CANDE Panel on EDA R&D Rajesh Gupta UC San Diego

3 questions, 3 answers

Has government (e.g., DARPA) changed what it wants from universities? Why has the government funding dropped? Has it moved to other areas?

A1: Shift is

pretty

fundamental

• • • 3X increase in submissions over 5 years Pathetic funding rates: – – – – – – – ~5% ; ~6% requested $$ Theory 05: 11% $70K/yr CCF 04: 5% Cybertrust 04: 8% IDM 04: 3%, FY05: 0% IIS 04: 5% CNS 04: 10-15% DARPA – EDA is a surefire way to

Sources: Various, Stefan Savage

Remember the IT Boom?

FY00

ITR $ awarded FY00-FY02 from NSF/CCR division

FY01 FY02 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 COMM CSA DA DSC EHS GSG

CCR Programs

Source: Sankar Basu, NSF SEL SPS TC $8.8M $0

CSA DA DSC EHS GSG SEL SPS TC TOC

$188M $2.9M

Communications Research Computer Systems Architechture Design Automation for Micro and Nano Systems Distributed Systems and Compilers Embedded and Hybrid Systems Graphics and Symbollic Software Engineering and Languages Signal Processing Systems Trusted Computing Theory of Computing

Do we need big science centers or individual projects, or a combination?

A2: Ill-posed. What is the role of unsolicited research?

• Agencies routinely engage in divining future: – DARPA disease without the DARPA bucks – picking up technology winners by committee or worse. • It has never worked, it never will – General Magic, MCC, FGCP, … • But we

now

know what does work Year #consortia registered

Golden Age of US Semi Industry Recovery

1985 50 1986 17 1987 27 1988 33 1989 34 1990 45 1991 59 1992 59

Is the government view that industry should pay for its own research?

A3: GOP still works Good old politics

Yes and No – Typically, industry claims to invest x% of sales to R&D (10-K) • SEMI: 6%, Telecom semi: 15% (QCOM: 20%) – About 1.0 to 1.5% of R&D is on long term research (SRC, MARCO) • Looking at the semiconductors research – The ITRS related R&D is $900M WW • Equally split between US and ROW • US portion about equally split between Gov and Industry – ($200M from US Gov, about 5x the SRC budget) • EDA tends to pile along Semi – The last serious attempt for 1994 SRC Gap study that showed a gap of about $500M that led to MARCO FCRP

US Appropriations: FUD Works

Closing: EDA R&D Boat Rocks in a Rule Changing World

• Goals of technology policy are changing – Pre 9/11: • We need technology advantage for a superior military • Collateral commercial developments are a good thing – Post 9/11: • We

have

technology advantage. We need deployment.

• A deep paranoia of the foreigners among our midst • AWOL Advocacy of EDA R&D – Our NAE members, industry leaders need to be proactive – Educate, enlighten the policy makers and their mentors about what is at stake with EDA R&D – Semi’s are 6% of the manufacturing GDP – Precompetitive advantage has moved from equipment to methods

But, ROW

has

Changed

Slides I will never get to

Research Funding: Global Picture Rajesh Gupta UC San Diego

Research Spending Has Flatlined

US S&T Appropriations

• Highly decentralized – Individual subcommittees that have funding oversight over individual agencies.

– The chief educators in this process • Congressional Research Service, LoC, CBO, GAO, NRC • OTA was closed in 1995 • EOP actors: OSTP, CEA, NSC, OMB • Long term planning is difficult to achieve since most honchos are political appointees – Let us look at NSF, DARPA, Consortia (SRC, SEMATECH)

NSF: A Historical Perspective

• At the end of WWII, Pres Roosevelt asked Dr Vannevar Bush to lead review of S&T research in the US in an attempt to consolidate the science lead nation had built up as a part of the war effort – As Director of Office of Scientific Research and Development, he oversaw work of 6000 scientists involved in the war effort • Out came the report: “Science: The Endless Frontier” submitted to President Truman – Formed the basis of “University, Industry, Government” compact on research and education – One of the most persuasively written policy document in the nation’s history • “Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.” • Led to the emergence of “Research University”

