Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
44161554
label
American Electronics Association (AEA)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
44161554
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
American Electronics Association (AEA)
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Clinton Administration)
Lionel (Skip) Johns files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
44161554
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-40570906-20081524F-004-012-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5c00130974549d12
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2008-1524-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Series/Staff Member:
Skip Johns
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
10672
FolderID:
Folder Title:
American Electronics Association (AEA)
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
4
5
1
AMERICAN ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
U.S. ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY PRIORITIES
RECOMMENDATION HIGHLIGHTS
If the U.S. is to become a global leader in manufacturing, U.S. industry must
regain its competitive edge in a number of strategic electronic components
and manufacturing systems. U.S. electronic industries and technologies will
have the greatest impact on U.S. manufacturing industry global leadership,
and both government and industry have a role in keeping the U.S. globally
competitive in these industries and technologies. It is important, however, that
representatives from commercial electronic manufacturing industries drive the
selection of specific industries and technologies for government support. The
U.S. must develop a continuum of basic research, applied research, and
system test beds or consortia to restore a competitive U.S. position in
electronics manufacturing. To this end, the AEA offers the following
recommendations:
INDUSTRY-LED ADVISORY COMMITTEE The AEA recommends that the
Administration create a formal industry-led "Electronics Manufacturing Advisory
Committee" to help develop and implement a "National Electronics
Manufacturing Initiative," and guide federal manufacturing policies and
programs throughout the government. Companies represented on the
Committee should include electronic equipment manufacturers, electronic
component manufacturers, and electronic manufacturing equipment and
materials manufacturers. The Committee should coordinate with the broad-
based, industry-led "Advanced Manufacturing Committee," which is authorized
by S. 4, the "National Competitiveness Act of 1993," and supported by the AEA,
and FCCSET committees and workgroups.
ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY FORUMS The AEA intends to work with other industry,
academic and labor organizations to create and sponsor two forums of
representatives of industries involved in the manufacture, production, and use
of 1) strategic electronic components, and 2) electronics manufacturing
systems. The forums will provide guidance and recommendations on industry
and government actions to improve U.S. electronics component
manufacturing and manufacturing systems competitiveness, including
roadmaps for the development and application of critical technologies (see
roadmap examples in appendix). The forums also could be chartered as a
utilized federal advisory committee for all agencies with programs impacting
electronics manufacturing, and act as information resources for, and provide
detailed input to, the "Electronics Manufacturing Advisory Committee," the
"Advanced Manufacturing Committee," and FCCSET.
NATIONAL ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING INITIATIVE Because key electronics
components, manufacturing equipment and computer integrated
manufacturing industries and technologies are of major strategic importance,
not only to the U.S. electronics industries but to a range of U.S. manufacturing
industries, the AEA recommends that coordinated inter-agency efforts be
developed in this area. The Association urges the Administration to initiate a
budget "cross-cut" and national initiative in electronics manufacturing --
focusing on strategic electronic components and electronics manufacturing
systems. The AEA recommends that the current FCCSET Electronics Workgroup
should be transformed into an Electronics Committee and should include
representatives of all agencies with programs and responsibilities that impact
electronics manufacturing competitiveness. The Committee should inventory
existing federal efforts and work with industry (especially the AEA Electronics
Industry Forums) and the Electronics Manufacturing Advisory Committee to
develop the proposed "National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative." The
Initiative should focus on directing federal R&D resources to the development
and deployment of strategic components and their related material and
equipment technologies, and manufacturing systems technologies. Critical
areas are outlined below.
STRATEGIC ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS The Electronics Industry Forum should
develop roadmaps and recommendations for the following electronic
components, for which the AEA urges immediate increased research and
technology deployment focus on a national level by industry, government and
academia:
1.
Integrated Circuits
2
Printed Wiring Boards (PWB), Multi-Chip Module (MCM) Substrates
3.
Liquid Crystal Flat Panel Displays
4.
Semiconductor Packaging Technology
5.
Printed Wiring Board (PWB), Substrate (MCM) Assembly Technology
6.
High Density Batteries
ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS Funding must be directed and
focused for both basic and applied research in process control, process
design, system integration, and automation technology. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, the
National Science Foundation, and other appropriate agencies and national
labs, should cooperate to fund R&D aimed at new advances in manufacturing
technologies. The AEA recommends that R&D be immediately focused in the
following pre-competitive, strategic, electronic-manufacturing-process
technology areas:
1.
Process Modeling and Knowledge Representation
2.
Sensor Development
3.
Actuator Technology Development
4.
Manufacturing Software
5.
Micro-Machining and Nano-Fabrication Techniques
6.
Flexible Assembly System Technology
EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT It is critical that the above technologies are
implemented in commercially available products and in process equipment,
packaging equipment, and assembly equipment. At least 50 percent of
electronics manufacturing technology funding should be directed at
equipment technology transfer to equipment vendors through agencies such
as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and through industry
co-funded consortia that are targeted at electronics manufacturing equipment
areas.
SYSTEM INTEGRATION In order to address the many complex issues associated
with developing new manufacturing processes where equipment from many
vendors must be seemlessly integrated, the government should co-fund
consortia and teaming efforts to develop pilot facilities or model factories
which deploy new manufacturing capabilities. This funding would help reduce
the risk of trying out new manufacturing equipment and processes and would
be temporary for any one project. After several years, the model factory
would be absorbed by team members.
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
U.S. ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY PRIORITIES
Recommendations of the American Electronics Association
on the Proposed Advanced Manufacturing Technology Initiative
Introduction
Electronics and electro-mechanical manufacturing, the largest manufacturing
employer in the U.S., faces serious challenges. In the next two decades it will
be one of the highest growth industries in the world. Competition on a global
level will force rapid changes in methods and strategies. There will be
increasing demands for higher skill levels for industry workers. Unfortunately, the
ability of the U.S. to compete in this industry at world cost and quality
standards has deteriorated significantly over the last several decades. Listed
below is a sample of products that can no longer be competitively
manufactured in the U.S.:
Table 1
Products we can't make at world cost in the United States
Example
U.S. Market
Product
($ billion)
VCRS
10.7
Camcorders
2.8
Portable Audio
2.1
Audio
4.3
Disk Drives
16.0
Total:
$36.0 billion
Common characteristic: Precision electro-mechanical or
electro-optical products; require either low-cost, skilled labor or
precision automation
For VCRS, camcorders, and audio products, it is estimated that over 95% of the
manufacturing is outside the U.S. There is no U.S. company that has the
manufacturing knowhow to make a VCR, which contains roughly 2000 parts,
and sell it to Sears for less than $100. In the disk drive industry, most
manufacturing by U.S. disk drive companies is either done in Singapore by
low-cost ($1.50 per hour) labor or subcontracted to Japanese companies such
as MKE (which builds disk drives for Quantum, a $2 billion U.S. company). The
Japanese cost of labor is similar to that in the U.S. Japan, however, uses
1
precision automation to build all these products at world cost, and is years
ahead of the U.S. in the application of automation technology.
The loss of U.S. manufacturing for electronics products has particularly serious
implications for the U.S. semiconductor industry. If electronic end-products are
all made outside the U.S., our semiconductor companies will continue to see
their end-user market shrink. It has been very difficult for the U.S.
semiconductor industry to gain market share in Japan.
Paramount to the U.S. regaining manufacturing pre-eminence in electronics, is
capturing global leadership in the development and deployment of
manufacturing technologies. The U.S. has fallen badly behind our international
competitors in adopting new manufacturing technologies. A study by the
National Center of Manufacturing Sciences found that, on average, it takes
about 55 years for a new manufacturing technology to be fully utilized in the
U.S. The average period in Japan is 25 years. This disparity is graphically
illustrated by the relative adoption rates in the U.S. and Japan of the industrial
robot. The robot is one of several manufacturing technologies that have
allowed Japan to control electronics manufacturing. Invented in the U.S. in
1960, the first robot was exported to Japan in 1968.
Units
Robot Installed Base, U.S. VS Japan
400000
United States
350000
300000
Japan
250000
200000
Source:
150000
International
100000
Federation of
50000
Robotics
0
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
To restore U.S. manufacturing global competitiveness, the U.S. government,
industry and academia must develop a continuum of basic research, applied
research, and system test beds and/or consortia programs focused on critical
2
electronics technologies and processes. If these efforts are to succeed,
however, it is imperative that they be guided by representatives from the
commercial electronic manufacturing industry. Ultimately, the responsibility for
making the U.S. a world leader in manufacturing rests with these companies.
This white paper was developed by senior executives from companies
representative of the U.S. electronics industry to provide guidance to the
Federal Government on the expenditure of R&D funds, as well as the
development of a long-term, national Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Initiative. The following text identifies the key R&D-related barriers to, and
critical components of, U.S. electronics manufacturing competitiveness.
Recommendations for government action focus on industry guidance,
strategic electronic components, and electronic manufacturing systems. Due
to a lack of time and a complete lack of detailed information on current and
past Federal activities related to manufacturing, these recommendations. are
general in nature. The AEA will continue to with work all appropriate industry
and government representatives to provide the Federal Government with
detailed guidance and recommendations on activities to improve U.S.
electronics manufacturing competitiveness, including roadmaps for the
development and application of critical technologies.
Background
This document is the second in a series of submissions by the American
Electronics Association (AEA) to the Federal Government to assist with the
development and implementation of a successful national "Advanced
Manufacturing Technology (AMT) Initiative." On February 22, 1993, President
Clinton and Vice President Gore released Technology for America's Economic
Growth, A New Direction to Build Economic Strength, announcing the
Administration's intention to focus national efforts towards advanced
manufacturing -- the foundation of the American economy. On April, 1993, Dr.
