analysis of applying triz in and on a large scale system - semiconductors

Property of The Strategy + Innovation Group LLC – All Rights are reserved. Use is allowed as long as attribution is given when presenting materials even in derivative form

1

Design For Innovation in Manufacturing (DfIM)™

Case Study Example: Integrated System Level Solution -Embedded Silicon within a Rigid Heat-pipe Core Technology

All Logo’s and Trademarks are the property of their respective owners

Best Practices in New Product Development

Presenter:Richard Platt

[Formerly] Intel - Global Innovation PM & Senior Instructor for Innovation Methods[Currently] The Strategy + Innovation Group LLC – Principal

This paper on “Design for Innovation in Manufacturing: Best Practices in New Product Development” is written for the TRIZCON2010 Primary Author: Richard Platt Contributing Authors: Joe Ficalora, and Sergei Ikovenko

3

The Law of Ideality in Action

1/1,000,000 the size; 1/10,000,000 the weight1/1,000,000 the cost10,000,000 X the performance and reliability

10,000x the pe$1M main

$1K desk45 y

rformance of a frame in a

top in ears

Clear Functionality Clear Functionality and Performance and Performance

increasesincreases

Source: Intel The Law of Ideality EXISTS for all engineering systems. The thing that is preventing ideality is the different subsystems w/in the engineering system reach a level of maturity at different rates. The other subsystems that are not at a high level of maturity are what is holding back the overall evolution of the system

Intel Architecture and microprocessors have obeyed the Law of Ideality since before Gordon Moore first began to notice the doubling of transistors on each successive technology generation. And Moore’s law does actually come later in time. 1956 is when the Law of Ideality was 1st introduced. Moore’s Law came about in 1965 Let’s look at history to see how accurately the evolution of computing has tracked Gordon’s exponential growth prediction over the past 30 years. Perhaps the best analogy for the growth in computing performance is to relate it to the evolution of the auto industry and one its major performance metrics – top speed in miles per hour.

5

Moore’s Law & the Law of IdealityS-Curves are located at every process change & successive generation (from 200mm to 300mm

wafers, from 1.0u to 0.8u, and so on)MIPSMIPS

Pentium® ProProcessor

Pentium® IIProcessor

Pentium® IIIProcessor

Pentium® 4Processor

Intel386TM DXMicroprocessor

Intel486TM DX CPU Microprocessor

1

10

100

1000

10000

1985 1989 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

MIPS

$/MIPS$/MIPS

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

$/MIPS

Silicon Technology

1.5µ

1.0µ0.8µ

0.6µ

0.4µ0.25µ

0.18µ0.13µ

Pentium®

Processor

Source: Intel

“Moore’s Law” correlates to the ‘Law of Ideality’ in TRIZ; Law of Ideality = All engineering systems, evolve over time, providing greater performance, functionality and benefit at lower cost and

have less detrimental or negative aspects as a part of their design and manufacture.

The IFR acts as a goal and a guide to the designer, preventing him from straying from the superior-solution path. Straying into parts of the "solution domain" that are removed from the IFR, means accepting inferior or "patch-work" solutions. The ideal solution is more powerful than all other conceivable or yet unimaginable solutions. By accepting the IFR as the goal, the designer/inventor becomes "attached" to the best possible avenue of solution, or solution path.

With each processor generation, Intel doubled the MIPS capability. Amazingly, this curve obeys Gordon’s prediction of exponential cost (reduction) & the Law of Ideality. Exponential growth and cost-reduction – powerful Moore’s curves that have created a tremendous force moving the industry forward. The result has been nothing short of a quiet revolution… The IFR (Ideal Final Result) formulation works as a powerful means to dispose of mental inertia. Switching from “that’s impossible” to “it works” helps to overcome the fear of the unusual or daring solutions. The idea is to free our minds up to be creative.

1


4

Computational Power

Courtesy of Hans Moravec

“Moore’s Law”

As you can see that the cost of MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second) has dropped as the computational power has increased. So there is a limit to the Moore’s Law, but not the Law of Ideality. The Authors Hypothesis: The implication is that it just means that other components within the system will take on the function of MIPS, it will do an s-curve jump, the question is where to? And why the other component will take on that functionality? This will take research to determine where that jump will best take place. There are a # of researchers trying to figure this one out, see Wikipedia for the concepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

6

Technology Trend Drivers

#1 TREND: The Increasing # of I/O in Intel Architecture; according to “Moore’s Law” which states that the # of transistors doubles on silicon devices every 18-24 months.

This trend is driving the need for a enabling technologies to bedeveloped for the individual device, (i.e. wafer level), as wellas at the component level, board level and system levels to address the scaling challenges.

INVENTIVE SOLUTION NEEDED TO ADDRESS:Increasing complexity & decrease in size vs. Thermal management and Manufacturability(I): Device Complexity vs. (W): Use of energy by stationary ObjectAnd(I): Area of Stationary Object vs. (W): Object Generated Harmful Factors

Legend: I = Improving Trend, W = Worsening Trend

(Authors original augmented notes from 1999)

Why The Need for this Concept? Intel has many Researchers, Engineers & Intel Fellows working on evolving the technologies for the silicon device and at the component level However I was from the Server Architecture Lab and my job was to focus and work on all of the board and system level technologies to enable Intel at that level The concept that I developed is one of many potential concepts that attempts to address evolvement of the technology to the super-system level

7

Technology Trends Driving the Market

#2 TREND: With the increase in the # of I/O in IA; there are greater demands for more power for supporting the devices, especially in the Server and Desktop product spaces (inventor’s background), as well as in the mobile and networking product spaces.INVENTIVE SOLUTION NEEDED TO ADDRESS:

I

Increase in speed vs. Increased need to dissipate thermal energy(I): Speed vs. (W): Temperaturencrease in thermal energy dissipation vs. small volumetric area.

(I): Use of energy by a Stationary Object vs. (W): Area of Stationary Object

#3 TREND: With the increase in the # of I/O in IA; the pitch of I/O balls both from die-to-package and package-to-board is shrinkingINVENTIVE SOLUTION NEEDED TO ADDRESS:

Decrease in size vs. Manufacturability (I): Area of Stationary Object vs. (W): Manufacturing Precision or Ease of

Manufacture(I): Quantity of a substance vs. (W): Ease of Manufacture or Manufacturing

Precision

9

Project Efficiency vs. Effectiveness

Want to be Here

Efficiency is about the speed of a process that we follow to achieve a desired end, it is about a time based approach to achieving a result whereas effectiveness is our ability to hit the target of that desired goal. Effectiveness on the other hand is about hitting the mark, being accurate and correct for a given situation. You need both for superior performance when designing and building a product and shipping it to a market that actually wants to buy it.

2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law


10

Designed inQuality

Problems70-80%

ManufacturingDefects 20-30%

The Engineering Functions Have the Biggest Opportunity To Reduce Quality Problems and Achieve the Lowest Costs

Through the Application of DFSS

Relative Cost and/or Difficulty to Correct a Problem

Concept Design Prototyping Production

Rel

ativ

e C

ost

Most Problems Are Designed In

Clearly not all projects are hitting the target, hence not effective, regardless of the speed by which one reaches the end of a project, its completion, if one has not been effective then more problems will be created because good innovation principle was not used.

11

30%

15%

50%

5%

5%5%Overhead

Labor

Material

DFSS Leverage In Product Design

Design

CostInfluence

ActualCost

70%

20%

The reason why Toyota hasn’t done a more extensive recall is because the cost is in Billions of $$, potentially pushing Toyota to bankruptcy. Why? - For Example the Intel 1994-95 “Floating Point Flaw”, known as the Pentium FDIV bug cost Intel $475 Million USD for the total cost associated with replacement of the flawed processors. The recent issue with Apple on the flawed antenna on its iPhone 4 has been said to likely cost Apple $175M USD for its antenna case, versus a $1.5B USD recall. Clearly it gets very expensive for companies being ineffective in designing a product.

13

Getting Over the LimitationsStep 1: Contradictions and Principles = Solutions Do the one thing that other

typical companies can’t do, solve the contradictions, generate concepts, and then rapid prototype the concepts in the virtual space

Systematic Innovation – http://www.systematic-innovation.com/ Getting back to our actual problem I plugged in the improving and worsening parameters that were impacting performance

14

Step 1: 1st Set of Contradictions Defined

All Logo’s and Trademarks are the property of their respective ownersMatrix+® Software | www.systematic-innovation.com

Those parameters for the problem were (I): Device Complexity vs. (W): Use of energy by stationary Object And (I): Area of Stationary Object vs. (W): Object Generated Harmful Factors

15

Step 1: 1st Set of Principles Suggested


All of these principles suggested or inspired a direction: #40 – Composite Materials, #1 – Segmentation, #28 – Mechanical Substitution / Alternative sense, #13 – The Other Way Round, #12 – Equipotentiality, #2 – Taking Out, #10 – Preliminary Action, #17 – Another Dimension. All pointed towards what the final solution needed to be, all I needed to do was think about what these principles meant to me and to the technology that I was working with.

3


16

Step 1(cont.): 2nd Set of Contradictions Defined


Increase in speed vs. Increased need to dissipate thermal energy (I): Speed vs. (W): Temperature Increase in thermal energy dissipation vs. small volumetric area. (I): Use of energy by a Stationary Object vs. (W): Area of Stationary Object

21

Manufacturing: Cost Center or “Competitive Weapon”?

Common viewpoint of Manufacturing is that it is cost center, however…

Both Dell and Intel have demonstrated the advantage of “manufacturing and design excellence”as a “competitive weapon”. [author’s experience]

In the case of BMW, turning manufacturing into a profit center. [author’s research]Specifically it has been repeatedly demonstrated that using DFM/A tools are used as Rapid Prototyping tools, enabling manufacturing and design to work effectively, shortening the time to market and lowering product risk and uncertainty.[author’s experience]

The relevance of cost center versus profit center is an old contradiction that has been around for awhile. My early research in 2000, uncovered this when I took a trip through out Europe, part of which allowed me to visit BMW, where I heard the story of how the factory manager of the Dingolfing (5 Series) plant was told to turn it into a profit center or risk being responsible for everyone losing their jobs at the factory. I recognized they were using RFID boxes attached to the frames of each 5 series car to create truly paperless factory, customized to each individual who was buying the car, clearly advanced manufacturing processes were being employed that their American counterparts were not doing. Custom manufacturing on a mass production line. They were also punching out quarter panels for Porche. At the time of my visit in 2000 they were a profit center for BMW corporate

Like BMW, Intel has long history of being a center for design and manufacturing excellence, but it like many companies does make mistakes, so I set out to try and rectify that issue when I began this effort, after I left Intel and could devote the time to reviewing my experience at Intel as its senior instructor of innovation methods, researching best known methods in Lean, DFSS, TQM, and Economics. Although the early gains that Dell once had in supply chain management and customized product assembly have now slipped since others have been able to overcome the perceived benefit that Dell offered. They are illustrative of this principle in action. Rapid proto-typing was also a part of my professional history and I had seen the value first hand repeatedly in the Design for Manufacturing area, there are a number of tools that do this for the electronics manufacturing industry. In fact EDA (Electronic Design Arts) tools for semiconductor manufacturing have been doing this rapid prototyping in the virtual space for years, they have even learned how to include agility approaches into their design, proto-typing (a.k.a. modeling stages) in preparation for launch. Rapid proto-typing has been demonstrated to have a number of benefits, namely risk and uncertainty reduction when it comes to a given design and the manufacturing envelope it is planned to go in to. cost reduction benefits and

4


22

What Methods ACTUALLY Enable an Increase in Speed, Profitability

and Growth?New Product Development (NPD) investments

should impact: Speed to marketProfitability

Accelerating NPDStudy of 233 Manufacturing firms9 different NPD Acceleration approaches

Joe Ficalora conducted an analysis on the speed and profitability of the different continuous improvement methods that had been done by a different researcher. This analysis encompassed 223 manufacturing firms that used nine different approaches to continuous improvement.

23

Pioneers have emphasis on either speed or profitability, NPD teams must choose their approach carefully if pioneering

Key Results: Pioneers and Market Creators

SCI LUI AST DFA TRE SST XFC VOC SOS

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Speed Beta

Prof

itabi

lity

Bet

a

Listening to the customer / user is both speedy and more profitable

No structure for innovation, reduced

profitability

Anything that increases speed

is goodness

Bureaucratic structures can’t get speed

Matrixed groups help but still won’t overcome internal politics

which slows speed

Increase speed of supplier response

The Missed Opportunity

Bureaucratic structures can’t get speed

The results are that not all continuous improvement methods are right for all circumstances, industries and companies. But the clear issue that popped up for me was that DfM/A was shown in the data to NOT be a profitable or speedy approach for firms, my own experience did not match this. Either the data was wrong, my experience was a one off situation and not repeatable, or there was something more to this. I sought to find out why

Rsq for Speed was 0.72 total, Rsq for Profitability was 0.62 Significant at p<0.05 for any beta >0.2 LEGEND 1. SCI Supplier Involvement 2. LUI Lead User Involvement 3. AST-Acceleration of activities and tasks 4. DFA- Design For Assembly (Reduction of parts and components, and process optimization with design) 5. TRE Training and Rewarding Employees 6. SST Implementation of support Systems and Structures 7. XFC Stimulating Cross-Functional Cooperation 8. VOC Voice of the Customer (Customer Emphasis) 9. SOS Simplification of organizational structure

24

Increasing Product Performance and Lower Cost to Produce

# of innovations

TimeLow

High

DemandDriven

CostDriven

Product Innovation curve

Process Innovation curve

What I decided to do was to go look at an approach that was first proposed by Gert and Poppe, and as I looked at it from my own experience and by instructing some +850 engineers, technologists, and scientists, from concept development to materialization of their projects that this model held true.

25

Getting In Front of Your Competitors# of

innovations

TimeLow

HighDemandDriven Cost

Driven

Product Innovation curve

Process Innovation curve

Pulling-In the development of the Process Innovation curve to coincide with the Product Innovation Curve increases margin sooner, TTP, shortens TTM, and lowers product cost with greater performance, reliability, and functionality than competitors products or processes that don’t use this methodology

However I also knew that if you applied innovation methods, good innovation principles to be specific, while designing the product development phases simultaneously that you could actually break down previous design and manufacturing limitations, shorten the time to solution, and increase the functionality of the product and the process, increase product margins, all at the same time.

5


26

How These Tools Compress Costs or Shorten Innovation Cycles

CE: Concurrent Engineering, tears down the wall between design and manufacturing, enabling effective communication, even if the design team is external to the manufacturing group

DFM/A: Product and Process cost reductions

Lean: Process cost reductions

Six Sigma / DFSS: Focus on the right problems to solve, design in more value to the customer, statistical design employed for more predictable quality, performance and reliability

Systematic Innovation Methods / TRIZ: Solves the tough problems, the contradictions that no one else has solved, leaping up the S-curve or across to another s-curve altogether, best used in conjunction w/ other tools

Rapid Prototyping: Check your hypothesis’ / concept during NPI, and sort out via testing and Lead User Involvement

Lead User Involvement: Initial feedback on early product performance

Customer Emphasis (VOC / MOC): Know this information and you setup your testing during the NPI phase to proactively address potential opportunities

However the analysis that Joe did didn’t bear out my experience so then I looked at what the each of these tools was supposed to achieve when it came to compressing time in the innovation life cycle. I knew for a fact from my own experience that both DFM/A and rapid proto-typing were a leverage point that was where design and manufacturing realities came together in the virtual space and could be a point of coming up with a winning design for the market.

27

Companies Use DFM&A to Achieve 4 Main Goals:

1. Improve their products while reducing cost. Simplifying their products, improve quality, reduce manufacturing and assembly costs, and quantify improvements.

2. Increase competitive advantage. They study competitive products, determine quality and quantify manufacturing and assembly difficulties, and create superior products.

3. Hold suppliers accountable. They use DFMA as a “should-cost” tool to predict costs, analyze and discuss supplier bids, and hold outside suppliers to best practices.

4. Utilize their DFM / A tools as Virtual Rapid-Prototyping Tools.By taking a slightly more aggressive angle on these tools they challenge their own notions of what works, what doesn’t, and where the design actually breaks the mfg / design envelope.

CRITICAL Note: You can redefine the capabilities of a mfg envelope. But you can only properly evaluate the envelope’s capability by purposefully and consciously breaking the DFM & A rules.

28

The Value Add of a VPT (Virtual Proto-Typing) Tools

EMS Company to OEM’s on why use Virtual Proto-Typing:"Customers often ask ‘what value does a re-work have for me’, ‘what costs can it save me to follow the findings of your analysis’

Three different categories:1. Critical - Impacts product reliability/cost significantly2. Recommended - Impacts product cost 3. Design Improvement - Impacts product efficiency / documentation

issues

In this way the customer knows exactly what an improvement or change can help him to achieve"

Source: http://www.evertiq.com/news/14609

The Cost of NOT Managing

Variation

29

$Engineering

Change Notification [in $1000’s]

Draw

ing

Desig

n Ve

rifica

tion

Prot

otyp

e

Prod

uctio

n

Field

Reca

ll Product Life Cycle

Exponential Cost Growth

Proactive Vs Reactive

11

1010

100100

Source: Confidential

A field recall involves other costs, here not shown, including loss of quality perceived by the customer. The cost of an ECN growths exponentially. One of our customers has determined that if the engineering change happens during the design phase, the cost is proportional to 1. If ECN happens when the product is already in production the cost raises to 10 If an ECN happens and a field product recall is needed, then the cost is equal to 100 times what it would cost if it was caught up front earlier in the design cycle.

Why is it so important to predict the variation due to tolerances and assembly effects? Being proactive in the design rather than reactive means “Doing right the first time”, also known as being effective. The earlier we analyze the variation due to tolerances and assembly methods, the less is the cost of doing those changes, e.g. the Apple antenna-gate, and Toyota issues. The cost of a design Change (ECN) is different during the product life cycle: from the early stages of the drawing to the design verification, prototyping, production and field recall.

6


30

Profitability of DFM/A

DFM/A manages the mismatch between design and mfg process envelope, lowering overall product cost

Proof of DFM/A: (source: Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc)

+100 case studies, actual results of DFMA methods and software. Taken in composite, these show how companies have used DFMA to achieve:

Labor costs cut by 42%Parts reduced by 54%Assembly time cut by 60%Product development cycle time reduced by 45%Cost reduced by 50%

Whitepaper on DFM/A case study benefits, click here

And that is why virtual proto-typing is a key tool for reducing cost, but only gains in true cost savings when it is combined with innovation principles when faced with design or manufacturing process limitations.

31

Electronics Manufacturing VPT (Virtual Proto-typing Tool)

Flextronics uses Valor® as a BKM in managing the designs that they get from their customers

Even Flextronics calls it Virtual Rapid Proto-Typing See Article:

http://www.evertiq.com/news/14609

The virtual space of rapid prototyping tools is the perfect place and time for evaluating the design and its integration into the manufacturing space and is the lowest risk place to check these hypotheses of new, different concepts against how the design is likely to perform by the time it actually arrives in the actual manufacturing space. This is where the design and manufacturing teams can collaborate on what works well and what doesn’t and resolve any contradictions, compromises, sacrifices and trade-offs using inventive principles.

32

Impact of Corp. InfrastructureCorporate Infrastructure the Impact on Speed, Effectiveness & Efficiency

is degraded, since it:Slows Down Speed of decision makingBuilds in Inefficiencies that hamper significant process improvementsLowers the Effectiveness of Innovation management

Corporation’s Typically are NOT setup to Integrate or Effectively Exploit Innovation Opportunities

Even profitable ideas don’t make the cutPolitical element enters into decision making (away from data driven decision making – not focused on ROI of current resources)Inadequate / Insufficient / No resourcing or Training Momentum and Speed of implementation slowed or stoppedSiloed efforts (not-holistic)

RESULT: Few new Strategies to enable corporation into new markets and profitability, bureaucracy rules, if the top people, or the managers in the middle are allowed to prevail in maintaining the “status quo”

More detail and examples of how a corporate innovation infrastructure is supported or not supporting innovation is found within the presentations: “Analysis of a Corporate Innovation Strategy”, and the other presentation, “Reflections of a Corporate Change Agent” please see the Strategy + Innovation Group website, www.sig-hq.com, to download copies for you to review.

33

The Big Unspoken Issue for Corporate Managers

Risk and Uncertainty Still ReignCost RiskMarket Adoption / Acceptance RiskTechnology RiskManufacturing RiskDesign RiskTest RiskIntegration RiskRisk De Jour……

ecision Making MUST be driven to the lowest level, and held accountable for managing the risk and uncertainty

CONCLUSION: D

34

The Key to VPT with Valor®

The Valor Parts Library, it is the strongest part of the Rapid Proto-Typing (RPT) tool kit provided

It’s an option, thus costs more, but the overall value you get, when using the methods outlined here far outweighs the costs from an ROI standpoint

Valor’s has 2 tools known as Trilogy®, and Enterprise 3000 software suites

7

http://www.sig-hq.com/


35

Silicon Device (Processor)

Thermal conductive Adhesive/Grease

Rigid Core– Al ?

Cu thermal transfer plate

Conductive Adhesive

MLB: Multi-Layer Board

Silicon Device (Processor)

Silver filled Resin or Epoxy

Embedded Thermal Heat-pipe

Silicon device

Double-Sided Silicon Devices-In-Board (DSSDIB) – Embedded processors (current component designs using gold bumps or gold

wire) in PCBA’s w/ rigid cores

µ-Via (4-6mil buried & blind)

Bump contact pads

Patent Holder: Richard PlattIntel Technology Development PM

Std Via (10mil drill/ 13mil fin)

Standard trace for routing on outer layer

Back to our example. The eventual solution combining all of the principles resulted in a processor embedded within the PCB (Printed Circuit Board) through the machining/molding process of the rigid core and then imprinting the underside of the multi layer substrate to create a routing cavity. Silver filled epoxy could be used on the top side of the component between the rigid core material lining, (likely nickel plated copper for the lining due to thermal transfer capabilities and aluminum for the rigid core), but there are many variations that could be used and the patent was written to be as broad as possible to not limit the types of solutions that could be applied in this area. The bottom of the imprinted cavity with the trace connections and the metal contact pads come in contact with the gold bumps of the silicon device is coated with a electrically conductive adhesive.

