(Summary: As the recession’s pain recedes, semiconductor companies have an excellent opportunity to take advantage of the economic crisis to drive productivity improvements throughout their R&D organization.)

The line “never let a serious crisis go to waste” was made famous a year ago by White House chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was speaking to business leaders. For the semiconductor industry emerging from a sharp recession, now is the time to capitalize on the motivation implicit in Emanuel’s quotation.

Consider, first off, the proven benefits that companies get when they take advantage of a recession. A Bain & Company study found that:

• Twice as many companies move from laggards to leaders during a downturn than they do during good times.
• The majority of those companies that take steps to make that move sustained their gains long after business came back.

For those that don’t, the numbers are discouraging:

• One-third of banks and two-fifths of big American industrial companies fell from the first quartile of their industries in the recession of 2001-02, according to a McKinsey study referenced in The Economist.

There’s plenty of advice for companies willing to take advantage of a business slump. Dave Jones and Pierre Loewe, writing on ChiefExecutive.net, advise managers to re-assess “unarticulated” customer needs and redraw their industry ecosystems.

I’d amplify another of their key points: buttress your core competency. Today’s semiconductor industry is a different place than it was before the recession. The search for differentiation in core competencies needs to be focused at product development. This is crucial for fabless companies that don’t have their own manufacturing to create differentiation. But it’s also important for formerly “fabbed” companies making the transition to fabless.

Out with the old?

Some semiconductor companies emerging from this recession will be tempted to apply old templates to new designs. With understandable caution about hiring more engineers in the short-term, the tendency will be to do more with less—to demand more products faster with fewer engineers.

What will happen?

Unrealistic schedules and budget overshoot, for one thing. For another, the urge to crank out more products to take advantage of resuscitated demand will lead to portfolio-management problems.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Productivity improvements and best practices are commonplace in manufacturing; there’s no reason they can’t be employed in R&D. It would be a shame to waste a golden opportunity to exploit this moment in history, and, to finish Emanuel’s quotation, to take the “opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

By Andrea Fortunato

How best can we leverage IP in an era of relentlessly increasing design complexity? That was the question on the table at this week’s IP-ESC 2009 conference here in Grenoble. I was honored to sit on a panel with Jasper Design Automation CEO Kathryn Kranen and Olivier Haller, who manages the design verification team in the Functional Verification Group at STMicroelectronics.

Our CEO, Ron Collett, described the IP situation in a post last week as the design reuse paradox, in that re-using IP is harder than it looks. In fact, there are dangerous consequences for any project leaders who think it’ll be a cakewalk.

During the panel this week, I made the point that most teams underestimate the complexity that the reused IP— adapting a particular block to a new context or adding particular features and then validating it—will add to their project.

This miscalculation is particularly dangerous for derivative designs, whereby the reuse level of their blocks is expected to be significantly high. Executive management loves derivative designs because they’re operating under the assumption that most of the work has already been done on the original design and the derivatives will be easier and deliver higher margin.

Truth and Consequences

But the reality is teams use ever-more IP blocks (including complete functions and sub-systems) on a chip. Underestimating the complexity at the block level is compounded at the chip level, and this creates unrealistic performance expectations from the development teams.

What happens?

• The project schedule slips

• Team members have to be pulled from other on-going projects to bring the project to closure, throwing the predictability of schedule in those other projects into doubt.

What are the consequences?

• The overall market window is reduced and peak time window for product introduction is reduced

• Development cost increases, exploding the project’s initial budget. ROI window is reduced

• Both time to market and ROI are affected!

The ripple effect of underestimating the effort needed to develop, integrate and validate the IP is far-reaching: The resource disruptions delay key projects because resources already involved on other developments are pulled in to salvage one development. The ripples turn into waves that slam the schedule and cause budget over-runs for the whole the project pipeline.

Remediation

There are two major ways to address this situation.

First, fact-based planning at the project’s outset helps avoid this turmoil. By measuring and quantifying project complexity and schedule risk, team leaders can see the gap that might result between their initial effort assumptions and the effort they’ll actually need based on the data. This helps them make fact-backed what-if staffing simulations and create aggressive—yet achievable—schedules.

Second, pick your design battles carefully. Analyzing projects in our extensive industry database, we see that best-in-class design teams show a lower amount of reuse than the average of their segment. This means that those best-in-class projects re-use IP where it is most appropriate to do so—for example in standard functions that don’t bring value add and real differentiation to the final product. But, best-in-class companies leverage their own innovation and fully engage their engineering resources in situations where the performances of specific functions are the key differentiating factors from the competition.

In the end, the key challenge for an IP user is :”Keep the ROI in the Product Development!”