John Gibbons, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
released FCCSET Initiatives in the FY 1994 Budget, a report prepared by the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology
(FCCSET) describing the Administration's proposed $1.4 billion FY 1994
Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT) Initiative. The Initiative builds on a
draft proposal developed by the FCCSET and critiqued by the AEA in 1992. In
December, 1992, the AEA submitted to the FCCSET, initial recommendations for
the AMT Initiative and an assessment of the U.S. electronics industry's
manufacturing needs and directions. The Association's 1992 white paper
discussed the main elements of electronics manufacturing, the industry's future
direction, and recommendations for re-focusing the proposed Initiative.
The AEA applauds the Administration's pledge to work with industry to re-focus
federal resources "to accelerate the development and application of
3
advanced manufacturing technologies to dramatically improve the
manufacturing capabilities of a broad spectrum of U.S. industries." This white
paper is intended to help guide the Federal Government and industry in the
development and implementation of a long-term AMT Initiative that will help
the U.S. electronics industry regain global manufacturing competitiveness. By
working with U.S. companies to advance and apply the critical technologies
outlined in this paper, the Federal Government can help the U.S. electronics
industry stimulate economic growth, create high-quality jobs, and protect the
environment.
This is especially critical, since the U.S. electronics industry is the nation's largest
manufacturing employer, accounting for 2.31 million jobs. That is more than
the aerospace, automotive and steel industries combined. In addition, the U.S.
electronics industry improves the productivity of virtually every other sector --
from government and education to health care and agriculture. Furthermore,
the electronics industry accounts for about one-third of total U.S.
manufacturing productivity growth, nearly one-third of U.S. industry's R&D
spending, and leads U.S. industry's drive to improve the quality of American
products and services. In order for the Administration to accomplish its
manufacturing goals, the AMT Initiative must succeed in helping improve the
manufacturing capabilities of a broad spectrum of the U.S. electronics industry.
Outlined in the following pages are the most critical elements for U.S.
electronics manufacturing competitiveness, and how government can work
with industry to advance these technologies and processes.
INDUSTRY GUIDANCE
Both government and industry have a role in keeping the U.S. globally
competitive in manufacturing and fostering critical manufacturing
technologies and processes. It is important, however, that representatives from
commercial electronic manufacturing industries drive the selection of the
specific industries and technologies for government support. In the past
decade, U.S. industry, government and academia have organized and funded
many programs aimed at improving America's competitive position in
worldwide electronics manufacturing. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions,
such as SEMATECH, little substantive output has found its way to the
commercial electronics manufacturing industry. Instead, we have a host of
government-funded R&D and demonstration programs in manufacturing
processes, systems, and equipment gathering dust in our universities and
government contractor labs throughout the U.S. The AEA submits that this
failure is do largely to the lack of participation of the commercial segment of
the U.S. electronics manufacturing industry in the planning, organization, and
implementation of these programs.
4
INDUSTRY-LED ADVISORY COMMITTEE The AEA recommends that the
Administration create a formal industry-led "Electronics Manufacturing Advisory
Committee" to help develop and implement a "National Electronics
Manufacturing Initiative," and guide federal manufacturing policies and
programs throughout the government. Companies represented on the
Committee should include electronic equipment manufacturers, electronic
component manufacturers, and electronic manufacturing equipment and
materials manufacturers. The Committee should coordinate with the broad-
based, industry-led "Advanced Manufacturing Committee," which is authorized
by S. 4, the "National Competitiveness Act of 1993," and supported by the AEA,
and FCCSET committees and workgroups.
ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY FORUMS The AEA intends to work with other industry,
academic and labor organizations to create and sponsor two forums of
representatives of industries involved in the manufacture, production, and use
of 1) strategic electronic components, and 2) electronics manufacturing
systems. The forums would provide guidance and recommendations on
industry and government actions to improve U.S. electronics component
manufacturing and manufacturing systems competitiveness, including
roadmaps for the development and application of critical technologies
(examples of roadmaps in appendix). The forums could be chartered as
utilized federal advisory committees for all agencies with programs impacting
electronics manufacturing. The forums also could act as information resources
for, and provide detailed input to, the "Electronics Manufacturing Advisory
Committee," the "Advanced Manufacturing Committee," and FCCSET.
STRATEGIC ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
Background
A primary requirement for regaining the U.S. competitive position in the
electronic manufacturing industry is the establishment of a strong worldwide
competitive advantage in certain strategic electronic components.
The movement of the consumer electronic industry to Japan played a major
role in the loss of the U.S. electronic component industry. A number of factors
are now converging, however, that may help reverse this trend:
Factory automation has become computer hardware and
software intensive, which plays to U.S. companies' strengths
in information processing.
Increased globalization of both the electronic equipment
manufacturing industry and market results in a world market
for U.S. made electronic components.
5
The global market share for U.S.-made electronic equipment
in the communication and data processing industries is
increasing. Some of these products are approaching
consumer volumes.
Now is the time to take the steps to encourage the re-growth of this important
industry. The U.S. must regain its competitive edge in a number of other
strategic components and their related material and equipment technologies,
if it is to become the world leader in the electronic manufacturing industry. Of
the many electronic components which could be included in this list, six are
widely recognized for having the greatest impact on the U.S. electronics
industry:
1.
Integrated Circuits
2.
Printed Wiring Boards (PWB) and Multichip Module (MCM)
Substrates
3.
Liquid Crystal, Flat Panel Displays
4.
Semiconductor Packaging Technology
5.
Printed Wiring and Substrate (MCM) Assembly Technology
6.
High Density Batteries
These strategic component technologies and industries are integral to the
success of the major electronic equipment growth industries including the
portable computer, and wireless and telecommunications sectors.
In order to grow, U.S. electronic equipment industries must have access to the
key, best-in-class strategic components. In addition, they must be able to
participate in the design of the components concurrent with the design of the
final products.
Also, the increased portability of both computing and communications
products presents a major challenge to strategic components which impact
the interconnection and packaging aspects of electronic equipment.
Even more important than the components themselves, is the infrastructure
material and equipment technologies required in the manufacture of each
strategic component. This is because the further down on the electronic "food
chain" a technology resides, the higher its impact on the entire industry. Also,
the manufacture of basic electronic component materials and equipment
6
often requires a greater investment of technical and financial resources than
the manufacture of the component itself or even the electronic equipment at
the top of the food chain. This results in the technological or capital price of
entering the strategic electronic material, equipment and component
businesses being SO high as to exclude many independent entrepreneurs. In
addition, the technical and capital investment required for the U.S. to regain
its competitive position in each strategic component is SO high that it is
important for us to select only those areas with the highest impact and
potential for success SO as not to fragment the investments to a point where a
"critical mass" of effort is not achieved on any of the initiatives.
Integrated Circuits
The most obviously strategic electronic component is the semiconductor
integrated circuit. The U.S. is making some progress in regaining its
competitive advantage in integrated circuits. This is in part due to Federal
Government support of both semiconductor and related material and
equipment technologies through joint efforts such as Sematech and the
Semiconductor Research Corporation.
The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) recently developed a series of
technology roadmaps that project their needs out to the year 2007 in the
areas of: chip test and design; process integration; lithography; interconnect;
materials and bulk processes; environmental, safety, and health;
manufacturing systems; manufacturing facilities; process/device/structure CAD
packaging; and equipment modeling and design.
These competencies will require increased research and implementation focus
on a national level by industry, government and academia. The AEA supports
the SIA's recommendations that existing resources should be more effectively
utilized and focused through, for example, the use of the Semiconductor
Research Corporation and Sematech.
In addition to technology availability issues, the issue of manufacturing
technology costs also was addressed by the SIA. This is key to the future
affordability of technology under development. The major cost drivers are the
wafer processing equipment and its ownership, the manufacturing facilities,
and the packaging and test operations. Each of these areas are showing
costs that are increasing at a rate faster than the increase of the on-chip
functionality and performance. The AEA supports the SIA's recommendations
that increased research attention be focused on the technologies that
underpin these cost drivers. Approaches should include process understanding
and control, alternate facilities and equipment approaches, and integration of
packaging and test into the wafer design and manufacturing itself.
7
Printed Wiring Boards (PWB) and Multichip Module (MCM) Substrates
PWB and MCM substrates are components second only to integrated circuits in
importance to the U. S. electronic industry. The fact that the U.S. is fast losing
its edge in the PWB industry to Japan, Europe and Southeast Asia makes
investment of capital and technical resource in this technology critical.
From a technology standpoint, PWB, MCM substrate and other electronic
technologies will increase in importance as they become the limiting
technology to advances in integrated circuit speed and density.
For the U.S. to regain global leadership in PW Board and MCM substrate
technology, America must also lead in the following supporting infrastructure
industries and related technologies:
PWB Product Materials
PWB Fabrication Materials
MCM Substrate Materials
PWB Fabrication Equipment
PWB Test and Inspection Equipment
Flex Circuit Materials
Flex Circuit Equipment
PWB Product Materials: These include low dielectric constant, low loss, low
cost, high temperature, low strain light and thin organic materials, such as
tetrafunctional and BT epoxies, cyanate esters, polyimide and PTFE for use in
laminate manufacturing.
An important new PWB material area is deposited dielectrics capable of
lithographically-formed features and vias. These materials will allow for very
high density signal line interconnect and high resolution solder resists.