36

Rigid Core2 Plates A & B > Aligned with Pins > R.C. Through Holes Drilled or molded

> Heat Pipe Cavity > Retainer Rails > Silicon Device cavities

Through Holes Drilled intoRigid Core

Alignment Pins

Silicon Cavity

Heat Pipe Cavity Note: NOT TO SCALE -- R.C. Thickness TBDCutaway Drawing Set—Not a manufacturing Flow!

Retainer Rails

The heat-pipe running through the rigid core, essentially acts as a radiator close to the processor thermally heat-sinking the thermal energy into the liquid w/in the heat-pipe. Then through osmotic process of the thermal heat-pipe itself it transfers the heated liquid/gas to an external cooling source, (i.e. fan) that vents the thermal energy out of the system. This technology is already in use on laptops today. This approach integrates all those technologies together along w/ the rigid core which provides additional rigidity and strength to already heavy and dense PCBs.

37

Embedded ComponentsCu Thermal Plate > Silver Epoxy > Silicon Device

Silicon Device(Gold Bumped)

Cu Thermal

Silver Epoxy

The rigid core acts as stabilizer. Traces (I/O), can then route out on the same layer as where the ball pads connect, and then using micro-vias the design engineer can then route to the primary side, (top surface), of the PCB. Instead of needing the package to manage the environment, now the PCB can be the protective package around the silicon device. Cost savings are significant with integrating the silicon directly into the substrate and or the rigid core. The rigid core is coated w/ a non-conductive film to prevent electrical shorts. The opportunity to do side access fiber optics integrated into silicon and edge of substrate is also now possible although not shown in the renderings for simplicity’s sake.

8


38

High Density Interconnect Printed Circuit Board (HDI PCB)

PCB Constructed > PCB mounted to respective half of Rigid Core via alignmentPins and PCB registration holes

Note: Surface Mount Components Only (includes I/O Connectors)

Bare HDI Foil PCB mounts toRigid Core

39

Final AssemblyAll Components are S.M.T. > Heat Pipe & Condenser > Side A/B Joined

S.M. I/O Connectors

Side A/B Join(Registration Apparatus TBD)

S.M. Connectors w/Attachment into R.C.

Heat Pipe / Condenser Assembled into core

40

Final Assembled Unit

Total Solution space = 70% Mfg & Assy process technologies + 30% product technology

PCBA and thermal solution are an integrated packageEnhanced electrical performanceExtremely Effective and Efficient thermal solutionIncreased ReliabilityLow ProfileLowest Total Cost of Ownership Product

41

Limits of Continuous Improvement Methods as Core

CompetenciesCommoditization of Product and Services is a constant downward

pressure in most businesses

Continued High Risk when your company and your competitors have stable, repeatable and reliable mfg processes

Lowest Cost to produce is still an issue, margins at risk

New product features / functionality needed to maintain profitability, which may be outside of current mfg envelope

Differentiation between different company’s products by being a customer facing advocate in design

Effective and typical strategy, BUT NOT a long term competitive advantage, assuming most competitors do the same, or just copy your features

Lifecycle Innovation Strategies (Continuous Improvement) For mature technologies, products, or services, incremental innovation can help extend life and drive differentiation and growth. Incremental innovation is not a new business creation strategy per se, but a method of sustaining growth in the core business by: • Adding minor features and functionality to create greater variation and options • Tweaking existing technology to create the “next iteration” of products Incremental innovation thrives in structured environments characterized by continuous product and process improvement. While incremental innovation is important to sustaining revenue growth within an S-Curve, jumping S-Curves involves creating or driving disruptive innovations. Bold and less predictable, these strategies can include:

9


42

Risks and Issues SummarizedVariation between Design intent, the limitations of manufacturing process envelope and the actual result (output = quality and reliability) is an exponential cost over timeIndividual Project Effectiveness and Efficiency is a balancing act, that directly impacts speed and profitabilityProblems that show up in the field are ‘designed in’ and the cost contribution is exponential in impactContinuous Improvement Methods provide benefit, assuming effective cultural integration / use (Pioneer vs. Market Creator)Continuous Improvement Methods lose competitive value over timeCoinciding Product and Process Innovation Life Cycles is still “Undiscovered Country”Risk and Uncertainty still reigns, continuous improvement or innovation methods DO NOT fundamentally address this significant gapCorporate infrastructures and it’s intrinsic decision making, negatively impacts selection of innovative concepts, starving beneficial projects of needing funding

44

Innovators

Early adopters

Early majority

Late majority

Laggards

Chasm Crossing

From the Book “Crossing the Chasm” by Jeffrey Moore

The big issue for many inventors and the companies that have them is getting to market adoption and acceptance this is called crossing the chasm, as explained by Jeffery Moore in his book “Crossing the Chasm”

46

Step 3: Advanced TRIZ Methods Used for Selecting the Best

Strategies

S-curve analysis helps to identify an idea’s potential and to match it with business objectives and available resources

S-curve analysis allows one to understand what to do with a good idea – it gives recommendations for its strategic development

S-curve analysis and Trends of Engineering System Evolution allow one to compare alternative ideas and to choose which one is better for the current environment and resources (analysis of the supersystem)

Trends of Evolutions allows to compare alternative ideas and see what their strong and weak sides are

Advanced methods in TRIZ enable the crossing of the chasm.

