Analysis of Effectiveness of EU Nanoelectronics
R&D Programmes in Developing Supply Chains
Presentation to DG/INFSO
Dr Neil Adams and Prof Chris Pickering
Partners – Innovation Bridge Consulting
October 2011
1
Outline
1. OBJECTIVES
2. METHODOLOGY and SCOPE
3. RESULTS
4. BENCHMARKING
5. CONCLUSIONS, ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to analyse European Commission (EC) Framework 7 (FP7)
Nanoelectronics and other EC-funded R&D projects (e.g. EUREKA, JTIs) contracted in
2007-2010
•
to identify the quality of the emerging supply chains that are being created
•
to benchmark them against existing Nanoelectronics industry supply chains and how
the industry involvement compares with other collaborative R&D programmes in other
market sectors, e.g. automotive
•
to identify options for enabling and increasing effective co-operation across the supply
chain by changes to EC funding rules and instruments.
3
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
Focused on FP7 and other Nanoelectronics programmes (JTI/JUs, EUREKA)
Looked at Nanoelectronics projects contracted in 2007-2011, underway or completed
Looked across full range of Programmes and Instruments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FP7 CO-OPERATION RTD Programmes: ICT and ICT-FET, NMP
JUs: ENIAC, ARTEMIS
Limited MS
participation
EUREKA: MEDEA+ (Phase 2), CATRENE
FP7 PEOPLE: Marie-Curie
FP7 CAPACITIES: Research for SMEs, etc
FP7 IDEAS: European Research Council
COMPETITIVENESS & INNOVATION PROGRAMME (CIP)
EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (ERDF) : INTERREG
EUREKA: EUROSTARS (for SMEs)
Analysed participation in EU Nanoelectronics collaborative projects by Partner and Supply Chain
Position, Project Type, etc
Compared participation by key players in the Nanoelectronics market for their appropriate supply
chain position in the different Project Types, benchmarked against Automotive supply chains
Analysed supply chain linkages within and between projects
4
SCOPE OF PROJECTS CONSIDERED
All projects funded by the Nanoelectronics Unit of DG/INFSO
Projects funded by the Microsystems Unit of DG/INFSO which included integration with microelectronics (excluding stand-alone MEMS projects for example)
Projects funded by other DG/INFSO Units in the ICT programme and by DG/RES in the NMP
Programme, which included integration with micro-electronics, e.g. in application-related
Challenges and FET, but excluding embedded systems architecture-related projects
• Photonics projects were included when the photonic system was integrated on CMOS, for example, but
excluded when they were focused on discrete photonic components such as lasers
• Organic electronics and OLAE were mostly excluded as the technology is relatively immature and
dimensions/integration densities, etc are not at the nanoelectronics scale
All projects funded by ENIAC
All projects funded by CATRENE and Phase 2 MEDEA+ projects
Projects related to Nanoelectronics and integration with Microelectronics in other EU programmes
including Capacities (Research for SMEs and Research Potential of Converging Regions),
People (Marie-Curie IAPP) and European Research Council (Advanced Investigator).