As integrated circuit packages increase in input/output density and direct chip
attach approaches (such as TAB on Board and Flip Chip on Board) become
more prevalent, companies will need high resolution, low cost materials for
pre-application of solder onto PWB. These materials will include improved
lead-free solder plating baths and screenable, no clean, pastes for use at a
PWB fabrication level.
Although passive elements continue to be integrated into silicon integrated
circuits, the need for passive components will remain. Materials which will
allow for low cost, high density integration of passive components into the
PWB, such as resistors and capacitors, will provide for density and cost
demands of future electronic equipment.
8
PWB Fabrication Materials: Industry will require Improved capability in dry film
and liquid photo resists and environmentally "friendly" etching solutions.
MCM Substrate Materials: MCM's will play a role in achievement of
interconnect densities and speed and power performance beyond the PWB
capability. Basic material requirements include: low dielectric constant, high
power dissipation, and low strain substrate materials. For the most part, these
are inorganic materials, like alumina, aluminum nitride and silicon carbide.
Organic laminates, however, are also being considered, along with high
performance deposited organic and inorganic dielectric materials, like
polyimide, BCB, and also composite inorganic and organic materials.
PWB Fabrication Equipment: The PWB equipment industry is another critical
technology area in which Japan and Europe have made major in-roads and
which the U.S. is in danger of losing. The most strategic of this equipment
includes:
Large Area Precision Lithography Systems with capability
down to 50µ
Precision Drilling Systems with 100µ to 250µ, low cost locating
and drilling capability
Automatic Inspection Equipment
Precision Test Equipment (Flying Probe)
Large Area Reactive lon Etching Equipment
Flex Circuit Materials and Equipment: Flex circuits are seeing increasing
application in high volume, low cost, low profile consumer products, like
electronic watches and thin module cards. The application will require low
cost, high electrical performance film materials with improvements over the
current polyimide and mylar materials. These films will be processed on high
volume reel to reel lithographic systems.
Flat Panel Displays
Electronic flat panel displays are fast emerging as the primary human interface
of future electronic equipment. Of the numerous flat panel approaches, liquid
crystal displays (LCDs), both active and passive matrix, currently dominate the
commercial market. This market has challenging requirements for size,
resolution, speed, color content and low cost, placed on it by modern, high
function, portable equipment.
As with of our other strategic components, the LCD technology was invented
in the U.S. but commercialization (volume manufacturing), especially of active
matrix displays, has taken place primarily in Japan. One of the reasons for this
is the similarity in process, materials and equipment technology between the
9
LCD and the semiconductor wafer fab technology in which the Japanese also
have excelled.
Another aspect of this strategic component which must be considered is that
as products become more portable and smaller, the display becomes a
greater physical portion of the product. This places major demands on
interconnection and packaging integration with the LCD, and will result in
improved integrated circuit-to-display assembly technology, such as chip on
glass.
Also, as with other strategic components, product and fabrication material
and equipment will play an important role in the success of this important
industry. Fortunately, the LCD process technology is related to both wafer
fabrication and printed circuit board process technologies, SO that in some
cases the infrastructure technologies supporting those industries could be
extended to support the LCD industry.
LCD Product Materials: The most critical of the LCD materials are the liquid
crystal backfill materials currently consisting of super twisted nematic, and
more recent ferroelectric, crystal materials. Structural materials include glass,
and research is underway on the use of plastic LCDs. Thin film transistor
materials are primarily inorganic sputtered and chemically vapor deposited
metals, metal oxides and semiconducting materials. For color LCDs, organic
color filter materials are important.
LCD Fabrication Materials: These are also similar to semiconductor process
materials but with an emphasis on much larger area (10" X 12") and somewhat
larger feature (5 µ) defect reduction. These will include large area, low defect
photo resists and low environmental impact cleaning and etching materials.
LCD Equipment: As mentioned earlier, much of the equipment is a hybrid
between semiconductor wafer fab equipment and high performance printed
circuit board equipment. The two most critical LCD equipment areas, with the
greatest impact on solution of the current industry yield problems are the large
area lithography systems and chemical vapor deposition systems. The
lithography systems are still dominated by the Japanese wafer fabrication
equipment companies that are producing scanning, reflective lens, large area
lithographic systems capable of down to lµ resolution over 10" X 20" areas.
The U.S. still retains "best-in-class" manufacturing of CVD and sputtering
systems, but the customers are primarily Japanese companies.
Semiconductor Packaging Technology
Semiconductor device performance, as it relates to product speed, size and
function, is quickly becoming limited by semiconductor packaging
10
technologies. An even more important trend taking place in the industry is the
integration of semiconductor packaging with technologies on both sides of the
"electronic food chain". TAB and Flip Chip bumping, as well as improved die
passivation at the wafer level, will perform much of the current packaging
function. At the higher end, are multichip modules and board level direct
chip attach, including wire bonded chip on board, tab on board and flip chip
on board, which accomplish a great deal of the semiconductor packaging
function. Also, electronic displays are integrating more of the semiconductor
packaging function with chip on glass technology.
Semiconductor Packaging Materials: Important semiconductor packaging
material areas include wafer bumping and passivation materials, such as high
purity, no lead solder bumping, vacuum deposition sources, plating baths and
gold plating baths. Other wafer passivation materials, include organic, such as
polyimide and BCB, and inorganic, such as quartz, deposited quartz, silicon
nitride and various doped glasses. Plastic quad flat pacs will continue to be
the dominant packaging type for the foreseeable future. Materials to support
this packaging include low stress, high purity molding compounds and fine
pitch low cost lead frame materials. PQFP advances also will require improved
die bonding and die passivation materials. In addition, thermo plastic fast cure
die bond materials will be required for modern short cycle manufacturing,
while the lead die bond alloys for high power semiconductor devices will no
longer be needed.
A third class of packages - ceramic and plastic land (ball) grid arrays are also
being used for high I/O applications. This package will require unique
materials including high purity lead-free solder spheres, as well as high purity,
low stress molding compounds and liquid encapsulants.
Semiconductor Packaging Equipment: The center of gravity of semiconductor
packaging equipment also has moved to Japan, including wire and die bond
equipment, as well as tab and flip chip equipment.
Future die bond equipment requirements include higher speed, and
accommodation of fast cure bonding materials. Chip on board die bonders
also will be increasingly used by industry.
Wire bond equipment has seen major advances in speed and bond pitch.
These will increase to speeds of a few tenths of a second/bond and high yield
bond pitch capabilities of less the 50µ.
Japanese advances in the TAB inner lead bond equipment includes higher
yields achieved through improved alignment and pressure control. Work has
taken place in laser ILB, but there is no wide spread use at this point.
11
Outer lead bond equipment has had problems in yield and bond cycle time.
Outer lead bonding will merge with fine pitch QFP. package bonding, where a
major equipment effort is taking place at PWB assembly equipment
manufacturers.
Semiconductor Test Handling Equipment: The move toward direct chip attach
at the MCM, PWB and FPD levels will place major demands on wafer and chip
level test and burn-in (known as good die). Equipment required for this
includes array test probe equipment capable of high speed electrical
measurement, and equipment for wafer level burn-in.
PWB and MCM Assembly Technology
Perhaps no electronic manufacturing technology has undergone as much
technical change as PWB assembly. The move from mostly manual/automatic
through hole board assembly to fully automatic surface mount assembly has
caused major shifts in the electronic industry.
Forced automation has resulted in significant productivity improvements, as
well as significant increases in capital and technology cost of entry into the
business. The latter has spawned an entire contract assembly industry. The
next major shift will be a move toward unpackaged integrated circuit chip
assembly onto both the final mother boards or onto multichip modules.
The continuing move toward finer pitch and smaller surface mount
components, combined with environmental regulations and the move to
direct chip attach will define future process, material and equipment
requirements for PWB and MCM assembly technology.
PWB/MCM Assembly Material: Materials for future surface mount and direct
chip attach shifts will include:
High Resolution, No Clean, Lead-Free Solder Pastes
Ozone Depletion Substance Free Cleaning Materials
High Conductivity, High Resolution, Isotropic and
Anisotropic Conducting Organic Adhesives, such as
Conductive Epoxies.
Low Stress, Low lonic, Direct Chip Attach Encapsulants
PWB/MCM Assembly Equipment: The chip placement machine has been
pivotal in advancing the shift to surface mount technology in the worldwide
electronic industry. This machine evolved from U. S.-developed automatic PC
through hole insertion machines. Japanese electronic firms improved the
technology and eventually took over the through hole insertion machine
industry. They then evolved into the chip placement machine industry, which
12
Japan now dominates. Fortunately for the U.S. electronic industry, the
Japanese "chip shooter" equipment manufacturers are anxious to sell their
equipment worldwide.
A second area of important assembly equipment technology is the flexible
robotic cells used to place active and other non-R&C chip components. As
this technology advances, the requirement for this equipment to place finer
pitch QFP and flip chip direct attach will be crucial.
As the component pitch and components themselves continue to decrease in
size and as defect levels, and new package introduction cycle time decrease,
in-line automated laser and X-ray inspection equipment will become even
more prevalent.
The requirement for improved process control also will result in adaptive
controlled, improved ambient control reflow furnaces. Improved solder paste
printing systems will evolve into solder jet printing systems.
High Density Battery Cell Technology
The current major limitation to the move to portability of future electronic
equipment is battery cell technology. Although major advances are being
made in reduced power consumption through semiconductor and circuit
design advances, a great deal of opportunity still exists for the U.S. to make
power density and environmental improvements in battery cell technology.
This industry segment also is dominated by the Japanese. This is predominately
a material technology with the following areas now receiving the most
attention:
Nickel Metal Hydride
Rechargeable Lithium - Solid State Polymers, Ceramic Glass Electrolytes
Pseudo Capacitor
Miniature Fuel Cells
Redox Couples
Metal Air Systems
Recommendations
Electronics Initiative Because strategic electronic component manufacturing
and technologies are of major critical importance -- economically and militarily
-- the AEA recommends that a coordinated inter-agency effort be developed
in this area. Strategic electronic components are vital dual-use technologies
that should also receive focus under the Administration's defense conversion
initiatives. The Association urges the Administration to initiate a budget "cross-
cut" and Federal initiative in electronics manufacturing, which includes a focus
on strategic electronic components and their related material and equipment
13
technologies.
To assist with the Initiative, the U.S. electronics industry will create a Forum on
Strategic Components, which is expected to create sub-groups for each
strategic components area:
1.
Integrated Circuits
2.
Printed Wiring Boards (PWB) and Multichip Module (MCM)
Substrates
3.
Liquid Crystal, Flat Panel Displays
4.
Semiconductor Packaging Technology
5.
Printed Wiring and Substrate (MCM) Assembly Technology
6.
High Density Batteries
The Forum will provide the Federal Government with needed information and
recommendations on:
1.
Specific strategic component industries whose growth is
crucial to the rebirth of the U.S. electronic industry.
2.
Roadmaps on strategic component technologies required by
each of those industries (see examples in appendix).
3.
Specific electronic materials industries and technologies
required to support the selected strategic component
industries.
4.
Specific electronic manufacturing equipment and computer
integration industries and technologies required to support
the selected strategic component industries.
A FCCSET Electronics Committee should be formed, which includes
representatives of all agencies with programs and responsibilities that impact
electronics manufacturing competitiveness. The Committee should inventory
existing federal efforts and work with the Electronics Industry Forums and the
Electronics Manufacturing Advisory Committee to develop the proposed
Initiative. The Initiative should focus on directing federal R&D resources to the
development of strategic electronic components technologies as outlined
above.
ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS
Trends
In addition to the semiconductor packaging equipment described earlier,
process equipment needs for the electronics industry also include advanced
14
material handling and flexible assembly cells (intelligent work cells). The U.S. is
lagging far behind Japan in the adoption of flexible manufacturing
technology. Further, the U.S. does not have the capability to build entire
classes of electronic products at competitive world costs. Table 1 lists $36
billion worth of products that are built either in Japan with precision
automation or in south-east Asia with low-cost skilled labor. If the U.S. wants to
retain electronics factories we must dramatically increase our understanding
and use of flexible automation. There is almost no U.S. applied research
funding in this area. In addition, there are very few training facilities available
to industry in the U.S., and we have a very poorly trained manufacturing
engineering infrastructure relative to Japan and Germany. Furthermore, there
are no financial incentives to encourage the adoption of this technology. U.S.
Government and industry must address each of these areas or the U.S. will fall
further behind our international competitors. Both Singapore and Taiwan, for
example, have announced national programs to provide training in the use of
robots. Funding in each of these small countries is approximately $200 million
over a three year period.
The U.S. needs to develop flexible assembly lines that can be set up and in
production in a few weeks instead of the 12-18 months typical today. One key
technology to enable this to occur is the development of flexible part feeding
systems that can feed generic classes of parts. Part feeders in use today
typically are customized for each part shape -- either in the form of nests
machined into pallets, or vibratory bowl feeders which use a series of
mechanical "filters" to orient parts. These mechanical filters must be designed
and adjusted for each part and are unique to that part. As a result, even
assembly lines using reprogrammable robots are not very flexible if they
incorporate part-specific feeders. To change over the line, the feeders must
be removed, and new feeders designed and installed. This lack of flexibility is
a tremendous impediment to the adoption of assembly automation, especially
in industries such as the electronics industry where product lives have
contracted to as little as one year. Part feeders typically represent between 30
percent and 50 percent of the cost of installing an automated assembly line.
Hard-tooled feeders must be discarded or re-tooled to change over the line.
A second important technology in assembly automation is simulation
technology that can model system configuration and throughput, as well as
provide the information necessary to program the assembly system. This
technology is within our grasp if we choose to apply resources to its
development, and offers the opportunity to provide design engineers an
accurate model of the assembly process as well as a means to dramatically
compress the time to design an assembly system.
Other important technologies include communication standards for sensors
and controllers, and object-oriented application software for assembly and
15
material handling that can be used by non-programmers.
Common to both packaging equipment and flexible assembly equipment are
several technological trends which are listed below:
Increasing miniaturization: Most electronic component packaging is now at a
state of miniaturization where it can no longer be done by people. This is also
becoming increasingly true for integrated-system products, such as 1.5 in disk
drives, portable audio products, camcorders, etc. Japan leads the world in
miniaturization technology and processes.
Increased use of advanced sensors: Today's surface mount circuit boards
cannot be assembled without the use of machine vision. Both laser-based
sensors and X-rays are now being used for on-line process control applications.
Most advanced sensors have been developed in the U.S. Japan has been
buying machine vision from U.S. vendors, but is now developing domestic
machine vision capability.
Increased speed: High-volume component placement rates are now at 15,000
chips per hour, three times faster than ten years ago. Even lower volume,
highly flexible lines using robots have tripled their speeds over the last ten
years. Japan leads the world in high-volume assembly equipment.
Increased flexibility: Both packaging equipment and final system assembly
lines can be changed over in just a few minutes to make a different (albeit
similar) product. Japan leads the world in the use of robots, although
advanced robot technology is available in both the U.S. and Europe.
Automatic programming: Circuit board assembly machines are now driven
directly from CAD data bases. This trend will extend to process machinery and
final system assembly machinery in the future. The U.S. is ahead in this area.
Environmental constraints: Eliminating ozone-depleting chemicals from
soldering and other processes is requiring major investments by certain
equipment manufacturers. The ability to provide essentially zero-particle
environments for semiconductor fabrication will determine what countries will
make the circuits with the highest densities. The U.S. and Europe are leading in
environmental legislation which is driving their equipment suppliers. Japan has
the lead in developing equipment to work in very-low particle environments,
including actuators, bearings, and robots for high-vacuum applications.
Improved yield and quality: Japan has been instrumental in setting new world
standards for yield and quality. Failure rates of 1 part per million are now
standard in several industries. Automation combined with statistical process
16
control has been a key factor in achieving these low defect rates.
Japan leads the U.S. in almost every one of these areas, except the
development of advanced sensors and automatic programming. If the U.S. is
to regain a competitive manufacturing infrastructure we must fund applied
research to strengthen these areas.
Technology Needs
Process Modeling: Process control and process design technology will play a
major role in the future of electronics manufacturing worldwide. Both basic
and applied research are needed in process modeling; while we have static
geometric modeling systems developed as design tools, we do not have
modeling systems which can easily represent geometric and chemical
changes and the associated physical laws of transformation. Process
modeling systems should be able to incorporate process knowledge, be
updated by sensor input, and be fast enough to be used in real-time process
control loops. Future controllers will be "smart" controllers with built-in process
knowledge. Process models may also be used in simulations which make
process capabilities available to product designers; designers can work with a
"virtual factory" on their terminals to verify the produceability of designs prior to
production. This capability is critical in continuing to reduce product design
cycles.
Sensors: To date, process control systems have made limited use of sensor
technology. Sensors have tended to be simple and low-bandwidth such as
temperature and pressure sensors. Process control is often done at the end of
a line, through inspection. Current and future process controllers will make
increasing use of high-bandwidth sensors such as machine vision, laser range
scanners, and possibly techniques such as x-ray imaging to determine
non-surface material properties. Experimenting with advanced sensing
techniques for process control is beyond the scope of most process equipment
companies and may be appropriate for public funding or consortia.
Machine-control software: Advanced manufacturing software for machine
control will be a crucial competitive technology. Japan has proposed a
program called the Intelligent Manufacturing System to develop advanced
manufacturing software. Many useful products have already been developed
by U.S. companies. For example, in the U.S. robotics industry software is
available which incorporates machine vision, motion control, force control,
process control, real-time database management, and object-oriented
application packages with icon interfaces. However, many useful
manufacturing software packages are not widely understood or widely
applied. Commercially-available manufacturing software technology could
be benchmarked by national labs or consortia for use in related equipment in
17
the electronics industry. While we have institutions which benchmark
manufacturing hardware such as machine tools and lasers, we have few
methods to evaluate and publicize manufacturing software. As a result, rather
than a few standard programs gaining wide acceptance, almost every
manufacturing equipment company writes its software from scratch. With no
standards, there is little portability, and due to the small customer base of most
packages, less reliability than with high volume programs. At the moment, the
national labs are a detriment to this process as they tend to also create their
own software packages which are not commercial products and are not
supported (e.g. NIST, Sandia, and JPL have all created their own robot
programming languages).
Actuators: The U.S. has lost tremendous ground to Japan and Germany in the
area of precision motion control. Most U.S. equipment companies buy
precision ball screws, actuators and position sensors from Japan. New
developments are typically available two years earlier in Japan than in the U.S.
This gives Japanese equipment developers a built-in advantage over U.S.
companies. In the U.S. we appear to have a preoccupation with developing
computer and software technology to the exclusion of advanced mechanical
technologies. We have under-funded both basic and applied research in
commercially useful motion actuators and sensors.