(Andrea Fortunato is director of professional services for Numetrics, based in Grenoble).

Related posts:

1. The Realities of IP Reuse Long touted as a silver bullet, IP reuse often...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The concept seems simple: The more ip blocks you re-use in an IC or system design, the faster and more productively you’ll get your design done. The ITRS roadmap began identifying the benefits as long ago as 1997, showing the industry could reasonably expect 56,000 gates per designer per year when using large ip blocks (75,000-1 million gates). By 2007 that figure was up to 600,000 gates per designer per year, a tenfold increase.

There’s no doubt design reuse is here to stay. In 2007, a third of all logic was reused design blocks. That’s expected to rise to nearly 50 percent by 2015, according to the ITRS.

The numbers and the theory behind it are encouraging, but reality is much different. Making 30 percent of your design from reused IP blocks doesn’t mean you’re going to be 30 percent more productive at the end of the project. That’s because IC design teams tend to underestimate the work needed to implement the reused IP. This can cause project delays and missed market opportunities.

The challenge is that it’s very difficult to estimate design complexity, especially the impact of reuse. IC design schedules can falter because of the inability to estimate the impact of IP modifications on project effort.

Even a small percentage of reuse can add outsized effort to a development project. For example, if you add one new block of 600,000 gates to a 6 million-gate design, you’re adding 10 percent to the IC but increasing the effort required on the project by 24 percent. Adding 10 percent new circuitry to all blocks in that 6 million-gate design—with 90 percent of each block being re-used—doubles the effort required on the project, even though it increases the IC size by just 10 percent to 6.6 million gates.

This issue will be part of a larger discussion Dec. 1 at IP-ESC 2009 in Grenoble. We were invited to sit on a panel—“IP Reuse vs. IP Leverage: What’s the difference, and what are the issues?”—with Kathryn Kranen, CEO of Jasper Design Automation, and Olivier Haller, who manages the design verification team in the Functional Verification Group at STMicroelectronics. Our director of professional services, Andrea Fortunato, will represent Numetrics.

This is a well-timed panel in my opinion because re-use is an issue that transcends the industry and is crucial for its future. And how we go about optimizing design re-use is crucial to manage today.

Related posts:

1. The Realities of IP Reuse Long touted as a silver bullet, IP reuse often...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

By Ron Collett

(Summary: As the semiconductor industry emerges from the recession, new ways of thinking are emerging as well to improve what’s becoming a new differentiator for companies: IC design development.)

All indications are the semiconductor industry is rebounding from the painful recession of the past couple of years. The latest upbeat data points include:

• Worldwide third-quarter PC microprocessor unit shipments rose 23% compared to the second quarter, reaching a new all-time high, according to market research firm International Data Corp. (IDC).
• Chip-sales growth should be 10 percent in 2010 and 8.4 percent in 2011, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association. The decline in 2009 chip sales (down 11.6 percent is now less that earlier forecast).
• Individually, companies like Marvell, TSMC and ON Semiconductor are reporting encouraging results.

But, as they say, there’s good news and bad news. The good news is obvious. The bad news is more subtle: Companies are beginning to crank up the product-development dial significantly, and this can become a challenge for R&D organizations.

As a surge of new projects occurs, hiring generally is slow to catch up to demand. This puts stress on engineering organizations. Schedules are difficult to predict, and the engineers can get shifted from one product development team to another in the race to make deadlines. Managing a portfolio of products turns into a torch-juggling exercise—spectacular to watch but done with the knowledge that the risk is high.

This is a significant problem in the fables era—a time in which IC design development is an increasingly important source of differentiation for semiconductor companies. A sudden burst of product-development activity can bring R&D organizations to their knees.

Design development productivity is something to consider as we emerge from this recession. The stakes are high, and there’s little room for error in marshalling engineering resources to get products to market quickly.

All recessions force change on business, and this one is no exception. Old ways of doing things are being replaced by new thinking on productivity—all with an eye toward making “up and to the right” last.

Related posts:

1. The Politics of Productivity Politics and productivity seem to go hand-in-hand in semiconductor...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

(Summary: We inevitably get questions about Numetrics’ technology after webinars or live event presentations, and we’d like to share some of them in the spirit of helping you understand more about our products and solutions. Here are answers to several recent questions in the virtual mail bag).

Q: How do you define productivity?

A: We calculate complexity of the project and we divide the complexity units by total number of person weeks required to get that product out to volume production. That quotient gives you the productivity number. The typical range is 500 on the low end for a large team to 3000 for a small team.

There’s another measure, which is throughput, and throughput is complexity units per week. That’s a measure of normalized cycle team. Productivity is efficiency of the team and higher number is better.

