Where Industry Meets Innovation

  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Credits
  • sign in Sign In
May 20, 2013Night pic of MIT dome.

Resources

Browse News

  • View All
  • ILP News
  • MIT Research News
  • MIT Sloan Management Review
  • Technology Review

ILP Institute Insider

May 16, 2013
News Feature Thumbnail

MIT's Fab Lab Shares the Wealth

MIT is filled with numerous "labs," but when it comes to fabricating and testing semiconductor devices, the institute has combined its eggs into one very high-tech basket known as Microsystems Technology Laboratories (MTL). Founded in 1984, MTL differs from most university laboratories in that its mission is to serve the entire university rather than just a single research group.
Vicky Diadiuk
Principal Research Engineer
Associate Director, Operations
MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories
"Typically at a university, every faculty member has a private lab," says Dr. Vicky Diadiuk, MTL's Associate Director, Operations. "But MTL is different in that we're a shared facility."

Most of the students who use the facilities are from MIT's Schools of Engineering and Science, but users have come from 29 departments, labs and centers, says Diadiuk. In addition to providing economy of scale in facilities costs, MTL provides 15 full-time staff members who maintain tools, train students, and generate basic processes. This provides a strong competitive advantage for recruiting faculty, who may not want to spend their first few years setting up a facilities-intensive lab, says Diadiuk.

"Everything is already set up when they come in, including the professional staff, machines, basic processes, and sometimes even the specific recipes they need," she says. "Most faculty would rather spend their time doing research."

Diadiuk should know. She spent many years doing optoelectronic device research at MIT Lincoln Laboratory prior to starting at MTL in 1996. As Associate Director, she oversees MTL's daily operations, reporting to MTL Director and Electrical Engineering professor Vladimir Bulovic.

MTL consists of three cleanroom laboratories, offering different levels of cleanliness and sophistication. The crown jewel is the second-floor lab, which provides "what you would find in a commercial fab, except for the vastly different scale," says Diadiuk. On the fourth floor, the Technology Research Lab offers fewer restrictions and more flexibility. "Some of our innovations in processing and materials start there, and if they're compatible with mainstream fabrication, they can come down to the second floor," says Diadiuk.

The fifth floor lab is "kind of a garage works, where anything goes as long as it's safe," says Diadiuk. "There's no barrier to entry or contamination concerns, so people can play there and develop processes. When they discover that cleanliness matters, which is a more natural way of learning than being told, some of them migrate to the cleaner labs downstairs."

Moving Beyond Silicon
As with the semiconductor industry at large, MTL typically depends on silicon as the substrate material. Yet, the lab is increasingly using light-emitting and -responding materials like III-V compounds, says Diadiuk. Gallium nitride is a "very exciting material right now," says Diadiuk. "The wafers are very expensive, but they can be used on the same equipment we use for fabricating devices on silicon and the other III-V semiconductor substrates like indium phosphide and gallium arsenide."

Because MTL generates a wide variety of devices for experimental purposes, researchers seldom use a full 25-wafer lot, even though the tools can handle them. "We use six-inch diameter or smaller wafers whereas modern industrial tools are set up for eight or 12 inches," says Diadiuk. "For this and other reasons, like the availability of replacement parts, we must constantly renew our toolset."

Last year the lab acquired a "really cool state-of-the-art e-beam writer," says Diadiuk. This direct-write lithography machine does not require a mask, and supports features as small as a few nanometers.

In recent years, MTL has increasingly applied semiconductor fabrication technologies to the manufacture of a variety of tiny devices. "We use the same processes used to make transistors to make things like micro-reactors and DNA chips," says Diadiuk. MTL is also "pushing the envelope with other materials like plastics and polymers."

The range of devices built at MTL is impressive. In the first three months of 2013 alone, MTL announced participation in projects including nanowire-based solar cells, optical phased arrays for medical-imaging, and a super-fast new p-type transistor. MTL also houses four special research centers, focusing on integrated circuits (CICS), medical devices (MEDRC), graphene devices (MIT-CG) and gallium nitride (MIT-GaN), respectively.

