PCB design software is now becoming increasingly inseparable from workforce issues for electronics companies. This challenge goes beyond having access to a good platform for engineers; many organizations find themselves facing problems when trying to adopt software due to their inability to recruit experienced PCB experts or provide proper training programs.
This challenge tends to appear most strongly in companies scaling up electronics capabilities with limited hardware design teams in place. PCB designs continue requiring highly specialized skills, particularly when it comes to routing, signal integrity and manufacturing processes that might not be immediately obvious at earlier stages of the process.
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.
The increased complexity of software plays a big role here as well. Some PCB design environments incorporate extensive feature sets that have been gradually built up over years in the industry, meaning that veteran engineers can easily feel at home in them while relatively new professionals find difficulty adjusting to the workflow of such systems.
This challenge creates an interesting disconnect between software features and engineering teams' ability to adopt the platform effectively. Managers who invest money in state-of-the-art software often find out that the time required for onboarding is longer than anticipated or that a few senior PCB designers end up being involved in almost all key layout-related decisions.
These issues have a significant impact on how electronics organizations are preparing for product development in terms of staff planning. Companies are competing more than ever to recruit engineers who are comfortable with moving from schematic designs to layout reviews and further to manufacturing without undergoing extensive training programs. PCB software skills are now becoming an important topic in recruitment interviews rather than just preferences of engineers.
Training issues themselves create further challenges for electronics organizations in their efforts to scale up their capabilities. Mentorship has always been a major aspect of developing PCB skills, yet shorter deadlines make it more difficult to engage experienced workers in the process of onboarding new recruits who can take over their jobs in a year or two.
Collaboration through remote channels has also made a difference, since it enables electronics companies to become more flexible when recruiting talent, but reduces interactions through which newer employees could gain insight into layout-related processes or manufacturing issues that emerge during project implementation.
Some electronics organizations respond to such challenges by limiting the complexity of some parts of the workflow or restricting software usage to essential features available for broad implementation across teams. Others continue prioritizing highly specialized design environments despite their longer onboarding process needs.
Software vendors might find themselves under greater pressure related to user interface, features and training as a consequence of current workforce-related concerns among buyers. Those companies will start focusing more on how long it takes to turn new recruits into productive members of the design team independent of experienced engineers.
It seems that these workforce challenges cannot go away anytime soon. The PCB designing process remains highly technical and tightly connected with manufacturing requirements, meaning that electronics organizations have to be careful not to simplify everything too much. Still, the discourse surrounding PCB software adoption is beginning to extend into a discussion of workforce issues.