Q: I’ve heard that in some sectors productivity decreases as team size increases. Is this true in semiconductor product development?

A: It’s a universal effect across pretty much any activity that has to do with building things. When you build larger teams, each person is doing a smaller and smaller slice of the overall work. More work has to be split apart and then put back together. Bigger teams equal more meetings and more management required. It’s universal and it’s inevitable. With the Numetrics approach, you can minimize this effect—decreasing productivity curve is flatter than it would otherwise be.

Q: It’s impossible to predict in a design project how many times customer requirements will change, when your EDA tools go buggy or if a key contributor leaves the team. So how do you quantify schedule risk with so many unpredictable variables?

A: The simple answer is our tools don’t predict things. You have a draw a line between statistical analysis and a crystal ball.

What Numetrics’ tools do is take your inputs of design parameters and measure them against the history of more than 1,500 design projects over eight generations of technology evolution (here’s a link to a demo of our tools). Using the data from those hundreds and hundreds of designs, this builds in realistic effort required to deal with those issues. It’s a way of contingency planning.

Think of it like yield modeling. You know that on each wafer a certain number of dice will fall out. Yield modeling doesn’t tell you which particle is going to hit which die and where. But they give you an accurate assessment of how your design will yield. Numetrics is like a yield model for project plans. It’s saying there’s a certain probability that if you’re going to try to achieve these targets, given what you’ve input you’re going to fail.

It allows you to make a quantitative assessments. It’s a probability model. It’s not a crystal ball.

Q: How does the complexity calculation model handle predictions for newer nodes, such as 45 and 32nm?

A: Numetrics’ IC Industry Database has collected information for eight technology generations. The technology shifts from one generation to another have been observed before. And what we’ve observed is that early users of technology nodes face considerably more complexity than later users of the same node, once the models and such are more stable. The equation has calibrated this effect which repeats from generation to generation. We’ve been able to model what the effect of the extra technology of a new node will be on a new design.

Q: Can your tools get data from existing sources or do I have to input it manually?

A: We’re dealing with milestones, staffing information and complexity information. Typically this information is copy-pasted from existing sources or customers are using XML import to get data into our tools.

(Alex is Numetrics’ director of professional services).

Related posts:

1. The Politics of Productivity Politics and productivity seem to go hand-in-hand in semiconductor...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

By Ron Collett

We talk a lot about schedule predictability and maximizing IC design throughput. That’s what we do as part of our goal to help product-development teams improve productivity and ROI. But there’s another, more subtle goal, and that’s improving engineering communications and expectations.

Engineers will work most productively when given an aggressive schedule if they know it to be realistic because it’s rooted in fact-based planning. With unrealistic schedule assumptions, the reaction is “been there, done that,” and productivity—and ultimately morale—suffers.

This dynamic is vibrantly illustrated in a YouTube video inspired and narrated by Jasper Design Automation CEO Kathryn Kranen, called How Engineers Communicate: A Video Parody.

In it, the mythical company WonderChips is planning its T-1000 communications device. The video takes us through the planning process, the assumptions and most importantly the communications disconnects engineers and executives encounter along the way.

To summarize the story line:

• In the beginning, Rakesh determines that the T-1000 device is four times more complex than its predecessor and therefore a new EDA tool is needed to speed this project to completion on schedule. His boss, however, rejects the investment.

• Next, the T-1000 team grabs a conference room to begin its bottom-up planning approach, fueled by chips and soda and catered food. Hours go by, punctuated by arguments over how long certain blocks will take to design.

• Eventually, the team leader seems satisfied. She tells the group, “Assuming all these assumptions hold, I think the schedule looks really good.” The team agrees, and the leader goes off to present the schedule to executive management.

• Later, she returns to the team with good news and bad news: The good news is the executive staff loves the feature set. Bad news is the T-800, another project, is slipping schedule, and there’s competitive pressure in the market. So the executives want the T-1000 to sample months sooner than the team’s bottom-up plan called for. Oh, and they need to beef up the memory subsystem while they’re at it.

Says the team leader: “I know as a team we can do this. You guys with me?”

The team groans. As the engineers exit the conference room, shaking their heads in disbelief, one engineer murmurs: “It will be done when it is done.”

The T-1000 ends up slipping by at more than six months, and the executive who turned down the tool investment demands tape out at any cost.

From my perspective, WonderChips would have benefited by complementing its bottom-up scheduling approach with a top-down methodology—using quantified estimates of the chip’s complexity, the team’s productivity and a model of the rate at which effort will be expended on the project.

