Early in my career I was mostly focused on package design and development. But along the way I realized something important: designing something is only half of the story. The real question is: will it survive under real use conditions for many years? That curiosity about failure mechanisms naturally pulled me toward reliability engineering. I’ve always been interested in understanding the physics behind problems — thermal stress, material interaction, fatigue, electromigration, and so on.

Advanced packaging is interesting to me because it sits exactly at the intersection of design, materials, and application stress. It’s where electrical performance meets thermal and mechanical reality. When you understand those interactions well, you can prevent many problems before they ever reach the customer.

Over the course of my career, I’ve had the opportunity to work across different companies and technologies, from package design, to new product introduction, to reliability strategy. Much of my work focuses on improving package robustness and developing structured qualification approaches for new technologies. The impact is not always visible to end users, but reliability plays a role in many applications we depend on every day: automotive electronics, power systems, and communication infrastructure.

For me, the most meaningful impact is when a product runs reliably in the field for years without issues. When that happens, it means the design, materials, and risk assessments were done correctly.

Moving from the Philippines to the Netherlands was a major step for me and my family. It was both exciting and challenging at the same time.

Professionally, joining Ampleon gave me the opportunity to work in a very collaborative environment where design, reliability, and application teams work closely together. It pushed me to grow not only technically, but also in communication and cross-functional collaboration. Personally, the experience also reminded me that engineering is a global profession. Different cultures approach problems differently, and that diversity often leads to better technical discussions and better decisions.

Most weeks are a combination of technical analysis and collaboration. Part of my time is spent reviewing reliability data, failure analysis results, or qualification plans. I also spend a lot of time working with design teams, process engineers, and program managers to assess risks for new products. Outside of work, I try to keep a good balance. I enjoy spending time with my family, and music is one of my hobbies. Cooking and playing guitar help me relax and reset after a busy week.

When there is a gap between what a customer expects and what we currently have internally, the first step is to understand the real risk and the mechanism behind it. Sometimes the gap is only perceived, and sometimes it is a real technical challenge. Once the risk is clearly defined, we can discuss mitigation options: additional testing, design adjustments, or qualification strategies. In my experience, transparent and data-driven discussions usually lead to the best alignment.

One thing I always emphasize is that FMEA is not just a document, it is a thinking process. For engineers who are new to it, I encourage them to focus on understanding the failure mechanisms first. If you understand why something can fail, the rest of the analysis becomes much clearer and easier. I also encourage open discussion during FMEA sessions. Many good ideas come from different perspectives, and sometimes the most valuable question and solutions are the simple one.

Many people think reliability engineering is mainly about running stress tests. In reality, testing is only part of the process. The most important work often happens much earlier, during concept development and package design. If we understand the physics and risks early enough, we can design products that are inherently more robust. Testing then becomes a confirmation rather than a discovery.

Semiconductor Engineering is naturally multidisciplinary. You need input from design engineers, materials experts, process engineers, and application teams. Each group sees the problem from a different angle. When those perspectives come together, the final solution is usually stronger. In my experience working across different countries and teams, diversity in thinking often helps uncover risks that a single team might overlook.

To me, reliability leadership means helping teams make informed decisions about risk. It also means creating an environment where engineers feel comfortable raising concerns early. If people are afraid to discuss potential problems, those problems usually appear later in production or in the field use. Good reliability leadership is not about being negative or blocking progress. It’s about helping teams move forward with the right level of confidence.

Power density, power hungry products and packaging complexity are increasing very quickly, especially with new semiconductor technologies. Because of that, I see a big opportunity in predictive reliability: combining simulation, mission-profile analysis, and structured risk assessment earlier in the development process. If we can predict potential failure mechanisms before hardware is built, development cycles become faster and products become more robust.