One of the most ambitious projects MTL ever undertook was a MEMS micro-engine project led by MIT's Martin Schmidt. "We had about 42 researchers and many more students working on it, and we used essentially every technology we know," recalls Diadiuk. "The project led us to think about designing semiconductor devices in three dimensions. We aligned and bonded up to seven wafers, which was fairly heroic, and fabricated a turbine the size of a shirt button. The experience made us really good at wafer bonding and deep etching."

Safety First
Having a single shared facility for fabrication not only reduces costs and improves recruiting, but it also pays off with greater safety. "We often use dangerous chemicals and gases that can explode and burn and do all sorts of bad things," says Diadiuk. "You really don't want to have 22 different labs, each one with its own cylinder of toxic gases."

Diadiuk is proud of MTL's safety record, which she says has been kept up with the assistance of MIT's Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) office, as well as MIT Facilities, which maintains the detection systems. Among other precautions, the facility has toxic gas detectors on every floor and near every tool that uses them, supported with redundant systems. Hydrogen is kept in an explosion-proof bunker, and there are numerous hydrogen detectors.

Perhaps the most important safety measure is training. This is a challenge, says Diadiuk, considering that about 500 students per year use the lab. All users must have hands-on experience in microfabrication or take a regular semester-long course, Introduction to Microfabrication (6.152); if curricular credit is not desired, users can instead opt for an intensive one-week lab-only version. Before entering the lab, students, faculty, and other users are trained on lab-specific EH&S requirements. Once inside, they are taught how to use specific machines.

Researchers from other universities are also welcome to apply for lab access, as long as they go through the same training regimen. Most visitors are from Boston-area schools, says Diadiuk, but some have come from other parts of the country and overseas as well.

Open to Industry, from Start-ups to MIG
Industry can gain access to MTL's labs via the Fabrication Facilities Access (FFA) program. Since larger companies tend to have their own facilities, the labs are primarily attractive to start-ups, says Diadiuk. "Companies can send engineers to use our cleanroom as long as their processes don’t pose a risk of cross-contamination, and they pass all safety exams. There's very little IP entanglement, which the start-ups really like."

Sometimes larger manufacturers use the facilities for special projects they can't develop with their own pilot lines. Here, MTL's expertise in non-traditional fabrication is particularly attractive. "Making a material change for them is really hard, but for us, it's pretty straightforward," says Diadiuk.

Some companies are members of a sponsor group called the Microsystems Industrial Group (MIG), which advises and helps fund the lab. Sometimes MIG members direct part of their contributions to particular research programs. "It's a highly interactive participation," says Diadiuk.

A number of MIG members donate equipment to help keep the lab up to date. Although it's usually "at least one generation behind," according to Diadiuk, it's still close enough so that "by the time our students graduate they are often fully trained on essentially the same equipment they would use in the workplace."

MIG's financial contributions, meanwhile, help offset general infrastructure costs, which are typically beyond the charter of research grants. Despite this funding, plus several million dollars a year from MIT, MTL continues to seek new ways to stay competitive. In fact, MIT is now in the planning stages to build a brand new MTL facility.

In this and other projects, MIG members provide valuable feedback and direction, and both sides keep each other up to date on the latest developments, says Diadiuk. "Our interactions with industry provide a sanity check," she says. "They bring us back to reality."

Research News

May 16, 2013

Making frequency-hopping radios practical

The way in which radio spectrum is currently allocated to different wireless technologies can lead to gross inefficiencies. In some regions, for instance, the frequencies used by cellphones can be desperately congested, while large swaths of the broadcast-television spectrum stand idle.

One solution to that problem is the 15-year-old idea of “cognitive radio,” in which wireless devices would scan their environments for vacant frequencies and use these for transmissions. Different proposals for cognitive radio place different emphases on hardware and software, but the chief component of many hardware approaches is a bank of filters that can isolate any frequency in a wide band.

