标签: texas instruments

The age of open-ended, "investigate what you want" charter characterized by Bell Labs is over, no doubt about it. We may miss their vaunted RD effort which spawned so many advances, and quite a few Nobel Prizes, but it's not coming back, so there's no point in lamenting it. The corporate "model" that supported Bell Labs, and others like it, is gone; too much has changed to allow it to remain in place. But maybe we shouldn't worry. There's plenty of RD being done, but it is being done in different ways and with different imperatives. Today's corporate labs are much more driven and focused on visible and viable goals, with shorter timelines, and more tangible outcomes. I saw this in a recent visit to the Kilby Labs at Texas Instruments (Dallas, TX) and a meeting with Venu Menon, Kilby's vice president and manager of the Analog Technology Development, and Kelly Krantz, lab manager. The operation is named for TI fellow Jack Kilby, who was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in 2000, "for his part in the invention of the integrated circuit". The approach that Kilby Labs uses is very different than the open-ended Bell Labs approach. Anyone at TI can propose a project that may be worth exploring, by explaining why it may be worthwhile, what the outcome might be, and what the measure of success is. If the project is approved by the Kilby management committee, a small team (typically four people) is pulled together from various TI groups and business units to investigate it over a period of between 12 to 18 months. Except for lab administration, there is no permanent staff. Furthermore, the team may not even include the person who suggested the project, if he or she doesn't have a particular technical expertise that the project needs. The team members know they are on a special assignment, and will be going back to their home units once their project is over. The objective is to determine if the idea has a future from a technical and market perspective, and if so, what is needed to make it happen—and if TI can do it, or find partners who can help. In many ways, the projects are enhanced feasibility studies, but they go much further than just simulations and "paper" analysis; there is real hardware and software involved. If it looks promising, TI may then put additional resources into the appropriate business unit or product line to develop ICs (or other products) to make the lab project into reality. Because the Kilby Labs goals and investments are relatively modest in terms of people and time, there's an acceptance of failure. In fact, the people at Kilby told me they expect that only 20% of the projects will be deemed "successful" at their conclusion, and worthy of further investment by the business units—and that's OK. The other 80% will become part of the corporate learning process, and sometimes knowing where not to go is as important as knowing where to go. The Kilby Labs model is not right for everything, of course, and TI acknowledges this. That's why they (and other corporations) feel that longer-range projects that have more "R" than "D" are a better fit for universities, often working in conjunction with a corporate partner. Does the Kilby Labs approach work? It's too early to say, since the lab has been using this structure only since 2009. But it already played a role in one significant product, in May 2011: the TMP006, a passive infrared (IR) temperature sensor with on-chip MEMS thermopile sensor, signal-conditioning channel, 16bit analog/digital converter, local temperature and voltage references, and digital interface—all in a 1.6 × 1.6 mm monolithic device. Does our industry need more of this type of lab model, situated some between the "R" of research and the "D" of development? Or is it a cheat, an attempt to get something big, without too much up-front long-term commitment? Is it better take a lot of smaller, more manageable shots than a few big ones? Can we rely on universities, alone or with corporate involvement, to do more of the open-ended research? What do you think? I think these are all good questions—and that I should apply for my own grant, to study them further.