It would have helped engineers and management communicate in a common language and build an aggressive yet achievable schedule. And it would saved WonderChips’ management from having to extend the on-site day care closing time to midnight to get the chip done.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

By Ron Collett

The increase in semiconductor design complexity never slows. This reality always reinforces itself when I look at the agenda of a given week’s technology event. This week’s headliner is ARM Techcon3 in Santa Clara.

Here’s a sampling of the presentations:

• “How Software and Hardware Can Cooperate To Manage Power Consumption in ARM-based Systems”
• “Fireside Chat: Enabling Internet Eveywhere and Advancing Next-Generation Designs”
• “Energy Efficient Design at 65nm – What Really Works!”

And the list goes on—challenging design issues at complex technology nodes everywhere you look. It’s little wonder then that most semiconductor design projects slip schedule (see chart).

Old habits in a mature industry die hard. Engineers have built products in more or less the same way for 40 years, and they’ve had tremendous market success. So why change? Engineering intuition always seems to work, and a bottom-up approach to project staffing is the way we’ve always done things. No reason to change, right?

Wrong.

Projects slip for a number of reasons:

• We’re human. Who can predict when or if a spec change might occur or the flu takes out a few key engineers for a week?
• We often lack the context to make fact-based decisions for dizzingly complex designs. For example, if you’ve spread a design over three locations in different time zones, using a newly-acquired team designing to a new process, you’re trying to extrapolate the effect of those factors based on your experience. But you probably have never experienced those factors before because each design is different.
• Projects are late often because they are under-scoped. The schedule for the new project is based largely on the post-mortem of the last project, with the conclusion that none of the things that went wrong last time will be allowed to go wrong this time (and no other major new challenges will be allowed to creep in!).

Typical bottom-up reactions to managing such complexity tend to fall into two categories:

• Boost staff to hit schedule. This generally creates either a low-productivity, low-throughput situation or a high-throughput, low-productivity environment. Teams might hit schedule but will blow out the budget.
• Leverage a small, skilled team of engineers and drive it hard. This can marshal costs and improve decision-making, but a small team can produce only so much in a given period of time, even if it’s highly productive. Too much pressure to hit an unrealistic schedule also kills morale.

Sharp engineering managers can achieve best in class and cut or eliminate schedule slip by adopting a top-down approach that complements their traditional bottom-up planning. The top-down methodology uses:

• Quantified estimates of the chip’s complexity
• The team’s productivity
• A model of the rate at which effort will be expended on the project.

With the proper infrastructure in place, schedule estimates can be generated within just a few hours. At this point you can benchmark against your own experience or against the industry’s experience and make fact-based what-if tradeoffs to boost your schedule predictability and design ROI.

More than 80 percent of semiconductor projects slip schedule. But we can change this reality. You wouldn’t expect this from your foundry, would you? Your foundry partner gives you a precise estimate of yield on your chip based on its models and its vast experiences with similar projects. You should expect the same predictability from your product-development organization.

Related posts:

1. Optimal Team Sizes for Chip Projects What’s the optimal team size for a given IC...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

By Ron Collett

For the semiconductor industry, there not only is change in the air, there’s thoughtful debate about just what that change looks like.

I’ve been mulling over a couple of intriguing posts, one by another newly minted industry blogger, Sanjay Srivastava, CEO of Denali, and the other on EDN by Kaben Wireless Silicon CEO Paul Slaby.

In Sanjay’s blog, Conversation on Innovation, he’s been mulling how fabless semiconductor startups can survive in the current climate.

He argues (in Funding Fabless Semiconductor Startups) that solutions need to look at how and where money is invested, how we “stage” investments (i.e. valuing investments in IP differently than in silicon) and how we address software investment:

I believe if we get creative about the current fabless investment model, not every semiconductor opportunity needs to be a billion-dollar opportunity before it can attract meaningful investment.

In his EDN post and in a separate webcast, Slaby argues for a “semi-fabless” model:

The semi-fabless company is essentially a combination of an IP provider, a design house, and an outsourced R&D operation. Its core competence and strength lies in specialized R&D and product development capabilities whereas it outsources product delivery operations to the ‘old’ fabless company with the entire infrastructure and the pipeline to market already in place.

There’s no doubt the investment formula needs to be reconsidered. For a semiconductor company to break even, it needs $40-$100 million and six to eight years. More troubling, however, is the selling price of semiconductor startups has been steadily declining. In 2007 it was $160 million; in 2008 it was $95 million and in 2009 the average has been $65 million, according to an EE Times story referencing Lip-Bu Tan, chairman of Walden International, and now CEO of Cadence.