Micro-machines: An emerging technology that will have a significant impact
on electronics in the future is the area of micromachining -- the fabrication of
miniature components having microscopic features. This technology is now
being referred to as High-Aspect-Ratio Micro-Electro-Magnetic-
Mechanical-Systems. The idea is to build sensors, actuators, and even
machines from microscopic components using techniques similar to those used
for semiconductor fabrication. One commercial product, a micro-
accelerometer, has already been developed for use as an air-bag crash
detection sensor. Fabrication processes for these devices can be enabling
technologies for next generation manufacturing. Commercialization of one of
these technologies, a lithographic technique known as LIGA, is underway in
Germany. Japan's MITI has identified these technologies as critical for R&D
and future business, and has organized a Micromachine Center in Tokyo to
conduct a ten year program of over $100 million of focused research in this
area. In contrast, the U.S. has a few small projects. A coordinated effort is
needed to develop these technologies in a timely manner to support R&D
nationwide and to build a basis for commercialization. This coordinated effort
should be based on industry pull and government push.
System Integration Technology: The largest impediment to deploying
advanced manufacturing technologies and equipment in the U.S. has been the
lack of opportunities to test the integration of this equipment in production
18
lines. No single vendor can supply the full range of equipment needed for
modern factories. No single vendor can afford to build pilot factories to test
the integration of his equipment with that of other vendors. As a result, end
users are often faced with the decision to perform very expensive integration
experiments in developing new factories. The risk associated with system
integration and the lack of trained automation engineers in the U.S. is limiting
the adoption of advanced manufacturing equipment in the U.S. Integrating
diverse pieces of equipment from multiple vendors into a smoothly operating
system is difficult, risky, and time-consuming. Unlike Japan, where companies
tend to maintain large production engineering groups, most U.S. companies
do not have internal capability to design and install complex production
systems. Most automation systems are contracted out to external "system
integration companies." These companies are often small and thinly
capitalized, and it is difficult for them to raise working capital. They typically
must purchase the automation equipment, perform the integration, and wait
until the end user accepts the line before they get paid. One unhappy
customer who refuses to pay can put them out of business, and this frequently
happens. The current trend towards "concurrent engineering" has meant that
production system design is often started before the product design is
completed. This results in a continuing stream of production system
specification changes while the system is being designed. This trend
exacerbates the risk and cost of system integration. U.S. industry needs ways
to reduce the risk of developing CIM systems and new manufacturing
processes, and technologies to lower the risk of integrating automation lines.
These technologies include the ability to simulate complex lines, sensor and
actuator communication standards, better design rules for manufacturability,
and better ways for production system designers to share information with
product designers.
Technology Transfer: A significant gap exists in getting basic research from our
universities and applied research from our national labs into commercial
products. Most of the U.S. companies making equipment for electronics
manufacturing are small businesses. These companies often cannot afford to
send employees to universities or national labs for extended periods of time to
absorb new technology.
Recommendations
National Electronics Initiative We need to develop a continuum of basic
research, applied research, and system test beds or consortia to restore a
competitive U.S. position in electronics manufacturing systems. We must direct
and focus funding for both basic and applied research in process control,
process design, system integration, and automation technology. The AEA
urges the Administration to initiate a budget "cross-cut" and Federal initiative in
electronics manufacturing, which includes a focus on electronics
19
manufacturing systems.
To assist with the Initiative, the U.S. electronics industry will create a Forum on
Electronics Manufacturing Systems to help guide these efforts. The Forum is
expected to form sub-groups for each of the technology areas outlined below.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Advanced Research
Projects Agency, the National Science Foundation, and other appropriate
agencies and national labs, should cooperate to fund R&D aimed at new
advances in manufacturing technologies. The AEA recommends that R&D be
immediately focused in the following pre-competitive, strategic, electronic-
manufacturing-process technology areas:
Process modeling and knowledge representation: modeling physical and
chemical transformations over time, and the process parameters controlling
these transformations; using process knowledge in real-time control systems;
and simulation of manufacturing processes and systems.
Sensor development: various imaging approaches, including machine vision
(2D and 3D), laser and X-ray imaging; thermal imaging; position and velocity
sensors for actuators, especially high-resolution sensors with absolute position
information; nano sensors; and vision-based flexible part feeders.
Actuator technology development: high-speed zero backlash actuators;
miniature actuators; high-resolution actuators; high power-to-weight-ratio
actuators; advanced speed reducers with long life and zero backlash; smart
actuators with built-in sensing and power control; and lightweight magnetic
materials.
Manufacturing software: open architectures, standards, and test beds for
manufacturing software; communication standards for factory networks and
distributed control; and automatic manufacturing process programming from
product CAD data bases.
Micro-machining and nano-fabrication techniques: micro-actuators;
micro-sensors; micro-power systems such as batteries, and micro-controllers;
and application development for micro-machines.
Flexible assembly system technology: flexible part feeding technology;
assembly system simulation; design rules for assembly; assembly process
modeling; assembly systems driven from design data bases; error
representation, detection and recovery; design rules for dissassembly and
recycling; dissassembly systems; low-cost assembly systems; and rapid set-up
and changeover systems.
20
Equipment Development
It is critical that the above technologies are implemented in commercially
available products and in process equipment, packaging equipment, and
assembly equipment. At least 50 percent of electronics manufacturing
technology funding should be directed at equipment technology transfer to
equipment vendors through agencies such as the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, and through industry co-funded consortia that are
targeted at electronics manufacturing equipment areas.
System Integration
In order to address the many complex issues associated with developing new
manufacturing processes where equipment from many vendors must be
seemlessly integrated, the government should co-fund consortia and teaming
efforts to develop pilot facilities or model factories which deploy new
manufacturing capabilities. This funding would help reduce the risk of trying
out new manufacturing equipment and processes and would be temporary
for any one project. After several years, the model factory should be
absorbed by team members.
ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES
In addition to coordinating and focusing Federal R&D on strategic electronic
components and manufacturing systems, government activities in
procurement, education and training, technology dissemination, and
benchmarking and information gathering also should be directed towards
advancing U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
The U.S. electronics industry cannot be self-sustaining unless it can make a
profit in the domestic market. To improve the worldwide competitive position
of the U.S. electronics industry, major national, state, and local projects must
rely on electronics products manufactured by U.S. companies. Government
agencies can significantly boost the U.S. electronics industry by promoting the
use of electronics devices and systems made by U.S. companies into ongoing
and future infrastructure projects in areas like communications, energy,
transportation, education and health care. If planned to satisfy a real public
need, such projects can help with the strengthening and resurgence of U.S.
manufacturing.
A highly-skilled workforce is a cornerstone of a competitive manufacturing
industry. Broadly speaking, in order to create the highly skilled workforce
America needs to be competitive in manufacturing, five key areas need
attention:
developing national K-12 education standards that clearly reflect the skill
21
requirements of employers operating in the Technology and Information
Age;
strengthening the transition from school to work, especially for the 70
percent or more of high school students that will not complete
baccalaureate degrees;
strengthening the incentives and opportunities for employers of all sizes
to invest in quality workforce training, and creating cost-effective ways
for employers to provide -- and the current workforce to use -- remedial
training;
study and dissemination of manufacturing industry "work re-engineering
best practices" from product design to distribution; and
continued government cooperation with and support for electronics
industry efforts to develop "voluntary worker standards" which will identify
and disseminate workforce skill requirements to current and future
workers, workforce trainers, and K-12 educators.
Also important to the success of the Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Initiative and Electronics Manufacturing Initiative is the effectiveness of
government's deployment and application efforts. The Initiatives should
emphasize the need to focus on improving U.S. industry's competitiveness in
manufacturing leading edge technologies rather than simply creating more
leading edge technologies for our international competitors to copy and
commercialize. With this mind, the AEA supports the expansion of Federal
deployment and application programs, especially the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program at NIST.
An additional element to advancing U.S. global manufacturing leadership is
effective benchmarking and information gathering. It is difficult for the U.S.
electronics industry to evaluate its worldwide competitive status without
authoritative and timely data. The AEA urges the Federal Government to
undertake a comprehensive annual review of the health and international
competitive position of each sector of the U.S. electronics industry. The
analysis should also include assessment of the U.S. strength in the critical
technologies identified by industry and government. In addition, the AEA
supports greater government involvement in technology and product
monitoring. U.S. companies have great difficulty obtaining timely information
to make decisions more quickly than our foreign competitors. It would be
helpful for companies to have access to a wide variety of information and
analysis of foreign R&D activities and technical capabilities.
The AEA's member company executives look forward to discussing this white
paper in detail with the members of the Administration, the FCCSET
Manufacturing Subcommittee and Electronics Working Group, Congress and
other industry sectors. The AEA is eager to work with the Administration,
22
Congress and other industries to develop and implement a long-term national
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Initiative and Electronics Manufacturing
Initiative that will help U.S industry increase economic growth and create jobs.
23
DETAILED POTENTIAL
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
SOLUTIONS
Line width / Hole Dia. (µm)
150/300
125/175
100 / 125
50/75
25 / 50
Mfg. Cost ($ / cm.² / Layer)
$.020/cm2
$.020/cm2
$.020/cm2
$.020/cm2
$.020/cm2
(Def./10° lin. In.)
40
15
5
DRAFT
Frequency (Ghz.)
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.5
5.0
Product Materials
Multifunctional
&
BT Epoxies
PI, Gyanate Enters, Aramides, LCP's, Controlled TCE,
Fluoropolymer, high K Composites
Appendix -
High performanc glass reinforced Liaminates
Polymeatims/unreinforcegLeminates
Deposited Diefectrics
Process Materials
Advanced Dry Flim and Liquid Photor sists, Electrophoristi Resist
Environmentally Conscious Chemistries
Fabrication Equip.