The era of open-ended, "investigate what you want" charter characterized by Bell Labs has ended, no doubt about it. We may miss their vaunted RD effort which spawned so many advances, and quite a few Nobel Prizes, but it's not coming back, so there's no point in lamenting it. The corporate "model" that supported Bell Labs, and others like it, is gone; too much has changed to allow it to remain in place. But maybe we shouldn't worry. There's plenty of RD being done, but it is being done in different ways and with different imperatives. Today's corporate labs are much more driven and focused on visible and viable goals, with shorter timelines, and more tangible outcomes. I saw this in a recent visit to the Kilby Labs at Texas Instruments (Dallas, TX) and a meeting with Venu Menon, Kilby's vice president and manager of the Analog Technology Development, and Kelly Krantz, lab manager. The operation is named for TI fellow Jack Kilby, who was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in 2000, "for his part in the invention of the integrated circuit". The approach that Kilby Labs uses is very different than the open-ended Bell Labs approach. Anyone at TI can propose a project that may be worth exploring, by explaining why it may be worthwhile, what the outcome might be, and what the measure of success is. If the project is approved by the Kilby management committee, a small team (typically four people) is pulled together from various TI groups and business units to investigate it over a period of between 12 to 18 months. Except for lab administration, there is no permanent staff. Furthermore, the team may not even include the person who suggested the project, if he or she doesn't have a particular technical expertise that the project needs. The team members know they are on a special assignment, and will be going back to their home units once their project is over. The objective is to determine if the idea has a future from a technical and market perspective, and if so, what is needed to make it happen—and if TI can do it, or find partners who can help. In many ways, the projects are enhanced feasibility studies, but they go much further than just simulations and "paper" analysis; there is real hardware and software involved. If it looks promising, TI may then put additional resources into the appropriate business unit or product line to develop ICs (or other products) to make the lab project into reality. Because the Kilby Labs goals and investments are relatively modest in terms of people and time, there's an acceptance of failure. In fact, the people at Kilby told me they expect that only 20% of the projects will be deemed "successful" at their conclusion, and worthy of further investment by the business units—and that's OK. The other 80% will become part of the corporate learning process, and sometimes knowing where not to go is as important as knowing where to go. The Kilby Labs model is not right for everything, of course, and TI acknowledges this. That's why they (and other corporations) feel that longer-range projects that have more "R" than "D" are a better fit for universities, often working in conjunction with a corporate partner. Does the Kilby Labs approach work? It's too early to say, since the lab has been using this structure only since 2009. But it already played a role in one significant product, in May 2011: the TMP006, a passive infrared (IR) temperature sensor with on-chip MEMS thermopile sensor, signal-conditioning channel, 16bit analog/digital converter, local temperature and voltage references, and digital interface—all in a 1.6 × 1.6 mm monolithic device. Does our industry need more of this type of lab model, situated some between the "R" of research and the "D" of development? Or is it a cheat, an attempt to get something big, without too much up-front long-term commitment? Is it better take a lot of smaller, more manageable shots than a few big ones? Can we rely on universities, alone or with corporate involvement, to do more of the open-ended research? What do you think? I think these are all good questions—and that I should apply for my own grant, to study them further.  

Last week, Texas Instruments (TI) invited a a few members of the media for a tour of RFAB—the semiconductor industry's first 300-mm analogue fab and first LEED certified fab at Richardson, Texas. TI originally broke ground on the shell for RFAB in 2004. Work was completed by 2007, but the shell sat idle for more than two years until TI happened on a sweetheart of a deal—scooping up a boatload of 300-mm production equipment from bankrupt memory chip vendor Qimonda AG for the deeply discounted rate of $172.5 million. According to Paul James Fego, vice president of worldwide manufacturing for TI's Technology and Manufacturing group, RFAB would have been a 200-mm analogue fab—if not for the deal that was available on the Qimonda equipment. "We had the building built, we had an equipment opportunity," he said. "And we knew the breadth and the volume of our analogue business could fill a 300-mm fab."   TI's 1.1-million square foot RFAB includes about 250,000 square feet of cleanroom space. Ramping toward full production The area of RFAB nearest the observation window includes more than a dozen process tools, including ion implantation systems made by Axcelis Inc. and Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Inc. Source: TI. Within weeks of the September 2009 announcement that TI planned to open the first 300-mm analogue fab, the Qimonda equipment began arriving in Richardson, just a few miles north of TI's headquarters and a cluster of TI fabs in Dallas. Tom Weichel, manager of RFAB. (Weichel said even the furniture in RFAB's office space came from Qimonda). RFAB started ramping toward full production at the end of last year. The facility, which includes about 250,000 square feet of cleanroom space, is currently running about 350 wafers per day, ramping to between 600 and 700 wafers per day by the end of 2011, according to a TI spokesperson. Analogue requirements RFAB's automated overhead transport system (top) is used to transport wafers packed in front-opening unified pods to all tools in the fab. The overhead transport system, made by Japan's Muratec Automation Co. Ltd., was broken down at Qimonda's fab in Virginia, transported to Richardson, and then installed at RFAB. Source: TI. In addition to the equipment purchased from Qimonda in Virginia, RFAB also includes other 300-mm tools acquired from Qimonda in Dresden, Germany, as well as few other used tools acquired from other sources to support analogue production, Weichel said. "An analogue process is a little bit different than digital," requiring additional tools, Weichel said. TI initially announced it would begin hiring 250 workers for RFAB in September 2009. Weichel said the company is hiring. Asked how many employees the fab currently has, Weichel would only say that "many hundreds" of people, including contractors and TI personnel, are on site on any given day. More tools RFAB has, in total, well over 100 separate process tools. Source: TI. RFAB is the first chip fab to achieve LEED Gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council, attesting to the "greenness" of the site and building. To achieve this certification, TI had to meet sustainability, water efficiency, energy, atmosphere, recycling and indoor environmental quality standards. Environmentally friendly features of the site include a compost-based fence for stopping silt runoff, a rainwater storage pond, a 2.7-million gallon reservoir to prevent water runoff, and reflective concrete to mitigate the urban island heat effect. Inside RFAB's office space, green touches include waterless urinals in restrooms, passive solar orientation, smart lighting with motion sensors, solar water heating and many others. Weichel acknowledged that the LEED certificiation applies only to the facility, not the semiconductor manufacturing process that goes on inside. But he said part of TI's mandate is to reuse chemicals where possible and keep the presence of potentially harmful substances to a minimum. Asked about the reconciliation between the "green" fab and the requirement of using toxic chemicals in the semiconductor manufacturing process, Weichel said: "Our focus would be first to always choose something safe . Then, if we have to use something , we reuse it as much as we can."   Dylan McGrath EE Times

