I received a plethora of e-mails regarding my recent article, entitled "Opinion: Semi IP sector is a lost cause"
Then, I asked for the IP vendors themselves to respond to a set of questions. Here's one letter to the editor:
To the Editor:
I recently read your article and Lisa Tafoya's response about the IP landscape. Frankly I am very disturbed with the direction of IP quality scoring, and industry organizations propensity for not-invented-here-syndrome: reference the FSA Hard IP Tool and the VSIA QIP Metric.
At my company, I have the dubious task of recommending a standard way to evaluate and score soft and hard digital IP. I have been through the dark days of where nothing existed, to the point where the RMM arose out of the ashes, then OpenMore spreadsheets, then the QIP, and now FSA.
In my opinion, the only true scoring methodology that made sense was QIP. I know that VSIA is gone, but I also know that VSIA donated QIP to the IEEE DASC, that the DASC is forming a study group for QIP, and that the QIP is still freely downloadable. In fact, Chip Estimate Corp. still has a QIP entry on most IP (as well as the just-added FSA sheet).
With all of this progress that the QIP is making, I have to ask why the FSA is promoting its own IP methodology?
The answer, according to the FSA Web site, is that the QIP does not focus on hard IP. A simple look at QIP, however, shows and entire hard IP scoring configuration, which has many similarities to the FSA spreadsheet. Further, the QIP hard-IP actually has more questions, 265 vs. 156. Finally the QIP evaluates then vendor's methodology, while the FSA does not, which is perhaps the most important part of any assessment.
I see not reason to perpetuate yet another scoring methodology, and plan on recommending my company use QIP and deprecate FSA spreadsheets, even though QIP is in limbo.
My message to the FSA: adopt the QIP metric's hard IP section and modify appropriately, then donate those efforts to the IEEE. Better yet, help the IEEE DASC make the QIP standard by becoming part of the study group. UMC and LSI are already on the working group; can't the FSA get behind them to represent FSA interests? That is how real progress is made.
Note: I am not way associated with the IEEE, VSIA, or QIP development. I just want a single standard, and think that QIP is it.
Staff Electrical Engineer