The good thing is there are a lot of “smartest guys in the room” in this industry, and collectively we’re shaping the industry’s future in three main ways:

• Companies are differentiating on products

• Executives, such as Sanjay and Paul and others, are helping drive the investment conversation

• And companies like ours are illuminating the differentiation and benefits of focusing on product-development productivity—fabless companies’ key differentiator today—and overall portfolio management.

This new differentiation is key; it’s key to how companies grow and gain market share and it’s key to the industry’s future.

Related posts:

1. End of the Free Ride According to Pagemill Partners, a well-known Silicon Valley venture capital...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

(Summary: For semiconductor companies, differentiation has shifted from manufacturing to improving productivity in new-product development. That realization is the easy part; getting there requires help.)

By Ron Collett

I’m always impressed with the level of optimism I find at semiconductor industry events around the world. There may be pockets of gloom about the state of the semiconductor industry, but executives certainly don’t share it. Yes, it’s not the same industry it was 10 years ago, but, no, it’s not doomed. Far from it: The dynamics are just different.

That was my message when I presented last week at Malcolm Penn’s International Electronics Forum in Geneva. Here’s why the dynamics are different:

• The industry head count has shrunk 30 percent this decade
• Industry consolidation has picked up pace
• Cost-cutting is rampant
• There’s more pressure than ever on design teams to get great products out the door on time and on budget

Here’s how the dynamics are different: Differentiation has shifted as industry disaggregation has reached an end state. There was a time when a semiconductor company differentiated itself through manufacturing and process technology (or way back when, through making its own steppers!) No longer.

So where’s the differentiation? It’s not in cost-cutting. Everyone’s doing that.

Differentiation has shifted to the heart of the semiconductor company’s value proposition: its new-product development.

Electronics Weekly’s David Manners, in his coverage of IEF last week (“What’s the Answers to the Chip Industry’s Problems? Ask IEF”), touched on how profound this can be. He quoted Alain Dutheil, CEO of ST-Ericsson, as saying 85 percent of his 8,000 employees are in R&D.

The other part of the story, which we’ve blogged about, is that most SOC projects slip schedule and most IC teams tend to underestimate their product R&D costs.

That brings me back to our IEF presentation (“Raising the Bar on Semiconductor R&D Management, Execution, and ROI”), which we created in partnership with PRTM, one of the world’s premier operational strategy consulting firms (with deep ties to the IC industry).

Our three take-aways were:

• The bar is being significantly raised on semiconductor R&D management, execution, and achieving ROI
• Companies must continuously progress through the stages of maturity to thrive (functional, project, portfolio, and cross-enterprise excellence)
• Fact-based planning is a critical foundation for ongoing NPD success

Anyone can cut costs in challenging times but winning companies find news ways to differentiate themselves, and they are the companies that come out of recessions stronger than their competition.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Underestimating the complexity of an SOC semiconductor design project is a growing problem in our industry. In an era where SOC projects cost tens of millions of dollars to complete, a week of schedule slip means $1 million or more in lost revenue potential. That’s unacceptable.

That was my main point last week during a panel I participated on that was part of the EE Times SOC Virtual Conference.

Former EE Times EDA Editor Richard Goering, now blogging for Cadence, captured the panel well in a post this week (Are SoC Development Costs Significantly Underestimated?).

To justify the investment in an SoC, Collett said, the available revenue stream must be 10X the development costs. Thus, if an SoC has a $500 million market opportunity, development costs should not exceed $50 million. Today, however, development costs can easily reach $40 to $80 million. Collett noted that 60 percent of this cost is labor and that the major part of the overall development cost is verification.

Richard, with a great comparison, went on to write:

Anyone who has ever been involved in a home remodeling project knows how hard it is to get a reliable estimate up front of how long it will take and how much it will cost. Underestimating time and cost is commonplace. A large SoC design project is far more complex, with many more stakeholders. There is no simple answer to the question of how development costs can be accurately predicted. But there are some ideas about how to lower development costs.

Tensilica CTO Grant Martin weighed in from the IP perspective, Xilinx VP of Product Development Steve Douglass offered the FPGA perspective, and ASIC designer Sven Andersson from Realtime Embedded AB talked about the value of verified IP blocks. It was a great conversation, and you can hear it in archived form by registering for the event.

There’s some additional information about the panel (we tweeted some highlights during the panel) that have been cataloged under the hash tag #eetsoc.And we’ve published a helpful white paper on how to measure IC development productivity in our online library.

Time really is money in the semiconductor industry, and quantifying schedule risk is an excellent way to maximize your engineering investments.

Related posts:

1. End of the Free Ride According to Pagemill Partners, a well-known Silicon Valley venture capital...
2. Death of the SoC Rumors of the SoC’s impending death have been popping...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.