressure early in the adoption cycle. A connector manufacturer who tools a connector defined by a new standard has the advantage of capturing early market share, but a licensee can wait for the market to develop before committing scarce resources to an unproven interface. Deficiencies in early product designs can be identified and improvements can be included in the initial offering of a licensee. Suppliers may find ways to differentiate their product from other approved sources by adding unique features, such as stacked, color-coded, or surface-mount versions, if allowed by the specification. The ability to provide experienced technical support and willingness to tool customer-specific variations are becoming key factors in vendor selection.

An interface defined by a standard may quickly become a commodity product available from a host of global low-cost suppliers. That leaves little opportunity for price control. The selected component must often be volume-tooled to achieve the lowest possible price, which typically means manufactured at offshore locations. Some pundits have pointed to the expansion of standardized connectors as a factor in the migration of manufacturing away from the United States, but most agree that the trend began long ago, driven by the low-cost mandates of globalization.

The fact that detailed dimensional information must be provided raises concerns about maintaining control of critical intellectual property (IP). Participants in standards groups must be willing to share their IP to participate in the open standards development process. Some see sharing of IP as a necessary cost of doing business, and say they cannot afford not to participate. A widely adopted standard also invites the introduction of counterfeit components. Users of non-authorized, low-speed connectors would likely see little performance difference, but as connectors are being pushed into the multi-gigabit bandwidth arena, subtle design and material differences can have significant influence on performance. The insistence on certified components is becoming essential.

Connector manufacturers approach standards bodies with a variety of strategies. A supplier may propose a connector that exists within their current offerings for inclusion in the specification. Through their participation in the formative stages of new standards, they may attempt to shape the specification toward their favored interface. This has obvious advantages to the connector supplier who incurs little or no tooling cost, can offer performance data based on real-world applications, has proven manufacturability, and can make the interface immediately available for implementation. Standards writing groups often consist of multiple competitive connector suppliers, so agreement among members can become contentious. An existing connector may come close, but not fully satisfy all of the objectives of the standard, resulting in compromise that may weaken the resulting standard, and potentially jeopardize its industry acceptance. Companies may also choose to participate in a standards body with the objective of steering the final selection toward a favored technology or away from a specific competitor.

Compromise among competing interests also is a factor when connector suppliers offer proposals for new designs to satisfy a standard in development. Suppliers may offer to modify an existing product or an entirely new interface. This is a more costly approach, as suppliers must invest design and development resources to produce their proposal. The mechanical and electrical characteristics required by the new specification may require the investigation into new technologies and can limit the participants to those companies with the equipment, experienced personnel, and financial resources to achieve the objectives.

This is where the wish list of a new standards body can stimulate the development of new technologies and connector capabilities. For example, the PICMG Advanced Mezzanine Connector (AMC.0) pushed the assumed limits of edge connector technology into multi-gigabit interfaces. Introduction of the Advanced TCA standard spawned research in advancing 2mm backplane connectors into what has become 10+ Gb/s interfaces from multiple suppliers, including Amphenol TCS, FCI, Molex, and Tyco Electronics. The lessons learned in developing high-speed technology are not only resulting in the successful implementation of these specifications, but is also being applied to additional interfaces that require increasing bandwidth. In some cases, not only the connector design is advanced, but suppliers also recognized the role that the connector PCB launch has on high-speed channel performance. Connector manufacturers often provide optimized footprints, as well as routing patterns, that are critical to enabling performance to specification.




The Samtec “Final Inch” design tool is an example of this level of technical support.

The evolution from parallel to multi-gigabit serial bus structures and their rapid inclusion in new standards has provided incredible incentive for industry leaders to make investments which support advanced high-speed circuit modeling and signal integrity capability. These resources are now being applied to solve the challenges of next-generation equipment.

Bishop & Associates' Comments: 

• The popularity of standards-based platforms and components are on the rise. Major stimulants have been the industry demand for greater packaging density, as well as increased high-speed performance.

• Connector manufacturers face challenges in deciding which committees to participate.

• The selection of a connector-by-committee is less than an ideal process, but has the potential to quickly generate significant new product revenue.

• Connector suppliers may chose to propose an existing product or an entirely new interface to address the requirements of a developing standard.

• A single large OEM can drive the development of a new connector that, over time, may become a defacto standard.

• Many connector manufacturers see participation in standards bodies as an essential part of doing business in today’s market.

• Industry consortiums, special interest groups, and multi-source agreements have greatly reduced the time associated with the standards development process.

• The technical expertise gained in the development of new high-performance connectors required by emerging standards has enabled connector manufacturers to advance the current state-of-the-art, and has opened opportunities for the development of new high-performance interfaces.