Large Area Lithography Systems-25u
Resolution Over 500 mm
Precision Drilling Systems - 125u Hole Diameter, Dry Metal Deposition
Large Area Dry VID Processing Equipment
High Resolution, High Volume Automatic Inspection Equipment
Automated Panel Probe Test Equipment, Fine Pitch Flying Head Test Equipment
AEA STRATEGIC COMPONENT ROADMAP P.W. BOARDS (commercial)
DETAILED POTENTIAL 1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
SOLUTIONS
POWER DENSITY (WH/In3)
2.0
3.5
5.0
9.0
> 10.0
ENERGY DENSITY (WH/Lb.)
25
50
90
200
> 220
COST ($ / WH)
0.85
0.50
0.25
0.10
< 0.10
USEFUL LIFE (Cycles)
750
DRAFT
> 3000
>3000
FAILURE RATE (% Capacity
5
5
loss / yr.)
COPY
PRODUCT MATERIALS
Nickel Powder, Od. Hydroxide
Lithium metal / salt
Ceramic Oxides
Carbon
Conductive potemers
Organic Fuels
FABRICATION
High speed windi and crimping ed
EQUIPMENT
Laminating equipment
Thin film deposition equipment
Specialized chemical processing equipment
AEA STRATEGIC COMPONENT ROADMAP -HIGH DENSITY BATTERY CELLS
Electronic Equipment Assembly
Computer equipment, Communications equipment , Aerospace and defense equipment, Industrial equipment
Printed Wiring Board Assembly
Surface mount assembly, Unpackaged chip assembly
Strategic Component Assembly and Packaging
Integrated Circuit. assembly & packaging, Multichip Module assembly & packaging, Liquid Crystal Display
Module assembly and packaging, Battery assembly and packaging.
Strategic Component Fabrication
Integrated circuit wafer fabrication, Printed wiring board / Multi chip module substrate fabrication, Liquid Crystal
Display fabrication, Battery cell fabrication
Strategic Material Manufacturing
Semiconductor wafer and dielectric material, Printed wiring board laminate materials, Multi Chip Module substrate
and dielectric materials, Battery cell electrode materials, cleaning, etching and lithography materials
AEA ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING FOOD CHAIN
Generic Electronic
Specific Food Chain Process Systems
Manufacturing Systems
Equipment Assy. Process Systems - Automated, flexible product
Actuator (Robotics)
assembly stations
Micro-machining
Process sensors
Printed Wiring Board Assy, Process Systems - Component placement
systems, Flexible robotic workcells, Reflow furnaces, Deposition
systems and Inspection systems.
Flexible assembly systems
Automatic inspection
systems
Component Assembly and Packaging Systems - I.C. bonding and
molding systems, Robotic placement and Assembly systems, Test
systems
Process modeling software
Component Fabrication Systems - Lithography systems, Deposition
Manufacturing control and
systems, Etching systems.
communication software
AEA ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING FOOD CHAIN
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
Small Thin Plastics
(Perimeter VO)
Thickness (mm)
1.4
1
Bare Chips/
MCM-L
Lead Count
<80
<208
Pitch (mm)
0.3-0.5
0.3-0.5
Lead Count
<1W
<2W
High Performance/High Pin
(Perimeter I/O)
Lead Count
200-300
300-400
Bare Chips/
MCM-L
Perimeter Lead Pitch (mm)
0.5
0.4
Maximum Power (W)
2-5W
5-10W
(Area VO)
Lead Count
200-300
500-600
750
2000
3000
5000
Area Pad Pitch (mm)
0.2-1.5
0.2-1.0
0.15-0.8
0.1-0.5
Maximum Power (W)
2-5W
5-10W
10-15
40
120
200
Memory
(TSOP/USOP)
Thickness (mm)
1mm
0.5mm
Goes to
3D
Lead Count
30
50
Short
Stack
(3D "Short Stacks")
Thickness (mm)
1mm
Number of Die
4 die
Packaging Roadmap: Highest Volume Products (>80% of development effort)
SIA Semiconductor Technology-Workshop Working Group Reports
01/05/94 14:50
002
Date Recd 1-5-94
ACTION to
INFO to ODs
Gibbons
Kelly Gwin lewell
FAX
Gillmant
OF
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Nelson.
\ STATES of /
SIG of
statemery
To : Jack Gibbars
From: may Good
then One the two
"report cords" we have
look good! However they
received (20 for They
also rain expectation and
we will need to foll n through.
May
TRANSMITTAL FORM CD-VEA (10-67)
PRESERISES BV BARBING
01/04/94
10:30
'301 869 8972
003
Amerlcan Eletronics/Association
AEA
5201 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, California 95054. Telephone: (408) 987-4200
1225 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 950, Washington D.C. 20005. Telephone: (202) 882-9110
CLINTON PROGRESS REPORT
TECHNOLOGY
Department of Commission given the land role in civisian technology; budget increased 16%
Formed the National Science and Technology Council to put technology at squal footing with
defense and economic security.
Initiated offort to establish a National Information Infrustructure, the "Information Highway"
which will move the U.S. to world leadership in information technology,
Clarified anti-trust rales for joint manufacturing ventures.
Actively sought out private sector input to Increase inter-agency cooperation and coordination.
TAX
Increased taxes on all businesses, especially Sub S corporations.
Abandoned the Investment Tax Credit during the budget bill battle.
Passed a targeted capital gains differential
Extended the research and development MY credit retroactive for two years.
INTERNATIONAL
Successfully passed the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Reduced Cold War government controls on over $35 billion worth of computer exports.
Mixed results from GATT negotiations.
Need w achieve # results-oriented agreement to improve trade with Japan.
GOVERNMENTIOTHER
Excellent technology appointments.
Initial Administration commitment to work with industry to defeat the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASE) stock options proposal; still needs to develop official Administration
position.
Good start on "reinventing government" (Gore initiative); bul long-term follow-up unclear.
Health care bill will have uncertain and massive impact, especially on small business.
AEA is the oldert, largest and most native technology trade association in (be country. It represents over 3,000 U.S.-based technology companies.
004
COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS
THE
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION
ASSESSMENT 1993
005
FOREWORD
The Clinton Administration came to office emphasizing the importance of technology 10
America's economic growth and outlining a series of policies designed to stimulate U.S. competitive-
ness. As the Administration nears its first year in office, it is appropriate to benchmark these policy
pronouncements against progress. This report, which is a joint product of the Council's members and its
National Affiliates, attempts to determine how well the Administration and Congress have succeeded in
implementing eleven longstanding policy recommendations that enjoy wide, bipartisan support in both
the public and private sectors. Individually, these recommendations are neither very costly nor
especially controversial; combined, they can have a major impact on U.S. competitiveness.
The recommendations fall into four categories: 1) tax policy; 2) Federal R&D; 3) coordination
and cooperation; and 4) U.S. manufacturing. Many of them can be traced to the Council's 1997 report,
Gaining New Ground: Technology Priorities for America's Future. In some areas, such as
refocusing the Federal R&D budget, real progress has been made, and both the Administration and
Congress should be congratulated for their contributions. In others areas, such as tax policy, deficit
reduction and other priorities took precedence during this year's budget negotiations, and as a result, we
still need to do much more.
It is essential that the Administration convey the importance of technology investment programs
in a tight budget climate. Congress also has a responsibility. It cannot allow issues of agency
jurisdiction, committee control and special interest politics to delay passage of bills that define new roles
for government support of civilian R&D. The culture and bureaucracies of many Federal agencies must
also change. The United States needs a streamlined, coordinated Federal government to meet the global
economic challenges of the next century.
The seeds of a national technology policy were planted in the 1980's. During the past year, we
have witnessed renewed emphasis on this critical policy agenda. In the future, technology policy must
be integrated with the other policies that collectively determine industry's ability to compete at home
and abroad, including tax, regulatory, trade and human resource policy. The Council looks forward to
working with the Administration and Congress to implement fully a national policy agenda that
advances U.S. economic competitiveness.
Sincerely,
Genge Fisher
George M.C. Fisher
Council Chairman
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Eastman Kodak Company
TECHNOLOGY POLICY IMPLEMENTATION INDEX 1
006
HIGHLIGHTS
Tax policies for U.S. investment in R&D and technology surfaced as the weak link in an
otherwise commendable effort to implement a national technology policy. This is primarily the result of
other priorities, such as deficit reduction, taking precedence in the FY1993 budget negotiations. The
Administration and Congress have demonstrated a strong commitment to refocusing the federal R&D
budget on industrial competitiveness and have begun putting in place programs that promote industry-
government cooperation and better coordination of Federal R&D. However, government also has a
critical role in implementating a tax policy that encourages more private-sector investment in R&D and
manufacturing. Essential components of such a policy, including a permant Research and Experimenta-
tion (R&E) tax credit and an investment tax credit for small businesses, are broadly supported and
should be fully implemented.
TAX POLICY: The Congress again failed to enact 8 permanent R&E tax credit and a permanent
solution to Treasury Regulation 1.861-8, opting for three-year extensions (two future years plus one
year retroactive) in the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act. A targeted capital gains tax cut was also
included for stock held in small businesses for at least five years. The investment tax credit included
early on in the tax bill was dropped altogether, partly because of divisions within industry. The lack of
progress in this area indicates a need for a more in-depth understanding of the impact that tax
policy has on private industry's ability to acquire patient capital and make long-term investments in
R&D and equipment. Implementing tax policies that promote private sector investment should be a
higher priority in the future.