Researchers at MIT’s Microsystems Technology Laboratory (MTL) have developed a new method for manufacturing such filters that should improve their performance while enabling 14 times as many of them to be crammed on a single chip. That’s a vital consideration in handheld devices where space is tight. But just as important, the new method uses techniques already common in the production of signal-processing chips, so it should be easy for manufacturers to adopt.

MIT Sloan
Management Review

May 16, 2013

How to Identify the Best Customers for Your Business

It’s difficult to start a venture that gains traction with paying customers. But it’s even harder to grow a company beyond certain levels of sales. Of the nearly 44,000 companies founded in 2000 and listed in the Capital IQ database—which includes public and privately held companies—fewer than 6% achieved more than $10 million in revenues by 2010, and fewer than 2% grew to more than $50 million. Why?

Once a venture reaches a critical size, its complexity greatly increases. Not only are there more “moving parts,” but interdependencies are more difficult to manage. The original business model must deal with new products or markets, and the early leadership behaviors that worked in establishing the business are often inadequate to manage and grow it. Most visibly, SG&A (selling, general and administrative) costs often accelerate faster than revenues, and because resource-constrained ventures cannot afford to burn through working capital, promising ventures are forced either to go out of business or to operate in small niches because they are unable to scale their sales activities. Even large, established corporations can face a problem with SG&A expenses.

Consider the case of an entrepreneurial company we’ll call BusinessProcessingCo. BusinessProcessingCo. (a real company whose name we disguised for this article) was founded in 2000 to provide Web-based outsourced payroll services to small and medium-sized businesses. By 2004, it had about $40 million in sales and 75 sales representatives with annual quotas of $600,000 each and target compensation of about $60,000 per rep. In 2004, the founder raised nearly $30 million from investors to develop new products and expand the business. But two years later, even though product development plans were on schedule, BusinessProcessingCo.’s revenues were stagnant and investors were restless. Management tried a number of tactics, including offering bundled products at a steep discount, six months of “free” services if customers made annual commitments and other incentives to close deals.

The result? Over the next two years, the company’s prices declined faster than revenues increased. By the time the recession hit in 2008, the company’s directors were asking fundamental questions about the venture and its business model.

The experience of BusinessProcessingCo. is, unfortunately, all too common. Among other things, the company’s early growth led to a seductive but costly ad hoc process for evaluating opportunities, for forecasting and for business development initiatives. Probably the biggest problem over time was the leadership team’s inability to define its core customers. Without clarity around that, the sales process becomes a function of individual salespeople’s “heroic” efforts in the field, not a scalable platform for profitable growth.

Every company, large or small, does things that make it easier for some customers to do business with it, and harder for others. Selecting the right customers is critical, especially if resources are constrained and the brand is little known.

A customer ultimately represents a stream of orders for the seller. That order stream, in turn, has a domino effect on the company’s business. Different customers come with different transaction costs for the seller—for example, in a manufacturing business, stock vs. custom items, or in a service business, customers that do or don’t require proposals. These customer requirements affect “upstream” capacity utilization at the selling company in two ways, influencing both the kind of capacity utilized (the product mix) and how capacity is utilized (for example, production lines needed in manufacturing or the types of people and skills needed in a service business). The orders also affect “downstream” after-sale economics and organizational requirements.

Surprisingly few companies—especially entrepreneurial ones—clarify their core customer selection criteria. Many executives in entrepreneurial companies in effect tell their salespeople to “go forth and multiply!” By selling to anyone willing to pay a certain price, though, companies fragment their resources and make further growth difficult. As customers use the product, the company modifies the offering and processes associated with making and selling it, typically in contradictory directions uncovered by this selling activity. This haphazard process inhibits learning and can blind a company’s leadership team to what is actually going on in its business development efforts.

This article is adapted from “from "How to Identify the Best Customers for Your Business," by Frank V. Cespedes, James P. Dougherty and Ben S. Skinner III, which appeared in the Winter 2013 issue of MIT Sloan Management Review.

Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013. All rights reserved.