Arguing is something that people get into when they are emotionally involved, or maybe even as recreation, as so wonderfully captured by the classic, timeless Monty Python "Argument" sketch (click here for a summary of the sketch; it also has links to the script and a video clip.) Engineers even like to sometimes argue technical issues "after hours", while unwinding at the local snack shop, watering hole, or conference. But what should engineers argue about: The "best" processor? The "best" operating system or language? Which debug tools to use in various circumstances? Yes, those are viable topics, but I'd like to propose some bigger, broader topics for engineers to debate with their fellows. To help you all get started, I have included links to some previous columns on these topics:  • What went right (or wrong) with Space Shuttle program, and why didn't it live up to its initial promise (see here )?  • Is spread-spectrum clocking a clever engineering technique, or is it a down-and-dirty cheat (see here )?  • Should we be switching to Daylight Savings Time, or is it an outmoded concept from an era now gone, and which now brings no real benefit?  • Is circuit design—as distinct from IC design—still a widely needed skill (see here )?  • Should we replace the standard car steering wheel with a joystick (see here )?  • Will the outcome of Texas Instruments' acquisition of National Semiconductor be a net gain, loss, or neutral?  • Is IBM's Watson an indication of how far computers have come in replicating the human brain, or of how little we actually know about the brain?  • And the big one: should "climate science" and even be considered as science, in the classical, traditional meaning of the term "science"? Remember, it's OK to argue based on your personal beliefs, but it is also good to try to argue both sides of an issue—it's an important mental exercise. Are there other "big picture" topics you would suggest engineers have a spirited argument about?  

Arguing is something that people get into when they are emotionally involved, or maybe even as recreation, as so wonderfully captured by the classic, timeless Monty Python "Argument" sketch (click here for a summary of the sketch; it also has links to the script and a video clip.) Engineers even like to sometimes argue technical issues "after hours", while unwinding at the local snack shop, watering hole, or conference. But what should engineers argue about: The "best" processor? The "best" operating system or language? Which debug tools to use in various circumstances? Yes, those are viable topics, but I'd like to propose some bigger, broader topics for engineers to debate with their fellows. To help you all get started, I have included links to some previous columns on these topics:  • What went right (or wrong) with Space Shuttle program, and why didn't it live up to its initial promise (see here )?  • Is spread-spectrum clocking a clever engineering technique, or is it a down-and-dirty cheat (see here )?  • Should we be switching to Daylight Savings Time, or is it an outmoded concept from an era now gone, and which now brings no real benefit?  • Is circuit design—as distinct from IC design—still a widely needed skill (see here )?  • Should we replace the standard car steering wheel with a joystick (see here )?  • Will the outcome of Texas Instruments' acquisition of National Semiconductor be a net gain, loss, or neutral?  • Is IBM's Watson an indication of how far computers have come in replicating the human brain, or of how little we actually know about the brain?  • And the big one: should "climate science" and even be considered as science, in the classical, traditional meaning of the term "science"? Remember, it's OK to argue based on your personal beliefs, but it is also good to try to argue both sides of an issue—it's an important mental exercise. Are there other "big picture" topics you would suggest engineers have a spirited argument about?