FEDERAL R&D: The President's FY1994 budget submission included significant increases for the
National Science Foundation's (NSF) R&D budget and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology's (NIST) Advanced Technology Program (ATP), both of which support civilian R&D and
technology development. Congress appropriated NSF's Research and Related Activities at $1.998
billion, which is below the President's request of $2.2 billion, but still an 8% increase over FY1993
levels. ATP was appropriated at the President's budget request of $199 million, 8 three-fold increase
over last year. The Administration and Congress significantly increased funding for civilian
technology programs in the FY1994 budget It is critical that this trend continue in future budget
cycles. Moreover, as programs such as the ATP grow, it is important that their organization and
management evolve accordingly and that metrics be developed to evaluate performance. Discussion
is currently underway on how to reorganize ATP to fund and manage groups of projects in specific
program areas so as to allow the program to focus its budget strategically and have a more targeted
impact on technologies that drive U.S. economic performance.
COORDINATION AND COOPERATION: The Clinton Administration has introduced several new
plans to coordinate federal R&D across agencies and to promote industry-government cooperation.
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), to be chaired by the President and made up of
cabinet-level representatives, was established recently 10 help coordinate R&D and technology pro-
grams across the federal government. The Council's nine R&D coordinating committees, each to be
overseen by an interagency standing committee of science and technology representatives, will replace
2 TECHNOLOGY POLICY IMPLEMENTATION INDEX
007
the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET). The President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has been revived to serve as the primary
private-sector advisory group for the President and the NSTC. The advisory council will be co-chaired
by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and a private-sector appointee.
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary has also released the Department of Energy's draft strategy for
refocusing the Federal labs on industrial competitiveness. The corresponding DOE lab bills (S.473 and
H.R. 1432) authorizing reallocation of 10-20% of the labs' budgets to joint projects with industry have
been delayed in Congress due to debate over committee jurisdiction and agency missions. The plans
and strategies of the Administration are still in the developmental stages. As a result, is is difficult to
determine how rapidly they will be implemented of how effective they will be We urge the
Administration to articulate and justify these programs and to involve the private sector in their
detailed development
MANUFACTURING Passage of the National Cooperative Production Amendments this
summer marked a successful end to a five-year campaign to limit antitrust liability for joint production
ventures. The Administration and Congress have also begun to deliver on their intention to support a
national manufacturing technology deployment program. Largely through the Technology Reinvest-
ment Project (TRP), the national budget for manufacturing technology deployment rose from $17
million in FY1992 to over $200 million in FY1993. However, instead of continuing this upward trend
in FY1994, appropriations for manufacturing technology deployment dropped to $30 million. A recent
Congressional promise to reinstate manufacturing technology deployment funding in the TRP would
demonstrate a real commitment to building a nationwide deployment system. Legislation authorizing
NIST to support a national network of manufacturing technology deployment centers, having passed
the House, was delayed in the Senate at the closing moments of the first session of the 103rd Congress.
As the national manufacturing technology agenda develops, it is critical that the Administration
and the Congress fully fund advanced manufacturing programs and actively involve industry in the
selection, coordination and control of advanced manufacturing technology development, commer-
cialization and deployment activities.
TECINOLOGY POLICY IMPLEMENTATION INDEX 3
01/05/94 14:53
0.
008
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT 1993
MAJOR
MODERATE
INSUFFICIENT
PROCERES
PROCESSE
PROCRESS
Tax Policy
Establish a Permanent and
Improved R&E Tax Credit
Enact a Permanent Solution to
Treasury Regulation 1.861-8
Establish a Capital Gains Tax Credit
Establish an Investment Tax Credit
for Small Business
Federal R&D
Expand the Advanced Technology
Program
Increase R&D Funding at NSF
Coordination 8
Cooperation
Improve Coordination and
Managment of FCCSET, especially
initiatives in HPCC, biotechnology.
materials and manufacturing
Establish a Permanent Private Sector
Advisory Group
Refocus the National Labs on
Industry Needs
U.S. Manufacturing
Establish a National Manufacturing
Development & Deployment
Program
Limit Antitrust Liability for Joint
production ventures
4
TECHNOLOGY POLICY IMPLEMENTATION INDEX
- 001
The Under Secretary
for Technology
TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Number of Pages (including cover sheet)
8
Telephone Number: (202) 482-1575
Fax Number: (202) 482-6184
Date:
1/5/94
To: Dr. Jack Sibbons
Agency/Company:
OSTP
FAX Number: 395-3261
Telephone Number: 456-7116
Date Rec'd 1/5/94
ACTION to
INFO to ADs
GWIN
From: Dr. Mary Good
Newell
Under Secretary for Technology
Gibbons/NEWSON
Telephone: 202/482-1575
KELLYGilliman
SIG of
Special Instructions/Message:
Stationery
DATE DUE
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 4824
14th & Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230
Jon Englund
AEA
DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY AND
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS POLICY
SOFTWARE ISSUES
AMERICAN ELECTRONIC
American ElectronicsAssociation
QUALITY
TECHNOL OCT
US FINANCIAL
MARRET
1225 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 950, Washington, D.C. 20005
-
Telephone: (202) 682-4454 Telefax: (202) 682-9111
MCI ID: 453-3252
$
Internet: [email protected]
Skip
Best
JoN
FYI
January, 1994
American Electronics Association
Technology Policy Review -- 1993
Prologue
Below is a year-end status report on some of the key technology policy issues upon which
AEA has been working. In many respects, the review reflects the paradigm shift in
technology policy from the more "laissez-faire" approach of the Bush Administation to the
activist approach taken by the Clinton Presidency.
AEA's Technology, Manufacturing and Infrastructure Committee (TMI) and its members have
testified on many of these issues; participated in numerous meetings with Administration
officials, Members of Congress and their staffs; and drafted many position papers and letters
in support of AEA's positions.
We hope that the TMI will find this retrospective useful as we enter 1994. We are also
distributing this review to both the Advanced Technology Coalition (ATC) and the High-
Performance Computing and Communications Consortium (HPCCC). It has been a busy
year, and 1994 promises to be even more active and challenging!
1.
Creation of National Science and Technology Council
The White House has created the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
which will be on a par with the National Security Council and National Economic
Council. The President will chair the Council. Nine committees will fall under the
NSTC:
Communications and Information R&D (Chair: Anita Jones, DoD)
Civilian Industrial Technology (Chair: Mary Good, Commerce)
National Security (Chair: Bill Perry, DoD)
Food, Health and Safety (Chair: Phil Lee, HHS)
Fundamental Science and Research (Chair: Neil Lane, NSF)
Environment and Natural Resources
Education and Training R&D
Transportation R&D
International Science, Engineering and Technology.
American Electronics /Association
'225 Eye Street NW Suite 950 Washington 00 20005 Telephone (202) 682-9110 Fax (202)682-9111
520' Great America Pkwv PO Box 54990 Santa : Cara CA 95056 Telephone (408) 1987.4200 Fax 408 970-8565
The private sector will provide input to the NSTC through the President's Committee
of Advisors on Science and Technology and through individual advisory panels that tie
into each of the above committees. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) has drafted legislation
(HR 3476) which would codify the NSTC's mandate.
Impact: This is a long-term structural elevation for science and technology issues.
The success of this Council will depend on its ability to make hard choices on
technology funding and the degree to which the private sector has input -- and
influence -- into the process.
AEA Role: AEA will lobby to ensure that electronics-related issues are priorities for
the NSTC, despite the fact that there is not a separate Electronics Committee. AEA's
initiatives on advanced manufacturing and the National Information Infrastructure will
be priorities. AEA will nominate member executives to serve on the advisory groups
providing input to these NSTC Committees.
2.
National Competitiveness Act (including Title VI related to NII) and DoE Bills
While the House passed its version of the National Competitiveness Act (HR 820), the
Senate failed to pass S.4. There was still a chance right up until the final hours of the
Congressional session, but the holds of several Republican on the bill ultimately
prevented its passage.
There were negotiations throughout the session on controversial aspects of these two
bills, including:
Title VI (S. 4) related to NII demonstration projects and networking provisions;
The Manton Amendment (HR 820), which would place restrictions on foreign
entities and their U.S. subsidiaries in tapping U.S. government R&D programs
(the Senate did not plan to include the Manton Amendment in its bill but the
House appeared willing to fight for it in conference);
The plan to set up a venture capital fund for small businesses (ultimately
Senator Bumpers and others were able to work out a compromise in which a
joint Commerce/SBA committee would manage the program);
White House concerns about HR 1757 (the House counterpart of Title VI of
S.4 which authorizes funding for NII demonstration projects) being too
restrictive and detailed on which agencies should be involved in which NII
demonstration projects and the level of funding of these projects;
Issues related to the role of the Department of Energy and Sen. Bennett
Johnston's conviction that the DoE must be able to operate networks for
scientific purposes when necessary (the networks should not exclusively be
operated by the private sector).
While there continue to be a few outstanding issues for industry (Manton, NSA's role
in software encryption), by the end of the session most of these issues had been
resolved. On Title VI, the private sector ultimately had a seat at the table in reaching
a compromise on the thorny networking issue. However, resolution of the provisions
of "Gore II" remain open and potentially troublesome.
Legislation on the Department of Energy research laboratories has been delayed until
next year. S. 1298, sponsored by Sen. Bennett Johnston (which included provisions
from S.473; the House counterpart is H.R. 1432) will force an extensive debate on the
future role of the national laboratories.
AEA Role: AEA will support passage of the National Competitiveness Act
and continue to propose improvements to various elements of the bill.
3.
Funding Levels for Commerce Department Programs and High-Performance
Computing
A.
Department of Commerce/NSF Programs
Funding for DoC programs was robust in 1993. A defining moment came
when President Clinton sent a letter to key Members of Congress asking for
full funding for a number of Commerce Department programs. His public
commitment to these programs played a major role in protecting them from the
budget ax. Below is a summary of FY'94 funding levels in major DoC
programs:
Full funding for the Advanced Technology Program ($199.5 million for
FY '94, up from $67.9 million in FY 93).
The Manufacturing Extention Partnerships funding levels were increased
from $18 million to $30 million in FY 94. However, manufacturing
extension funding was dropped from the FY 94 appropriations for the
Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP) and so there may have been a
net reduction in this program.
Over $20 million has been given to the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration at Commerce for NII pilot projects
related to data networking.
Funding for National Science Foundation R&D funding was up to $1.9
billion, an 8% increase over the previous year. The Administration had
asked for 18% more than last year, however.
B.
High-Performance Computing/NII
$326 million was appropriated through the Defense Appropriations Bill
for high-performance computing and communications projects. While
this was an 18.5% increase over FY 93, it was $42 million less than the
$368 million that was requested. This is an improvement from the $100
million cut by the House, and the $53 million by the Senate going into
the Conference.
After some full-court pressure from NSF and the White House, the
NSF's High Performance Computing program was cut by only $12.5
million from the original request (the program will expand by 30% to
$272 million).
DoD's supercomputer modernization budget request was increased. The
Administration had requested $122.8 million; $46.1 million went into
supercomputer modernization R&D; $100 million into procurement.
AEA Role: AEA will continue to lobby on behalf of robust funding for these
programs. AEA will also work through the ATC and the HPCCC towards this end.
An AEA letter was sent in the last 3 weeks to the Director of OMB, Leon Panetta, to
support the DoC programs such as ATP as the Administration considers its technology
funding priorities. It was announced last week that the Administration's ATP request
for FY 1995 will be $450 million, close to the full planned increase in funding.
4.
New Models for Government-Industry Cooperation
New models for cooperation between government and industry in technology emerged
in 1993 with the election of the Clinton Administration. Examples include:
The effort by Dr. Lance Glasser and the Electronics Working Group to partner
with the private sector through a proposed Electronics Partnership Project. The
EWG has selected low-cost compact electronics as its initial focus.
The efforts to include private sector input in major Administration decisions on
technology policy and funding. Examples include:
The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology;
The soon-to-be named National Information Infrastructure Advisory
Council and High-Performance Computing Advisory Board;
The efforts by the Director of NIST to involve the private sector more
heavily in where the Advanced Technology Program focuses its efforts
(criteria for the program now includes: broad-based benefit for the U.S.
economy, good technical content, strong industry commitment and an
opportunity for ATP funding to make a major difference);
Private sector involvement in a new joint Commerce-DoD advisory
panel on technology and procurement.
AEA Role: We will propose nominees for these various advisory councils and seek to
ensure that industry's recommendations have a substantive impact as these new models
develop.
5.
GATT and R&D Subsidies
This was a "sleeper" issue that got a lot of attention as the deadline of December 15
for completing the GATT negotiations neared. The provision, which is part of the
Dunkel draft, would have:
capped government contributions at 25% for applied research;
capped government contributions at 50% for basic research; and,
required the government and industry to submit notification reports on such
proposals.
Such a provision would have a significant negative impact upon this
Administration's technology programs such as the ATP, TRP and the Clean
Car initiative. The issue is yet another example of the growing overlap between
technology and trade issues.
Update: A compromise was reached recently on the provision. Government funding
of applied research or "pre-competitive development activity" will be limited to 50%;
government assistance in the case of basic research or "industrial assistance" will be
limited to 75%. Definitions accompany the GATT language for both these categories
(give Jon Englund at AEA a call at 202-682-4454 if you need these specific
definitions).
AEA Role: AEA's TMI and Trade Committees will continue to work together to
influence our Administration's positions on issues where technology and trade
intersect.
6.
Technology Reinvestment Project
Over 160 awards have been made totalling $415 million of the total $472 million
appropriated for the TRP this year. Two of the three rounds of the awards are now
complete. While $404 million has been appropriated for the TRP in FY 94, they
zeroed out funding for two manufacturing technology programs. Also, $104 million in
TRP funding and dual-use partnership programs was earmarked by Congress (ARPA
has pledged to eliminate the earmarks). Rep. George Brown created a cause celebre in
waging battle against these earmarks at the end of the session.
AEA Role: While it was a good first start for the TRP, AEA has a series of proposals
on the table on how to improve the process, including:
more private sector input into the selection process;
including a product development -- not just technology development -- element
to the TRP; and,
encouraging a larger number of medium and small-sized companies to
participate in the process and succeed in winning awards (a very small number
of these companies have won awards this year -- most of the awards have gone
to big companies).
7.
Next Year's Challenges
Many challenges remain for next year. These include (the responsible AEA
subcommittee or affiliated organization is in parentheses):
ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING INITIATIVES (AEA ELECTRONICS
MANUFACTURING SUBCOMMITTEE)
Soliciting input from other organizations on AEA's Advanced Electronics
Manufacturing White Paper through participation in several industry fora;
Using the White Paper, continue to educate decision-makers in Government
and Congress on gaps in the U.S. electronics manufacturing food chain in
support of the Administration's AMTI (Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Initiative). In particular, work through NSTC's Civilian Industrial Technology
Committee (chair: Mary Good, undersecretary of commerce for technology),
the Electronics Working Group (chair: Lance Glasser, ARPA), and NIST
programs (Director: Arati Prabhakar).
DEVELOPING THE NII AND HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING (AEA NII
TASK FORCE AND HPCCC)
Making the case for the high performance computing program and NII to
ensure robust funding levels and projects;
Providing a user's perspective to the Administration on NII;
Lobbying for improvements to Title VI of S.4 (related to NII demonstration
projects)
Providing input and possible support to the Administration's
telecommunications legislative package due out early this year.
TECHNOLOGY POLICY (TMI FEDERAL AFFAIRS WORKING GROUP and ATC)
Ensuring that the growing opportunities for private sector input as part of the
new models for government-industry cooperation are substantive and have a
real impact (and are not just pro forma);
Achieving some improvements in S.4 and getting it passed early in the session
and out of conference without the Manton Amendment;
Ensuring that key industry technology programs -- such as ATP which ramps
up to $450 million from $199 million this year -- are protected in next year's
budget; and,
Playing a role in redefining the mission of the laboratories.
It is going to be a busy year and we look forward to working with you in 1994!
AEA Contact:
Jon Englund
Director, Technology and Manufacturing
Telephone: 202-682-4454
Fax: 202-682-9111
Internet: [email protected]
AEA Technology, Manufacturing and Infrastructure Committee
Mission: To advocate a national technology and manufacturing policy -- developed and implemented collaboratively
by industry, government and academia -- that provides a long-term, industry-led strategy for U.S. leadership in the
global electronics marketplace.
Chair: Dick Knight, Tektronix
AEA Staff: Jon Englund (202-682-4454)
Technology Manufacturing
& Infrastructure Committee
Implementation
Policy
Policy
Federal Affairs Working Group
NII Task Force
Advanced Electronics
Chair: Susan Rochford,
Chair: Eric Benhamou, 3Com
Manufacturing Subcommittee
Honeywell
Chair, Mauro Walker,
Motorola
Information
Flow
AEA Policy
Input
Information
Flow
Advanced Technology
High-Performance Computing
Coalition (ATC)
and Communications
Chair: Open
Consortium (HPCCC)
Chair: Marilyn Cade, AT&T
Other Organizations
Other Organizations
American Electronics/Association
AEA
5201 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, California 95054. Telephone: (408) 987-4200
1225 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 950, Washington. D.C. 20005. Telephone: (202) 682-9110
No.
May 13, 1993
Action ten faces. bittons +
Sr. Brown.
The Honorable Albert Gore
Vice President of the United States
A
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Vice President:
The American Electronics Association appreciates the Clinton Administration's commitment
to U.S. high technology export competitiveness, as evidenced by the recent decision to
continue applying pressure to open the Japanese supercomputer procurement market.
However, we are dismayed that this commitment has not also been directed toward other
important foreign markets by relaxing the U.S. export control stranglehold on supercomputers
and general purpose computers. Since AEA's March 16 letter to you on this subject, a U.S.
government decision has been pending to revise the definition and conditions for sale of a
"supercomputer" for export control purposes. A review was in fact supposed to have been
completed almost one year ago. This decision must not be permitted to languish any longer.
It is because of such delays in this review and U.S. export licensing procedures in general
that U.S. high performance computer manufacturers have suffered the loss of customers and
the creation of foreign competitors.
7
We are writing once again to renew our March 16 request for a CEO-level meeting with you
to discuss immediate resolution to this long festering problem. We will be in touch with your
office soon to arrange a meeting.
Sincerely,
Dear Incrson
J. Richard Iverson
lets set up
President and CEO
cc:
The Honorable Anthony Lake
meeting Johnson
Johnson Kalies Kawahes s she can)
IK FRI : 1:00
AEA
8/24 left voicement
CELEBRATING
YEARS
ROUTING SLIP
FROM:
Greg Simon
DATE: 8/10/93
Office of the Vice President
TO:
Dennis Alpert
Katie McGinty
Todd Campbell
Beth Prichard
Leon Fuerth
Jack Quinn
Skila Harris
Marla Romash
Elaine Kamarck
X
Tony Wilson
Goody Marshall
Other JackGildens
FOR YOUR:
Date Rec'd 8-11-93
Action
X
ACTION to Dhns
INFO to WAles
Comments
Gibbons
Information
NelsoN
SIG of
Stationery
DATE DUE 8-25-93