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 weight
1/1,000,000 the cost
10,000,000 X the performance and reliability
10,000x the pe
$1M main
$1K desk
45 y
rformance of a
frame in a
top in
ears
Clear FunctionalityClear Functionality
and Performanceand 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 Ideality
S-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® Pro
Processor
Pentium® II
Processor
Pentium® III
Processor
Pentium® 4
Processor
Intel386TM DX
Microprocessor
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
1.0µ
0.8µ
0.6µ
0.4µ
0.25µ
0.18µ
0.13µ
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 be
developed for the individual device, (i.e. wafer level), as well
as 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 Object
And
(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.
I
Increase in speed vs. Increased need to dissipate thermal energy
(I): Speed vs. (W): Temperature
ncrease 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 shrinking
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

10
Designed in
Quality
Problems
70-80%
Manufacturing
Defects 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
RelativeCost
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
Cost
Influence
Actual
Cost
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 Limitations
Step 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 market
Profitability
Accelerating NPD
Study of 233 Manufacturing firms
9 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
ProfitabilityBeta
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
Time
Low
High
Demand
Driven
Cost
Driven
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
Time
Low
High
Demand
Driven 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 significantly
2. 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
Design
Verification
Prototype
Production
FieldRecall
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. Infrastructure
Corporate Infrastructure the Impact on Speed, Effectiveness & Efficiency
is degraded, since it:
Slows Down Speed of decision making
Builds in Inefficiencies that hamper significant process improvements
Lowers 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 cut
Political 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 stopped
Siloed 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 Reign
Cost Risk
Market Adoption / Acceptance Risk
Technology Risk
Manufacturing Risk
Design Risk
Test Risk
Integration Risk
Risk 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

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 Platt
Intel 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 Core
2 Plates A & B > Aligned with Pins > R.C. Through Holes Drilled or molded
> Heat Pipe Cavity > Retainer Rails > Silicon Device cavities
Through Holes Drilled into
Rigid Core
Alignment Pins
Silicon Cavity
Heat Pipe Cavity
Note: NOT TO SCALE -- R.C. Thickness TBD
Cutaway 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 Components
Cu 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 alignment
Pins and PCB registration holes
Note: Surface Mount Components Only (includes I/O Connectors)
Bare HDI Foil PCB mounts to
Rigid Core
39
Final Assembly
All 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 package
Enhanced electrical performance
Extremely Effective and Efficient thermal solution
Increased Reliability
Low Profile
Lowest Total Cost of Ownership Product
41
Limits of Continuous
Improvement Methods as Core
Competencies
Commoditization 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 Summarized
Variation between Design intent, the limitations of manufacturing process
envelope and the actual result (output = quality and reliability) is an
exponential cost over time
Individual Project Effectiveness and Efficiency is a balancing act, that
directly impacts speed and profitability
Problems that show up in the field are ‘designed in’ and the cost
contribution is exponential in impact
Continuous Improvement Methods provide benefit, assuming effective
cultural integration / use (Pioneer vs. Market Creator)
Continuous Improvement Methods lose competitive value over time
Coinciding 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 gap
Corporate infrastructures and it’s intrinsic decision making, negatively
impacts selection of innovative concepts, starving beneficial projects of
needing funding
44
Innovators
Early
adopters
Early
m
ajority
Late
m
ajority
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
Indicators
New system, not yet on market
Components from other systems, rather than custom components
Integrates with super-system elements. The new system must change/adapt to the super-system
Consumes resources not intended for it
Number 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
Recommendations
One should work with existing infrastructure and resources
It makes sense to integrate the ES with systems that are leading at the moment
Main efforts should be concentrated on identifying and eliminating bottlenecks that prevent the system
from entering the market
A forecast for supersystem development is required for systems that are in the 1st
stage of evolution
Profound 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 acceptable
It 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 Effort
Technology 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 supplier
Vendor 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/ VF
Y = 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
EvPot+®
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
10
1
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 Expectation
Segmentation
Controllability
Dimensionality
Human Involvement
Rhythm
ActionDynamization
MBP(Sim)
MBP(Var)
Winner-Takes-All
Sense
Knowledge
Evolving the
system at the
highest 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 technology
There 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
EvPot+®
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 Addressed
Return 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 testing
Virtual Prototyping Tools MUST be used to “test” the limits of the manufacturing
envelope and then drive manufacturing and design engineering work as needed
Continuous 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 management
BU 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 benefits
Intel 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 Bios
Richard 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. 2005
A. 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 - Valuing
Backward Citations
Central
Patent
Forward Citations
Patent Pub.
Date
Inventor Assignee Title Patent Title
4327399
1982-04 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
4631636
1986-12 Andrews Harris
Corporation
density
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.
Microelectro
nics 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 Citations
Central
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 Invention
Level 1 - Standard
Solutions that are obtained by methods well known within a
specialty in an industry, this isn’t really an invention
Level 2 - Improvement
Improvement of an existing system, usually with some complication
Solution methods are obtained from the same industry
Level 3 - Invention inside the paradigm
Essential improvement to an existing system
Solution methods are obtained from other fields or industries
Level 4 - Invention outside the paradigm
Creating a new generation of a system
Solution methods are obtained from science, not technology
Level 5 - Discovery
Pioneer 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 Stage
The number of patents begins to grow rapidly
The level of patents declines constantly
Profitability of the system goes up
t
t
t
t
# of
Inventions
Efficiency
Level of
Invention
1
2
3
4
Profit
How The Value and
Strength Are Measured
68
Summary OF The Issues of
NPD
Variation must be managed successfully
Waste must be removed in design and continually in production
Must balance each project to optimize efficiency and effectiveness
You cannot succeed in product or process without innovation
Successful Product Innovation hits the targets, requiring VOC, LUI
Not every tool works in every situation
Success in Markets require speed in decisions & knowledge
Apply the Right tools
To the Right Projects
At 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.

Analysis of applying TRIZ in and on a Large Scale System - Semiconductors

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (13)

Semelhante a Analysis of applying TRIZ in and on a Large Scale System - Semiconductors

Semelhante a Analysis of applying TRIZ in and on a Large Scale System - Semiconductors (20)

Mais de Richard Platt

Mais de Richard Platt (20)

Último

Último (20)

Analysis of applying TRIZ in and on a Large Scale System - Semiconductors