(Summary: A clever YouTube video highlights how communications disconnects can prompt IC product-development projects to slip schedule).

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.

(Summary: More than 80 percent of semiconductor projects slip schedule, but we can change this costly reality by introducing a fact-based planning methodology into semiconductor product-development organizations).

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.

(Summary: Semiconductor companies are rethinking what it means to be fabless and looking for new ways to differentiate themselves).

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.

By Ron Collett

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.

By Ron Collett

I had the pleasure of participating in a great online panel yesterday that was part of the EE Times SOC Virtual Conference, attended live by more than 1,500 people. CTO Grant Martin with Tensilica, product-development Vice President Steve Douglass with Xilinx and ASIC and FPGA designer Sven Andersson of Realtime Embedded AB all contributed to robust discussion of where next-generation design is headed.

I encourage you to listen to panel, which is now archived for the next six months.

My point was pretty straight forward:

• If you misunderstand your semiconductor design project’s true cost, your SOC may be doomed.

Think about it: An SOC design today needs to return 10x its investment. There aren’t a lot of huge end markets that justify SOC projects where the costs and schedule aren’t carefully managed. If the design costs $50 million to $80 million to develop, and there’s only a $200 million market, then the design can’t be justified.

So getting your arms around true development cost is what SOC development is all about.

By Ron Collett

Big changes are occurring before our eyes in the semiconductor world. And while you might say that the industry always has been in a state of flux, understanding the nature of today’s changes is key; reacting properly to that understanding is imperative.

What’s new? In short, it’s a shift in focus: The long transition toward the fabless model is almost complete. With the numbers of semiconductor companies doing their own manufacturing dwindling to a handful, the time has come for executives and engineering managers to figure out where their differentiation now lies within their companies.

Manufacturing used to be one of those differentiators. But today, with everyone buying manufacturing services from TSMC, UMC, Chartered or other foundries, there’s very little differentiation in how ICs are manufactured. But there can be enormous differentiation and value in how they’re designed.

How is this possible, in a world of well-established design-automation tools and methodologies? One approach is to bring more predictability and productivity to design projects and teams; to help engineering managers get insightful, relevant data early in the design decision-making process; and to enable a portfolio of designs to be centrally managed efficiently. That’s our business, and it’s a topic I’ll explore in detail this Wednesday (Sept. 16) during EE Times’ SoC Virtual Conference.

I’ll be presenting on a panel (Economics of Next-Generation SOC Design: A Node Too Far? 2-3 p.m. PDT) with Grant Martin, chief scientist, Tensilica; Steve Douglass, vice president, product development, Xilinx; and Sven Andersson, ASIC FPGA designer, Realtime Embedded AB. The panel will be moderated by EE Times’ Online Editor Dylan McGrath.

If you want a peek at some of what will inform my presentation, take a look at our Numetrics solutions page for starters. And then think about the implications of these two statistics:

* 60 percent of IC projects slip at least one quarter.

* 16 percent of IC projects slip more than one year.

I hope to see you live Wednesday during the virtual panel!

Summary: Re-planning a semiconductor design project is often inevitable as the program is underway. The key to effective, productive re-planning lies in understanding complexity, schedule and resources.

Change is inevitable. Economic factors, mergers and acquisitions, customer specification changes, management and strategy changes all affect project planning and execution. These factors create a need for re-planning IC projects while they are ongoing.

The key to re-planning is the same as for the original planning process: an understanding of complexity, schedule and resources. Numetrics’ NMX-ERP can capture not only the starting characteristics of your design, but also updates as work is completed. This means that at any point during the design, you can calculate the work remaining and the resource and/or schedule implications of that.

Re-planning is simply a process of updating the assumptions based on new information. From there it is a simple process to re-run the analysis, and to generate a new plan. This is easy not only because there is explicit support in the tools for re-planning and the management of multiple scenarios for a single design, but also because there is no need for data re-entry. Everything is built from the original plan, saving a great deal of time for your planners.

Schedule Risk Analyzer generates a comprehensive set of reports that quantitatively assess the underlying schedule risk, given the design’s complexity, staffing assigned to the project and target cycle-time.

The real implication of the re-planning capability is that when a change is proposed, you can quickly determine feasibility. For example, if marketing comes to you and says, “We need samples six weeks early for a key customer,” you can rapidly tell them what that means for resources. If additional resources are not available, you might consider scaling back product features to meet the new schedule. Alternatively, you may be forced to complete the design with fewer engineers than you had originally planned for. In such a case, you can quickly determine the best way to meet your business objectives with the new constraint—either reducing the feature set, or planning for a managed schedule slip.

The net benefit of Numetrics’ re-planning tools is fact-based decision-making in a time of stress. Fact-based planning improves the quality of internal decisions, leading to a healthier business and happier employees. And that can’t be bad.

The phrase “top gun” generally refers to hot-shot fighter pilots performing amazing feats high in the sky, but increasingly it’s being used to describe great engineering managers doing amazing things on land. Numetrics has put together an online seminar covering the best practices of leading IC project planners.

The webinar describes eight techniques used by top-gun engineering managers, followed by a demonstration of Numetrics’ NMX-ERP™ solution and IC Industry Database containing more than 1400 completed IC designs from multiple industry segments.

The webinar presented the following best practices:

1. Computing IC complexity statistically
2. Estimation of resource requirements based on models
3. Rigorous “what-if” analysis for schedule / resource optimization
4. Benchmarking project execution assumptions
5. Determining the most aggressive, yet achievable project plan
6. Quantitatively assessing the schedule / resource implications of each feature request
7. Performing root-cause analysis at the project close milestone
8. Foreseeing resource shortfalls across the project pipeline.

The demonstration showed a live application of the Numetrics toolset, through a realistic scenario involving balancing IC specification and resource availability in the context of a fixed schedule.

You may view the webinar at http://techonline.stream57.com/numetrics/.

For more information, please e-mail info@numetrics.com

Summary: Schedule predictability is the art and science of determining the completion date for your semiconductor IC project, based on a statistical model, validated across multiple designs.

When you plan a project, you are working with incomplete information. Organizational changes, specification changes, technical challenges and more conspire to make it difficult to accurately predict when your new product will be ready.

Schedule predictability is the art and science of determining the completion date for your project, based on a statistical model, validated across multiple designs. The key ingredients are your design’s complexity, coupled with your resource plan. With these two inputs, Numetrics can significantly improve the accuracy of your schedule predictions. One customer went from consistent overruns to accuracy within a few percent on the first designs they modeled in the Numetrics toolset.

How is this possible? The core is the Numetrics ability:

• To understand which factors drive complexity
• To create a normalized characterization of your design that allows comparison with others.

When we compare your proposed design with historical productivity and schedule information, we can statistically determine the expected schedule for your new project. The accuracy of the model is enhanced by our industry database of over 1200 designs, coupled with specific information from your company’s historical project record.

The result is a robust, realistic prediction of the schedule, based on

• Complexity
• Resource availability and
• Historical data.

The value is a greatly enhanced ability to meet your market windows, time and time again.

Summary: Comparing the specifics of your semiconductor design with industry and company history enables insightful what-if scenario analysis to help manage development programs effectively .

During the planning stages for a chip design, there are a number of variables that can be tweaked in the creation of the final product plan. We can reduce or expand the feature set for a new device. We can reduce or extend the schedule. And we can reduce or increase the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff allocated to the project. By manipulating these variables, we can negotiate a plan between the different stakeholders. In some cases, resources are the limiting factor. In others, the schedule is non-negotiable (for example a lot of consumer products must be ready for CES).

Running a lot of plans against all these variables has historically been difficult and time-consuming. In addition, the results have always been subject to arguments because there has been no trusted model to relate complexity, resources and schedule. Numetrics changes all that. By tweaking resource, schedule or feature set (complexity) assumptions, NMX-ERP can rapidly generate graphs that show the feasibility of each plan, and compare it with company and industry norms using their proprietary complexity engine and plan synthesizer.

The speed and defensibility of these analyses lends them great power. It is not rational to assume productivity or schedules that are significantly different from past performance, so any feasible plan must lie close to the lessons of history. There is a cost to adding features, or to shrinking the schedule, or to reducing headcount. The most effective way to negotiate these choices is with the aid of an objective toolset that combines the specifics of your design and plan with industry and company history. The tool is fast enough that you can run tens or even hundreds of plans in minutes or hours. From these scenarios you can then pick the plan that best meets your business goals.