MCM Package Selection: Cost Issues

  • Lee Hong Ng


In the design of electronics packaging systems, there is rarely a single “best” solution; the final design is usually a tradeoff between different performance attributes (system speed, thermal constraints or size) and cost. In many cases, tradeoffs between cost and performance are the most important. Unfortunately, the analysis of cost and performance tradeoffs is a very complex task. On the performance end, the vast variety of design options available today to the packaging engineer precludes an exhaustive analysis of all viable alternatives. On the cost end, the treatment usually is even more cursory because of the complexity and uncertainty of cost before actual production.


Wire Bonding Cost Issue Technical Cost Green Tape Cost Breakdown 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. C. O’Guin, “Activity-Based Costing: Unlocking Our Competitive Edge,” Manufacturing Systems, pp. 35–39, Dec. 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. R. Dieffenbach, “Technical Cost Modeling as Cost Simulation Tool,” Soc. of Cost Estimating and Analysis Nat. Conf, (Boston MA), June 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. M. Salatino, R. C. Bracken, “Assembly Choices in Mulitchip Module Fabrication,” Proc. of Internat. Conf. on Multichip Modules, (Denver CO), April 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Cooper, R. S. Kaplan, “How Cost Accounting Distorts Product Cost,” Management/Accounting, pp. 20–27, April 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. S. Worthy, “Accounting Bore You? Wake Up,” Fortune, Oct. 12, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Cooper, “The Rise of Activity-Based Costing,” J. of Cost Management For the Manufac. Industry, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 4554, Summer 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Cooper, R. S. Kaplan, “Measure Costs Right: Make the Right Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 96–103, Sept. - Oct. 1988, pp 96–103.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    “Why Costs Need to be Put in Step with the March of Automation,” Financial Times, June 30, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. B. Troxel, M. G. Weber, Jr. The Evolution of Activity-Based Costing,“ J. of Cost Management, pp. 14–22, Spring 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. T. Johnson, “Beyond Product Costing: A Challenge to Cost Management’s Conventional Wisdom,” J. of Cost Management, pp. 1521, Fall 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. V. Busch, “Primary Fabrication Methods and Costs in Polymer Processing for Automotive Applications,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, SM Thesis, June 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Poggiali, “Production Cost Modeling: A Spreadsheet Methodology,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, SM Thesis, August 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. V. Nallicheri, J. P. Clark, “Competition between Powder Metallurgy and Other Near Net Shape Processes: Case Studies in the Automotive and Aerospace Industries,” KONA Powder and Particle, no. 8, pp. 105–118, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. E. Mascarin, J. R. Dieffenbach, “Fender Material Systems: A Life Cycle Cost Comparison,” SAE International Congress & Exposition, (Detroit MI), Feb. 1992. Published in SAE Technical Paper SeriesNo. 920373.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. H. Ng, F. R. Field, “Cost Modeling for Printed Circuit Board Fabrication,” Printed Circuit Fabrication, vol. 12, no 2, Mar. 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. H. Ng, F. R. Field, “Technical Cost Modeling: A New Approach To Cost Analysis,” IPC Technical Conf, (Boston MA), April 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. H. Ng, “Design For Manufacturability: The Cost Connection,” Proc. of Surface Mount Internat., (San Jose CA), Aug. 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. H. Ng, Z. Emstad, “Buried Vias, Friend or Foe?,” Proc. of Internat. Electr. Packaging Conf, (Marlborough MA), Sept. 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. R. Cox, L. H. Ng, “An Economic Comparison of High and Low Temperature Cofired Ceramics,” Inside ISHM, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 31–33, Jan./Feb. 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. L. Lassen, “Integrating Multichip Modules into Electronic Equipment - The Technical and Commercial Tradeoffs,” Proc. of Internat. Electr. Packaging Conf., (Marlborough MA), Sept. 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. H. Ng, “Multichip Module Cost: The Volume-Yield Relationship,” Surface Mount Techn., March 1991 and Inside ISHM, March/April 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. H. Ng, “What Drives the Cost of Multichip Module?,” Proc. of Japan Internat. Electr. Manufac. Technology Symp., (Tokyo Japan), June 26–28, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. H. Ng, “Economic Impact of Processing Technologies on Thin Film MCMs,” Proc. of 42nd ECTC Conf, (San Diego CA), May 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. Jan Vardaman, L. H. Ng, “A Cost/Performance Analysis of Interconnect Options,” Proc. of Internat. Symp. on Hybrid Microelectr., (Orlando FL), Oct. 1991.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Messner, “Cost-Density Analysis of Interconnections,” IEEE CHMT Transaction, vol. CHMT-10, p. 143, June 1987.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. H. Ng, “Economic Comparison of Alternative Packaging Systems 1: Packaged Chips,” Proc. of NEPCON West, (Anaheim CA), Feb. 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lee Hong Ng

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations