Minutes - 2/13/95 Meeting

On February 13th, 1995, a group of colleagues from different universities got together for a day at a hotel near the San Francisco Airport to discuss in a workshop atmosphere the `Future of Academic Microfabrication Facilities`. Several action items were proposed and agreed upon. The following are informal minutes of the meeting written by Rafael Reif.


Attendees

The workshop was attended by Dennis Polla (Univ. Minn.), Jim Plummer (Stanford Univ.), Rafael Reif (MIT), John Shott (Stanford Univ.), Costas Spanos (U.C. Berkeley), K. Voros (U.C. Berkeley), Linus Cordes (MIT), Simon Wong (Stanford Univ.), Shyam Murarka (RPI), Kang L. Wang (UCLA), Al Clark (Cornell Univ), Steve Fonash (Penn State Univ.), Robert Davis (Penn State Univ.), Paul Losleben (Stanford Univ.), Ed Hall (Arizona State Univ.), Jeff Melzak (Case Western Res. Univ.), Nino Masnari (North Carolina State Univ.), Eli Yablonovitch (UCLA), Charlie Sodini (MIT), and Sanjay Banerjee (UT Austin)

Action Items

There was general consensus among the participants that the idea of `linking` microfabrication facilities was worth exploring seriously, and that forming what was referred to as a `distributed network` of microfabrication facilities was a worthwhile objective. Discussions were held on what steps to take to move us in that direction. In addition, it was recognized that there is no organization that speaks on behalf of our academic community. In other words, each of us speaks only on behalf of our institution, but we do not have an organization through which we can speak with a common voice. This was viewed as a weakness. The action items below are directed at these two issues.

Linking of Academic Fabrication Facilities/ Formation of a Distributed Network

1. White paper.

In order for us to move in the direction of linking academic facilities, it was viewed as necessary the preparation of a white paper that explains the concept of linking facilities, how it would work, etc. This white paper is to be circulated first among the members of the academic microfabrication community. Once we all agree with this document, we would present it (or a more appropriate version of it) to industry (e.g., SIA) to seek support. Finally, once support from our industry is secured, this document would be presented to the proper Federal Office to seek support. The idea with this document is to identify, first for ourselves, the steps that are necessary to move us in the direction of linking academic fabrication facilities. This document should include:

The names in parenthesis are those of colleagues who volunteered to help write this white paper. If you want to contribute with ideas to one or more of the sections, please e-mail them to Paul, Costas, Ely, or me. We agreed on a deadline of May 1, 1995 (I wrote the year on purpose!) for the contributors to send me the first draft of their contributions. (The reports of the focus groups being e-mailed separately are a great starting point!). It may take a few iterations before the contributors feel comfortable with the overall document. After this procedure is completed, a draft of the complete white paper will be sent to all of you for feedback.

2. Use the web.

A strong request is being made to put an inventory of equipment, processes, and people in each of your facilities in the web. The semiconductor subway in the WWW was offered as a good start. If any of you needs help on how to do this, please let me know. (It would be extremely useful if this on-line inventory were to have a `search` capability, i.e., a mechanism to make it possible to search which facility has a given capability, instead of one having to go through all the facilities to find out which one has what one is looking for.)

3. Wish list.

It was requested for each facility to put together a `wish list` of what kind of equipment and/or technologies they would like to have access to. Please send me this wish list by May 1, 1995.

4. Wafer size and compatibility.

Some facilities have been looking seriously into this issue. Should we move into 6" wafers? If so, when? Would it be possible to plan a move to larger wafer sizes in `linking` fashion, i.e. to phase in any equipment upgrade in a given facility in such a way as to use different facilities to back each other up? If some facilities do move into 6" in the near future, but most do not, would that destroy the whole idea of linking facilities? John Shott, Linus Cordes, and Katalin Voros expressed strong interest in this issue. Others interested to help out are welcome to contact John, Linus, or Katalin. Although this is an on-going discussion, these ideas may impact items 4. and 5. above in the white paper. Consequently, it would be extremely useful if a draft report on how things are at that time be sent to me by May 1, 1995.

Organization/Common Voice

The need for an organization that will allow us to speak with a common voice was discussed. In addition, this organization would coordinate, for example, the action items discussed above, and any future action items.. A list of objectives for this organization is needed. Costas Spanos, Paul Losleben, and Bob Davis volunteered to help put together this list of objectives. I believe we need to move on this front a little faster than May 1. I propose that Costas, Paul, and Bob (and anyone else who wants to help) send their contributions to me by March 15, the latest. It may take, again, a few iterations to reach a final document, which then will be sent to everyone for feedback.

/Rafael

Labnetwork homepage
Page maintained by Duane Boning. Last updated Sept. 4, 1996.