At the NCAB Norway seminar on Sept. 10, I used a familiar example: a standard six-layer PCB. A year earlier, this would generally have been a straightforward purchase. Prototypes could be supplied on quick turn, and production quantities were commonly available within four to six weeks. Choosing standard materials helped secure a competitive price and predictable delivery. We knew what to expect, and we planned accordingly. We were all happy!
Twelve months later, even a conventional six-layer PCB built to established IPC requirements can be difficult to source within the time available. The design and technical requirements may be unchanged, but the supply chain behind it has changed.
For the product owner, the consequences reach well beyond the PCB purchasing budget. Longer lead times can mean missing a critical launch window and losing the opportunity to establish a position in the market. A relatively inexpensive board can become the reason a much more valuable product cannot ship. How did we get here?
Last year, I arranged an NCAB seminar called “PCB Circularity & Life Cycle Assessment.” During that seminar, Shengyi Technology, a major Chinese laminate supplier, delivered a clear warning: Within six to seven months, capacity will become constrained as production increasingly served AI and data center applications.
Their explanation was straightforward that high-speed materials and standard FR-4 can be produced in the same factories, using the same prepreg treaters. The glass cloth grades and resin systems differ, but the equipment used to impregnate the cloth with resin and partially cure it to make prepreg is shared.
That is where competition for capacity becomes very real.
Materials for demanding AI and data center applications offer attractive margins, and customers are willing to pay to secure the performance and supply they need. When manufacturers commit more of their available treater capacity to these products, less may be available for conventional materials.
Your six-layer board does not need an advanced low loss resin system. But its prepreg can still compete for production time on equipment that also makes those higher-value materials.
A similar mechanism applies to copper foil. Standard copper foil and the very low and ultra high very low-profile foils used in high speed applications share the same basic raw material and, with exceptions for particular processes and capabilities, production equipment. The products have different requirements, but their production resources are not entirely separate.
Where higher-performance foil delivers better margins, and demand is sufficient, manufacturers have a strong commercial incentive to prioritize it. This is the connection conventional PCB users need to understand. The pressure extends beyond shortages of particular raw materials. It is also about how manufacturers choose to use the capacity they already have, and where they choose to invest in additional capacity.
A year ago, selecting a standard material generally placed you in a favorable purchasing position. You were choosing something produced in volume, widely supported, and competitively priced. Today, that same material may have a lower commercial priority.
To the customer, it is still standard FR-4. To the material manufacturer, it occupies equipment that could potentially generate a better return by producing something else. Where that equipment becomes a bottleneck, the price needed to make standard production attractive can rise sharply. The price gap between conventional and advanced materials may narrow, even though the conventional material has gained no additional performance.
That does not mean all FR-4 will reach high-end laminate prices, but it does mean that familiarity and technical simplicity no longer offer the price protection customers may expect. I hear customers reporting price increases of up to 300% for their standard PCBs. These are individual accounts, not a market-wide average, and they do not tell us how much of each increase comes from materials, fabrication capacity, or the conditions of the order. Nevertheless, they illustrate the scale of the disruption some customers are experiencing.
The customer sees the price of a board. Behind that price sit several businesses, each responding to its own costs, available capacity, and commercial opportunities. New capacity cannot be switched on as quickly as demand can change. Equipment must be installed, processes established, and materials qualified. Meanwhile, customers still need their boards. And on top of this, we do have material shortages.
I explored some of these connections in my Substack article, “The AI Datacenter Paradox: Can the PCB Supply Chain Keep Up?” Here, I want to take the discussion closer to the customer buying conventional PCBs. Understanding why the market has changed should help us decide what to do next.
The first step is to understand the constraint behind the quotation. Is your supplier waiting for a particular laminate or prepreg? Is the problem a specific thickness or glass construction? Is material available, but the PCB factory has insufficient production capacity? Or is the requested delivery date dependent on stock that has not yet been secured?
