Labnetwork Database,
Duane Boning and Mike McIlrath, MIT
Presentation Foils
are available (postscript).
The original SRC Fab Capabilities Survey/Database was conducted with the assistance of the Semiconductor Research Corporation. A survey questionaire was designed with input by MIT, Stanford, UT Austin, University of Rochester, and MCNC (North Carolina), the distribution and collection of the survey responses was coordinated by SRC, and completed in December 1993. The survey goal was to capture info about "full flow" and "standard process" fabrication capabilities, to facilitate possible use of those resources by outside users. The survey emphasizes a "check-box" format (e.g. check if have photomask capability). The survey information was made available via the web in summer 1994 at http://www-mtl.mit.edu/survey/survey.html. The site has been fairly active: ~4800 accesses over last 9 weeks. Relatively little addition or update of information content.
In discussion with Jim Freedman and others, a revised candidate Labnetwork Database Mission Statement is proposed:
"Establish a database of equipment and process capabilities in university semiconductor fabrication and characterization facilities: (a) to facilitate use of those capabilities for collaboration or external research efforts; and (b) for the mutual exchange of information for operation of those facilities."
A proposed approach to revising the Labnetwork Database is to create a revised Web forms-based interface; to link to additional fab/research facilities web pages; and in the long term, to interact with Labnet-Software activity to provide electronic process repositories, data repositories, and CIM interfaces.
The Labnetwork Database content also needs to be revised. We can use previous survey as a starting point, add equipment type/model information, and then extend this to capture information about unique fabrication, characterization capabilities (perhaps including those outside the facility itself).
In open discussion, a key observation and request was made: expand the database to include process capability in addition to equipment capability. In order to reach a broader community, the ability to express and communicate what a facility is capable of is very important. The recommendation of the group was to consider extensions to enable this, with a goal being presentation of possible approaches for community review and discussion at SRC Techcon in September. The members present voted unanimously to approve the Labnetwork Database mission statement, and to proceed with presentation or demonstration at Techcon.
Over the last few months, representatives of universities with
microfabrication facilities have been discussing the Focus Center initiative.
On Saturday, June 8th, representatives of eight universities met at the
San Francisco airport to discuss recent developments in this initiative. This
group recognizes the urgent need to assure that a source of new technology
flows out of the research laboratories and into the industry in a timely
way. We also recognize that the current approaches to transferring
technology out of the university research laboratories to the industry is
not working as well as the industry would like. Finally, we recognize
hat the industry may want a stronger role in the
management of university research
associated with meeting the NTRS timelines. The group developed
several recommendations which we believe can be very effective in achieving
the objectives of the Focus Center initiative.
(1) Physical Facilities. A major conclusion of this group is
that the cost of maintaining physical facilities is a major
concern in establishing Focus Centers in any form.
It is unlikely that sufficient funds can be provided to establish a new
facility in each of the focus areas or that if these facilities were
established that they could be maintained at the state-of-the-art. The
consensus of the group was that the maximum benefit could be achieved by
investing in specific focused research in existing university laboratories
and placing responsibility for integration of the technology in the
industrial laboratories. It is most likely that the industrial
laboratories will be best qualified to do integration and are also most
likely to maintain the best equipment.
(2) Research Management. The perennial concern about the
management of research also lead to what we believe is a
constructive solution. The universities feel very strongly
that the creative environment in the university research laboratories is
critical to their ability to produce the breakthroughs needed by the
industry in the next century. At the same time, if the industry is to
assume the responsibility of integrating the results of this research in an
effective way, the industry has to have a role in the management of the
overall research agenda. Accordingly, we recommend the establishment of
Focus Center Managers in each of the focus areas with responsibility for
the planning and execution of a research agenda aimed at integrating the
elements of the research program into solutions that meet the goals of the
industry roadmap. In contrast to the current approach of managing research
contracts, these managers will have the responsibility of assuring that all
of the elements of research that are needed to accomplish the roadmap goals
exist and have a planned insertion into the industrial integration efforts.
(3) Networks of Excellence. In order to most effectively
utilize existing facilities and the expertise that is already in place
at these facilities, we recommend that the concept of a Focus
Center be expanded to include multiple institutions. The term
"Network of Excellence" best captures the notion of university research
laboratories working closely together with industrial integration
laboratories to accomplish very rapid transfer of technology. For example,
for an interconnect Focus Center, the Focus Center Manager makes sure that
all projects funded in his Focus Center could eventually
converge into an integrated process. The actual overall
process integration would occur at industrial facilities, as they
may choose to take different unit steps developed by the Focus Center team,
and/or use them in different ways, etc.
(4) Industrial Assignees. In order to assure a closer
working relationship between the universities
and the industry, we recommend that the Focus Center Manager also
coordinate the deployment of industrial assignees in academic facilities to
participate in the research and in technology transfer. The universities
are already experienced in supporting industrial assignees on site and
welcome this approach to building close working relationships with the
industry.
(5) Role of Focus Center Manager. Overall, we envision
the role of the industry-appointed Focus Center Manager to be one
of planning, coordination and facilitation. Specific research projects
would be solicited openly and awarded to the site that is
best qualified to meet the needs of the industry roadmap. In this respect,
the Focus Center Manager would be given a great deal of latitude in
building and executing his program. The Focus Center Manager would report
to a Board composed of high-level personnel from industry and academia to
insure the long-term aspect of the research program. He/she may also have
an advisory board to assist him in the selection of projects, advise to
researchers, etc.
(6) Capital Equipment. Finally, we recommend that decisions on the
placement of major pieces of capital equipment be included as a part
of the Focus Centers. We believe that the most productive way to
enhance the existing physical infrastructure will be to do
so based on specific research proposals, solicited by the Focus
Center Manager and written by participating institutions.
In this way major capital equipment will be placed by the groups that are
deemed most likely to contribute in each of the required research areas.
Complementary allocation of project funding and related instrumentation can
be done in a way that will foster productive collaboration among
participating universities. Further, the proper placement of industrial
assignees with the participating university groups will assure the efficient
flow of technology to the industrial labs that will perform the integration.
SIA Focus Center, Rafael Reif, MIT
University Recommendations on Focus Centers
Software Collaborations, Bill Murray, Stanford
Although limited in scope, the pilot project allowed us to address all of
our stated goals. Based on our experience with the pilot, we recommend
implementing a distributed equipment status board at MIT, UC Berkeley, and
Stanford with the following features: displays current status of any piece
of equipment, provides access to detailed equipment status, provides access
to equipment documentation, provides historical data for the equipment, and
allows authorized individuals to change the status of equipment. The
abstract specification of the program interfaces to both data and services
should be defined using the Object Management Group's Interface Definition
Language (OMG IDL) and conform to SEMATECH's CIM Application Framework
Specification 1.3. Remote access to distributed data and services should
be based on the OMG's Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA)
specification 2.0. The graphical user interface (GUI) should be written in
Java. This assures platform-independence and web-based user interface
capability. Finally, we should provide seamless support for multiple
heterogeneous underlying data storage systems, access to data via a global
object-oriented data model, and a language-independent Application Programming
Interface (API).
Labnetwork homepage
Page maintained by Duane Boning.
Last updated November 19, 1996.