I just noticed that the team had to develop a new test flow and test probes for this new SiP, as the current test procedures and test systems were not sufficient. As I understand such 3D SiP solutions are there in the market for some time, What caused the need for developing a new procedure? Is it bacause of its miniature size or because of the new process technology used?
"Minimal bureaucracy" is definitely the key...as with anything, I, too, have seen a lot of energy poured into "presentation" of reports, rather than substantive results, in their efforts to justify the funding.
"Availability of finance at different enterprise stages" is another one that not many would think about right off the bat, but absolutely critical.
"So, in your opinion, what harnesses the development of disruptive technologies? I take it that it won't come from "group activities" in such big consortiums..."
Yes, I fear not. Diruptive technologies will mostly come from small start-ups or small teams within entrepreneurial companies/institutions. Large consortia like these will spend an awful lot of time managing the consortia and preparing/filling reports. In most cases I have seen, the solution is nearly there from the start (or there already) - it's just new packaging.
The key ingredients for disruptive innovation IMO are:
- Free thinking
- Minimal bureaucracy
- Business-friendly regulations
- Availability of finance at different enterprise stages
Europe as a whole is failing in most of the above I am afraid....
In my opinion, the key is to identify clearly one's unique competitive advantage and harness it to the full. In this instance, Europe (I should say Germany) has a unique competitive advantage in the Automotive industry (due to decades and decades of incremental improvements, good industrial relations and a high quality brand) and this ESiP project fits well into this framework. But to sell it as disruptive and potentially contributing to bringing mass production back to Europe is nonsensical (and I suspect is mostly for Eurocrat consumption).
Japan is very similar to Germany in many ways by the way. Both countries are not the best place for developing disruptive technologies. The electronics industry is prime for distruptive technologies these days but the answer won't come from Germany or Japan IMO.
Hi, KB. Your points are well taken. I see the similar phenomenon in Japanese electronics industry. There had been so many failed microelectronics projects in Japan in late 1990's and early 2000's that essentially went nowhere. Getting funding is one thing, but actually producing results and developing something that's marketable is an entirely different story.
But i see the problem is not about getting government's funding.
The real issue is more about how you manage a project like this, and whether you have disciplines (and flexibility) to go after what the market really demands.
I am not sure I agree with the project outline snippet above. It's typical of the old-fashioned European mindset if you ask me. The prevailing mindset is to keep all socio-economic structures and procedures as they are, and reverse the clock back to the days where Europe was the hub of mass production, in this instance by establishing highly-automated fabrication plants, as if the rest of the world will stand still. Europe's loss of competitiveness is mainly to blame on its old fashioned education, labour and economic systems.
I wish this ESiP initiative all the best but it won't solve Europe's problems, that's for sure. We are living in a global economy and Europe needs to compete in innovation and productivity, and worry less about where this or that part of the value chain will be as long as it's the most efficient place for it.
I hear you, Rick. EU announcing this project and that project is actually getting old. And yet, when you think about R&D dollars needed for basic technology development, framing the research project in regional/political terms is usually the most reliable method to get funding. As MP mentioned, we all look forward to seeing the fruits of this project in real market. We will keep track of them.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.