4747

1st Stage of the S-Curve: Indicators and Recommendations

IndicatorsNew system, not yet on marketComponents from other systems, rather than custom componentsIntegrates with super-system elements. The new system must change/adapt to the super-systemConsumes resources not intended for itNumber and magnitude of system modifications increase and then decrease almost to zero (like Darwin's Law – only the strongest systems win)System integrates with leading alternative systems

RecommendationsOne should work with existing infrastructure and resourcesIt makes sense to integrate the ES with systems that are leading at the momentMain efforts should be concentrated on identifying and eliminating bottlenecks that prevent the system from entering the marketA forecast for supersystem development is required for systems that are in the 1st stage of evolutionProfound changes in system composition and its components (up to switching to another principle of operation) are allowed It makes sense to develop the system with the intention of using it in one specific field - where the ratio of its advantages and disadvantages that are the most acceptableIt is necessary to analyze physical and super-system limitations of development with the aim of finding out the degree of promise of an ES

I have purposefully left out the 2nd stage methods and practices since that is part of my skill set and what it is that I work with my clients and teach them, it is proprietary. But I do offer up the methods for the 1st to 2nd stage of the processes as proof that those methods do exist for each and every stage of the innovation life cycle.

10


48

General Structure of the TESE

Trend of Transition to the

Supersystem

Trend of Increasing Ideality

Trend of Increasing Degree of Trimming

Trend of Optimization

of Flows

Trend of S-curve evolution

Trend of Increasing Coordination

Trend of Increasing Controllability

Trend of Increasing Dynamicity

Trend of Uneven Development of

System Components

Trend of Increasing Completeness of

System Components

Trend of Elimination of Human

Involvement

The General Laws and Structure of the Trends of Engineering System Evolution (TESE) provide even more direction and guidance for engineers, scientists and technologists on how to move their technology along it’s s-curve to enhance the adoption and acceptance of technology, product or service by the market.

49

Risk Assessment of Technology EffortTechnology Evaluation

Criteria Metric Multiplier Ranking Notes / Comments

Ease of Manufacturability

Specialty Manufacturing Process Yes = 1; No = 10 1 1

need to bring in New Processes, such as HDI-PCB capability, rigid core technology w/ integrated heat pipes, all SMT solutions for connectors would need to be developed. (I have new IP I am generating for that.)

Materials stage: lab, prototype, development or production?

lab = 1, prototype = 3, development = 5, production = 7 1 1

would need to develop a prototype line 1st in house to get the capability up and determine what the costs and issues would be to develop into a HVM line.

Is material specialty or commodity? specialty = 5, commodity =

10 1 10

HDI is standard technology readily available today. Aluminum rigid core can be done outside --outsourced in the short term.

Practical (least amount of effort for gain achieved)

Comaparitive against one project versus another. Multiplier of other metrics w/in the technology evaluation criteria 1 1

Do not personnaly know of any other approach that attempts a higher level of integration with the exception of Sun and IBM as comparitive systems

known vendor - sole supplierVendor known yes = 10, no = 5. Sole supplier = 5, multiple suppliers = 10 1 10

Grohmann Engineering

licensing or legal issues

Intel IP Y = 10; N = 1. Have to x-license from someone else = 5 Ability to x-license to others = 10 1 20

IDF's already submitted last year

cost POR cost = 5, more than POR cost = 1, less than POR cost = 10 1 10

Total system cost would be lower and enables a more efficient thermal x-fer mechanism than what is used today. No need to entertain refrigeration as a solution

availability of engineering know-how (internal /external / none availale) internal = 10, external = 5,

none available = 0 1 5

Grohmann Engineering, Fraunhofer Insititute and others have seen this and believe that it is a viable approach with the manufacturing capabilities that exist today.

integration w/ VFY = 10, No = 5 1 10

This would have to be a path pursued for a FOF model

R&D resources available (internal/external/none available)

internal = 10, external = 5, none available = 0 1 0

Extremely controversial approach, and requires an new perspective on architecture and business model

Is it disruptive technology? (Will this provide signifcant competitive advantage/compelling value add to feature set)

Characteristics of Disruptive Technology are: simpler, cheaper & lower perfoming. Yes = 1; No = 0, Generally promise lower margins, not higher profits. Yes = 1; No = 0, Intel's main customer's can't use the technology and don't want it Yes = 1; No = 0, 5 X 5 25

IDF submitted Yes = 10; No = 1 1 10

Evaluate your risks as early possible so that you can put mitigation plans in place as a part of the product development process.

50

Step 4: Current SOA of PCBA Technology

EvPot+® Software | www.systematic-innovation.com All Logo’s and Trademarks are the property of their respective owners

Current State – Of the – Art for PCBA Technology

Failure Points So why do organizations fail to identify emerging S-Curve threats and opportunities, let alone transition from one curve to the next? The causes are simple. Getting it right is challenging. The top reasons for missing S-Curve shifts include: • Not focusing on or investing in the new technologies or applications • Not effectively defending an existing business and technology • Not effectively creating new markets and technologies to recreate the business • Cultural inertia that hinders the ability to play two games at once (e.g., managing the existing business while investing in and driving the new) • Lack of Industry Foresight, Customer Insight, or the organizational support and processes (Strategic Alignment) required for superior execution

51

Step 4: New SOA of PCBA Technology

New State – Of the – Art for PCBA Technology


So it is important to compare your new proposed technology with the previous state of the art as well as to competitor technologies so that you can in fact determine your product or technologies ability to compete in the marketplace. A failure to do this can result in lost sales and revenue for your company for not doing the due diligence and rectifying any shortfalls against consumer / end-user needs or that of competitive products or technology.