Those situations require different responses. Moving an order to another PCB factory may help with a fabrication bottleneck. It may achieve very little if both factories are waiting for the same upstream material. This is why a useful supplier discussion needs to go beyond “What is your best price and delivery?”
- Ask what is driving the lead time, which options are available, and what would be needed to secure a realistic production slot. An indicative lead time is a weaker basis for a launch plan than a commitment supported by confirmed material availability.
- Make your demand easier to plan for. A forecast does not create capacity, but timely, credible information gives a supplier a better basis for planning material purchases and production. Discuss what can be reserved, what requires a firm order, and what commitments each party is making.
A customer who gives early visibility and makes decisions in time may have more options than one who arrives with an urgent requirement after the design and launch date are fixed.
3. Examine where flexibility actually exists. A standard six-layer construction does not automatically mean every material choice is interchangeable. Equally, a familiar material designation should not prevent us from asking whether another qualified option could meet the product's requirements.
The important word is qualified. A material that is available today is useful only if it supports the required manufacturing process, performance, and long-term reliability. Alternatives need to be established before an urgent shortage turns selection into a rushed decision. My next article will focus on qualified flexibility.
There is also an earlier point at which we can influence our exposure: the design process itself.
Every decision about materials, stackup, and construction helps define the sourcing options that remain available. By the time a finished design reaches purchasing, some of those options may already have been closed. Availability, therefore, deserves attention alongside electrical performance, manufacturability, reliability, and cost from the beginning of the design process.
This is what I call “design for availability.” It requires designers, PCB suppliers, and purchasing teams to discuss supply conditions while design choices are still open. The aim is to meet the product's technical requirements while preserving practical, qualified sourcing alternatives.
In a forthcoming article, I will explore how designers can respond to this changing market, which decision points deserve closer attention and when supplier involvement can make the greatest difference. Which choices genuinely serve the product, and which unnecessarily limit where, how, or with what materials it can be built?
Qualified Flexibility establishes which alternatives we can trust. Design for Availability helps ensure our designs can make use of them.
These decisions must also connect to the wider product plan. Design, purchasing, assembly and marketing need a shared understanding of what can be delivered and when. A launch date based on last year's purchasing assumptions may already be at risk before the PCB order is placed.
For the six-layer board in my example, the best solution might involve an earlier material commitment, a qualified alternative or a revised production schedule. The right response depends on identifying the actual constraint while there is still time to act.
We cannot individually reverse global material prices or make new capacity appear overnight. But we can become better prepared, identify alternatives earlier and make better use of the options the market offers. Perhaps we can even be a little smarter than our competitors.
The six-layer PCB I showed at the seminar had not suddenly become more technically demanding. What had changed was the market behind it. Understanding that change helps us make better decisions about design, sourcing, assembly and product launch. The goal is to bring a reliable product to market when our customers need it.
A competitor buying from the same market faces many of the same pressures. Being better prepared can make the difference between meeting a launch window and missing it.
Resources
- “A Changing PCB Market—What You Need to Know,” NCAB Group, Aug. 31, 2026.
- “PCB, Copper & Laminate Constraints Update,” by Raymond Goh, Confidee, Aug. 4, 2026.
- “PCB Design for Supply Stability,” by Jeffrey Beauchamp, NCAB Group, May 5, 2026.
- “The AI Datacenter Paradox: Can the PCB Supply Chain Keep Up?” by Jan Pedersen, PCB Technology & Circularity, Substack, 2026.
- “The Impact of the AI Boom on PCB and Raw Materials Supply Chains,” by Mark Goodwin, I-Connect007, Nov. 13, 2025.
- “Shengyi S1000H FR-4 Pricing and Working-Capital Pressure,” by Mark Goodwin, LinkedIn, accessed Sept. 17, 2026.
The account of Shengyi Technology’s warning is based on the author’s attendance at its presentation during NCAB’s PCB Circularity & Life Cycle Assessment seminar in 2025. Reported customer price increases reflect individual customer discussions, not a market-wide survey.
Jan Pedersen is an independent PCB technology and circularity consultant, and industry writer.