NSF est 1950

• Three policy pillars – Federal support of basic scientific research – Role of research universities – Federal support of education of young people in science and engineering • “Research University” – “The publicly and privately supported colleges, universities, and research institutes are the centers of basic research. They are the wellsprings of knowledge and understanding.” • Currently at $5.47B (-105M) – $4.22B for research, $841M EHR, $174 Maj Equip • CISE and ENG at about $600M each • But, it is no longer business as usual…

Thought Leaders Today

• For the first time in nation’s history, this compact is up for elimination – A nation at war has other priorities • Partly driven by “neocon” dislike for centrally organized anything – A (minority) thought that never really bought the endless frontier. Cf: @Cato & Hoover; Donald Kennedy on “Riding through the Endless Frontier –Right past the students” • Partly by a palpable political sense that science is getting in the way of policy (and ethics) – Not really laughable concerns. Cf: Bill Joy

DARPA: Mission Oriented

DARPA

• FY 2005: $2.97B

– $1.3B is basic research, $1.6B is applied research • Materials and Electronics is about $0.5B

– Zero for design technology, embedded stuff • FY 2006: $3.08B

– $1.4B basic, $1.5B applied • All computing related money to Cognitive Computing ($200M) • electronics at $241M – Network centric warfare is a growth component.

State Participation

• Goes long back: 19 th century – land grant universities that focused on agriculture and technology • Feds took dramatic lead during WWII – Vannever Bush vision • IT boom enabled states to get back into the action – Even as feds withdrew to 0.9% of GDP from 1.5% in 1965 – Almost all of Federal R&D is mission-oriented • About 5b of 68b is general R&D (NSF, NIH)

Consortia • EDA players can not afford stand-alone R&D efforts • Precompetitive R&D is perhaps the oldest outsourced activity

– A new global perspective to this outsourcing – Plus Sarbanes+Oxley 3a-8 prevents deferred recognition of R&D costs • “call options” on R&D outcomes no longer as easy to exercise

Consortia Evolution

• NCRA 1984 allowed R&D consortia to emerge – (beyond the reach of anti-trust legislation) – Consortia evolving from small budget R&D outfits to large budget development “joint-ventures” • MCC (1982) in response to Japanese Fifth Generation Computer Program in 1981, Alvey program in UK – MCC failed because of conflict in expectations and political reality • Participating companies expected quick(er) returns than internal R&D • FGCP (1982-1992) also failed for its ill conceived technical vision – DARPA is now going down the same path “intelligent information processing”, AI+Cmputer • SEMATECH – Improved execution (insist on assignee quality) • The ROW has caught onto to Consortia even faster – The European Frameworks are generally $13-15B

Sematech

• 1986: US share of semi market was project to reach 20% by 1993 – DSB and SIA contributed to the overall noise against the Japanese • 14 companies accounting for 80% of US semi industry banded together – Strange bedfellows bounded by a common threat – Goal: “To provide the US Semi industry the capability of achieving world-leadership manufacturing position by the mid 1990s.” – $100M/year from US, 1% of sales ($1M-$15M) • $200M/year operating budget • By 1993, US Semi overtook Japan; by 1996: US: 44%, Japan: 36% – Central research facility key to its success.

• Look at Alberto’s EDAtech proposal along these lines…

The Network Centric Warfare and National Defense

• Remember “General Magic”?

– That magical partnership between Apple, Sony, Motorola, AT&T with the goal of building “a ubiquitious communication infrastructure” – MagicCap, Telescript – IPO’d in 1995, broadsided by the real McCoy’s only a year later…while it kept on reinventing itself year after year as a internet, webservices company before finally quitting in 9/02