11


5252

The Strategy + Innovation Group LLC | Author: Richard Platt

Trend Interaction Effects – Key Rule

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

101

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Sub A Sub B Sub C Sub D etc

System X

Customer ExpectationSegmentation

Controllability

Dimensionality

Human Involvement

RhythmActionDynamization

MBP(Sim)

MBP(Var)

Winner-Takes-All

Sense

Knowledge

Evolving thesystem at thehighest level…

…may require something to ‘get worse’at a lower hierarchical levelSource: Darrell Mann

Remember there are even rules and guidelines within the technology development process that must be heeded if one is to avoid missing something that could impact performance and or functionality, the higher level of the design resolution may not be enough digging deeper into the design is many times critical step to avoid a product misstep.

53

Step 4:Side By Side Comparison

Current State – Of the – Art for PCBA Technology New State – Of the – Art for PCBA Technology

Showing significant value add using proposed technologyThere are clearly more Innovation Trends utilized in the new technology (EvoPot+ Rating: 40% Old vs. 70% New)Visual representation aids managers, engineers and end users in decision making by showing the value-add from a mfg process standpoint, & by extension potential quality impact issues, product performance and robustness


Clearly in comparison of the current state of the art and the new proposed state of the art indicates significant gains in performance relative to one another. This is also an excellent approach when doing benchmarking of competitors technologies and products to help shape the direction of new products for design and manufacturing teams to consider as they look at their next generation products so that they can actually capture additional market segment share, if not new markets and hence additional, unforeseen revenues for the company.

54

Risks and Issues AddressedReturn on Assets (ROA) management of current BU staff, resources and processes used to achieve results is a MUST do. (ROI of what you have now)Agile Innovation™ methods streamline the NPI process, “debugging” design and manufacturing issues “real time”, during the process. Problems showing up in the field are better addressed real time when using stage gate After Action Reviews w/ team members during NPI phases, creating solutions to gaps in the rapid proto-typing phase and regression analysis testingVirtual Prototyping Tools MUST be used to “test” the limits of the manufacturing envelope and then drive manufacturing and design engineering work as neededContinuous Improvement Methods MUST be applied intelligently based on the type of volume and variability of your business. Rapid Prototyping of new concepts is a MUST do in the virtual space + involving Lead Users (LUI) getting critical feedback to improve product before market release. Managing Risk and Uncertainty MUST be managed at the point of occurrence, at the engineering level; rapid proto-typing in the virtual space, and communication feedback loops by key team members is required for effective managementBU management, 1-2 layers above design and manufacturing teams are REQUIRED to be involved in the strategic play of the team, (maximizing resource utilization)Review and accountability at the BU level of projects and programs, then feeds Corporate goals and directives. BU management provides “air cover”, not “duck and cover”

Continuous Improvement Methods have their time and place but typically are over-used and become a burden, instead of intelligent application, based on the type of volume and variability of your business. LUI (Lead User Involvement) is a risk management tactic and part of an overall strategy for effectively engaging the market before full roll out of a product or service into the marketplace. Managing Risk and Uncertainty MUST be managed at the point of occurrence, at the engineering level; rapid proto-typing in the virtual space, (a.k.a. modeling) and feedback loops of communication by key team members is required for effective management

Tradeoffs between Project/Program Effectiveness and Efficiency is addressed by Agile Innovation Methods (combining Lean, TQM and systematic-innovation methods) where and when they are needed. I mention this as a shameless plug of another article that I have on further analysis, research and application of other innovation methods combined with TRIZ to enhance product development team’s effectiveness, since there is only so much that I can cover in a 20 minute presentation at this conference. By example though problems showing up in the field are better addressed real time when using stage gate After Action Reviews w/ team members during the NPI phases, creating solutions to gaps in the rapid proto-typing phase and regression analysis testing DfM and A is known to be a cost and quality benefit but according to the research negatively impacts speed and profitability. However it is the way that they are typically used that is the issue.

12


55

Conclusions and Results on DFIM™ and Innovation Agility™

(Systematic Innovation Methods Applied in Design and Manufacturing)

Systematic Innovation methods continue to be successfully applied in the manufacturing and process industry

Samsung claims $1B in savings and benefitsIntel results (2002 – 2006) est. $62M - $212M in manufacturing cost savings and benefits

Process improvements that DFM/A (and other tools) integrated with Innovation methods provides the Greatest Unrealized High ROI opportunities for minimizing risk and uncertainty and helping to attain / sustain true competitive advantage

myriad issues of Risk, Uncertainty, or Resource Management challenges of NPI and market acceptance or adoption

CAI (Computer Aided Innovation) Tools alone DO NOT address the

The Desired End State for many is an innovation culture that goes from top to bottom, however it doesn’t happen overnight, but be rest assured it is driven by methods applied by the economic engine of a company, its people who know how to use and apply these innovation methods in practical and useful ways.

57

Author’s BiosRichard Platt: His previous role was as Intel’s Global Innovation Program Manager and the Senior

Instructor for Innovation Methods. He worked for Intel for 10 years in the Design, Operations, Manufacturing, R&D, Technology Development and IT organizations of Intel. While at Intel he was awarded the Intel Manufacturing Excellence Award, and 5 Intel Divisional Recognition Awards, achieving certification as a TRIZ Expert®, a TEN3 Business Coach and as a Innovation Master® . He’s currently the Principal for The Strategy + Innovation Group LLC, a Corporate Privateering company, focusing on aiding SME’s (Small & Medium sized Enterprises), and selected OEM’s using his organization’s competencies in Innovation Management, Intellectual Property development, Change Agency and conducting Market Insurgencies.

