Sole-Source ASIC: Seismic Exposure, Price Demand, and Export Classification
VoltEdge Systems designs industrial power converters. Its custom controller ASIC is sole-sourced from a foundry in Kumamoto, Japan, with a 26-week lead time. The foundry sits in a seismic zone; the 2016 earthquake stopped production for five months. VoltEdge owns the photomasks and test fixtures, which are stored at the foundry. Annual demand is 90,000 units; current on-hand ASIC inventory is 6 weeks. The foundry has asked for a 40% price increase, citing capacity reservation and raw-material costs, and wants a 12-month take-or-pay commitment. Separately, VoltEdge's compliance team flags that the ASIC's embedded encryption module may fall under export-control classification ECCN 5A002 if sold into certain countries; the current classification is 'not listed.' Legal is concerned about the force majeure clause, which excuses performance for 'acts of God' without a recovery-time commitment. The CEO wants a recommendation before the quarterly board meeting.
1. Rank the top risks and explain which one you would address first.
Read the worked answer
Rank by reversibility and time to mitigate. First, export control. The classification question is binary and cannot be remedied after a shipment; penalties and reputational damage are severe. Before any further shipments to flagged destinations, obtain a formal classification or a written opinion from export counsel. This is a compliance gate, not a supply-continuity tradeoff.
Second, seismic single-source risk. The 2016 event stopped production for five months; six weeks of inventory is nowhere near enough. The impact is existential for the product line, and detectability is low. Mitigate through tooling retrieval rights, a qualified second source, or a strategic ASIC buffer of 16–20 weeks - expensive, but quantifiable against five months of lost sales.
Third, the 40% price increase. It is large and certain, but it is visible and negotiable. Rank it third because it affects margin, not survival. Addressing the export question first also prevents a price negotiation from proceeding on an illegal footing.
2. What legal and contractual levers would you use with the foundry, and what would you concede?
Read the worked answer
Use tooling ownership as the primary lever. VoltEdge owns the photomasks and fixtures, but ownership without access is weak. Put in place a bailment agreement, a right to retrieve on short notice, insurance, and a disaster-recovery plan. That is the strongest source of leverage with the foundry.
Fix force majeure. Amend the clause to require notice within 48 hours, a recovery plan, and a post-event capacity-allocation commitment. Exclude price and market conditions from force majeure. Add priority allocation for strategic customers.
Discipline the price. Tie the 40% increase to an audited cost index, cap annual increases, and require productivity offsets. Accept a 12-month take-or-pay but with a flex band (for example, ±15%) and rollover of unused volume. Offer a longer term or a capacity reservation in exchange for price discipline and tooling access. Do not concede unlimited liability or any waiver of export compliance. The foundry has capacity power; the package must be balanced, not one-sided.
3. How would you approach compliance classification and alternative sourcing without creating new risk?
Read the worked answer
Do not self-classify. A hunch is not a compliance strategy. File a commodity classification request or obtain a written opinion from export counsel. In the meantime, screen customers and destinations, hold shipments to flagged countries, and document the decision. This protects the company while the answer is pending.
Screen before qualifying. Alternative sourcing must be screened for export-control jurisdiction, ownership, and technology controls before any qualification spend. A second foundry in a different seismic zone reduces continuity risk, but it could create a new compliance risk if it is in a restricted jurisdiction or uses controlled technology differently.
Phase the dual-source plan. Re-qualifying a custom ASIC is likely 9–12 months and over $1M, so it is not a launch fix. Keep the primary foundry, negotiate tooling access and a buffer, and start second-source qualification in parallel. Do not dual-source the encryption module until the classification is resolved. Compliance risk follows the technology; it is not diversified away by adding a supplier.