Joe Ficalora: is currently the principal of Joe Ficalora & Associates, serving DFSS and Lean Six Sigma client needs around the globe. He serves as deployment advisor, instructor and DFSS Master Black Belt at key clients including Medtronics, Fairchild Semiconductor, Boston Scientific, 3M, Osram-Sylvania, Tyco Electronics, and J & J. Mr. Ficalora was a partner/owner at SBTI, serving on the Board of Directors for SBTI, Inc., SBTI International, LLC, and Chairman of the Board for SBTI-China, their most successful global partner in growth and return on investment. His prior role was Architect and Program Manager for the Master Black Belt Program, the most profitable service offering for 10 years. He managed instructor coordination, program and course design, and was also responsible for personal mentoring and development for each Master Black Belt

Dr. Sergei Ikovenko: Is one of leading consultants and project facilitators in innovation technology of design. He has conducted more than 700 courses on innovation and TRIZ (Theory for Inventive Problem Solving) topics for Fortune 500 companies worldwide. Dr. Ikovenko was the primary instructor to deliver corporate TRIZ training programs at Procter & Gamble (about 1,500 engineers trained during 3 years), Mitsubishi Research Institute (300 engineers), Samsung (300 engineers), Intel (200 people) and other companies. He is a primary Innovation instructor of Siemens Innovation Tool Academy, General Electric Global Research and TRIZ Innovation Initiative of Hyundai Motor.

59

Additional References

F. Langerak & E.J. Hultnick – IEEE Tr. Engg Mgmt, Feb. 2005A. Griffin – J. Proc. Innov. Manage., vol. 14, no. 6, 1997b

Contributing Authors:Joe Ficalora - Joe Ficalora & Associates Dr. Sergei Ikovenko - GEN3 Partners

60

Additional Steps and Reference Material

Appendix

63

Steps 5 and 6 For Strength & Value

64

Patent Strength Analysis - ValuingBackward Citations

Central Patent

Forward Citations

Patent Pub. Date

Inventor Assignee Title Patent Title

43273991982-04 Sasaki et al. Nippon

Telegraph & Telephone Public Corp.

Heat pipe cooling arrangement for integrated circuit chips

6292366 7294529 Method for embedding a component in a base

46316361986-12 Andrews Harris

Corporationdensity packaging technique for electronic systems

Printed circuit

board with embedded integrated

circuit

7286359 Use of thermally conductive vias to extract heat from microelectronic chips and method of manufacturing

4734315 1988-03 Spence-Bate

Space-Bate; Joyce Florence

Low power circuitry components

7176382 Electrical circuit board and method for making the same

4739443 1988-04 Singhdeo Olin Corporation

Thermally conductive module

7165321 Method for manufacturing printed wiring board with embedded electric device

4774630 1988-09 Reisman et al.

Microelectronics Center of North Carolina

Apparatus for mounting a semiconductor chip and making electrical connections thereto

6991966 Method for embedding a component in a base and forming a contact

65

Backward CitationsCentral Patent

Forward Citations

Patent Pub. Date

Inventor Assignee Title Patent Title

5199165 1993-04 Crawford et al.

Hewlett-Packard Company

Heat pipe-electrical interconnect integration method for chip modules

6292366 6788537 Heat pipe circuit board

5306866 1994-04 Gruber et al.

International Business Machines Corporation

Module for electronic package

Printed circuit board with embedded

integrated circuit

6680441 Printed wiring board with embedded electric device and method for manufacturing printed wiring board with embedded electric device

5355942 1994-10. Conte Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Cooling multi-chip modules using embedded heat pipes

6490159 Electrical circuit board and method for making the same

5793611 1998-08 Nakazato et al.

Hitachi, Ltd. Cooling device with thermally separated electronic parts on a monolithic substrate

Patent Strength Analysis - Valuing

13


14

66

Levels Of InventionLevel 1 - Standard

Solutions that are obtained by methods well known within a specialty in an industry, this isn’t really an invention

Level 2 - ImprovementImprovement of an existing system, usually with some complicationSolution methods are obtained from the same industry

Level 3 - Invention inside the paradigmEssential improvement to an existing systemSolution methods are obtained from other fields or industries

Level 4 - Invention outside the paradigmCreating a new generation of a systemSolution methods are obtained from science, not technology

Level 5 - DiscoveryPioneer invention of an essentially new system.Usually based on a major discovery or new science (Kaplan, 1996)

In his search of the patent literature, Altshuller recognized that solutions fall into five categories according to the difficulty with which they were derived:

67

Indicators of the 2nd StageThe number of patents begins to grow rapidly

The level of patents declines constantly Profitability of the system goes up

t

t

t

t

# ofInventions

Efficiency

Level ofInvention

12

3

4

Profit

How The Value and Strength Are Measured

68

Summary OF The Issues of NPD

Variation must be managed successfullyWaste must be removed in design and continually in productionMust balance each project to optimize efficiency and effectivenessYou cannot succeed in product or process without innovationSuccessful Product Innovation hits the targets, requiring VOC, LUINot every tool works in every situationSuccess in Markets require speed in decisions & knowledge

Apply the Right toolsTo the Right ProjectsAt the Right Time…

69

The 9 Approaches

Supplier Involvement (SCI)Lead User Involvement (LUI)Acceleration of activities and tasks (AST) Reduction of parts and components (DFA)Training and Rewarding Employees (TRE)Implementation of support Systems and Structures (SST)Stimulating Cross-Functional Cooperation (XFC)Customer Emphasis (VOC)Simplification of organizational structure (SOS)

Question is which ones of these were the most effective in reducing time to market and time to profitability. Answer: It’s not which one, but which one’s are best for your company, markets and industry that give you competitive advantage when combined with systematic innovation methods like TRIZ.