The study only used publicly available data on EU Programmes and Projects e.g. from CORDIS
5
Breakdown of EU Nanoelectronics Collaborative
projects by programme (2007-2011)
Programme
Sub-programme
ICT-Nanoelectronics
COOPERATION
(including Design)
ICT-Micro/Smart
Systems
ICT-Photonics/Organic
Electronics
JTI/JU
EUREKA
CAPACITIES
PEOPLE
IDEAS
•
•
•
No
38
17
18
ICT-other
7
ICT-FET
8
NMP
5
ENIAC
MEDEA+
28
39
CATRENE
25
Research for SMEs
Research Potential
Marie-Curie
Industrial-Academic
Partnerships
ERC Advanced
Investigator Grants
1
1
3
1
191 projects analysed in total
20% funded by Nanoelectronics Unit directly
50% in MEDEA+/CATRENE/ENIAC – NB not all MS have equal access
6
Breakdown of EU Nanoelectronics Collaborative projects by
funding (2007-2011)
Programme
CATRENE
MEDEA+
ENIAC
FP7
•
•
•
No of projects
17
(with cost data available)
39
28
99
Eligible Costs
(million €)
National Funding
(million €)
EU Funding
(million €)
1044
355 (approx)
0
1691
656
493
575 (approx)
181
0
0
109
346
MEDEA+/CATRENE costs estimated using €200k per person-year
National funding levels for MEDEA+/CATRENE estimated by averaging levels of
national support across different countries and participant types
FP7 eligible costs are only about 12% of total costs of all relevant programmes
7
Project Type Breakdown used in Analysis
ENIAC Project
Categories
CATRENE Project
Categories
Applications
Semiconductor
Process &
Integration
Design
Technologies
Equipment,
Materials &
Manufacturing
Applications
Process
Development &
Systems Integration
Design Automation
Manufacturing
Science
DG/INFSO
Nanoelectronics
Unit Project
Categories
TECHNOLOGY
EU Project
Definition used in
this study
(main focus)
APPLICATION
INTEGRATION
DESIGN
DESIGN
MANUFACTURING
EQUIPMENT
•
•
FP7 has more emphasis on
projects focusing on ‘Integration’
and less on ‘Application’, reflecting
fact that ENIAC/ CATRENE/
MEDEA are intended to be more
application driven
Within FP7 ‘Equipment’ projects
there is a project (SEAL) supporting
multiple (17) equipment
assessment sub-projects
8
Supply Chain positions and Organisation types used in Analysis
Supply Chain Position
Organisation Designation
1. Product/ system suppliers
OEMs (O)
2. Sub-system provider

including Electronic Contract
Manufacturing
3. Integrated Device Manufacturer

including Fabless
4. Foundry
5. Design House
6. Design Tool Supplier
7. Processing and Metrology Equipment
Manufacturer
8. Materials Supplier
9.Research Institutes and Universities
•
Integrators (I)
Designers (D)
Equipment/Material Suppliers (E)
Research Institutes (R)
Major players in the above Organisation categories participate in all project types
9
Top Participants in FP7-only Nanoelectronics Projects
No
Participants List
Category
No of FP7
Projects
1
CEA - All Labs
R
37
2
IMEC
R
37
3
Fraunhofer
R
27
4
STMicroelectronics
I
24
5
EPFL
R
13
6
Infineon
I
12
7
CNRS - All Labs
R
12
8
TU Delft
R
10
9
University College Cork
R
10
10
Thales
O
9
11
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
R
9
12
VTT
R
9
13
Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche
R
9
14
Chalmers
R
7
15
Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per la Nanoelettronica Italy
R
6
16
National Centre for Scientific Research Demokritos Greece
R
6
17
Catalan Institute of Nanotechnology
R
6
18
Technische Universitat Berlin
R
6
19
KTH Sweden
R
6
20
Philips
O
5
21
Robert Bosch
I
5
22
Siemens
O
5
23
Centro Ricerche Fiat Italy
O
5
•
•
Dominated by Research Institutes - 3 of the top 19 participants are Industry
Most top Research Institutes (not all) also participate in EUREKA/ENIAC
10
Top Participants in all EU Nanoelectronics Projects
Total Projects Joint E/C/M and
Category
FP7
No of FP7
Projects
Percentage of
FP7 Projects
87
37
43%
83
24
29%
R
54
37
69%
R
50
27
54%
Infineon
I
47
12
26%
CNRS - All Labs
R
39
12
31%
7
Philips
O
39
5
13%
8
NXP
I
35
4
11%
9
TU Delft
R
31
10
32%
10
Thales
O
25
9
36%
11
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
R
15
9
60%
12
VTT
R
15
9
60%
13
EPFL
R
15
13
87%
14
Atmel Rousset (now Lfoundry)
I
14
0
0%
15
TU Eindhoven
R
14
2
14%
16
Robert Bosch
I
13
5
38%
17
Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche
R
13
9
69%
18
Numonyx
I
12
4
33%
19
University College Cork
R
12
10
83%
20
EADS
O
11
2
18%
21
Siemens
O
10
5
50%
No
Participants List
1
CEA - All Labs
R
2
STMicroelectronics
I
3
IMEC
4
Fraunhofer
5
6
•
•
•
Still major involvement of Research Institutes - 5 of top 10
Industry involved in 5 out of top 10
More involvement of major Manufacturing Supply Chain players in EUREKA/ENIAC than FP7 –
this reflects EC encouragement of IDMs going into ENIAC
11
Strength of Partner involvement in EU Nanoelectronics
Collaborative Projects
UK Companies:
Oxford Instruments – 3
Bede Instruments – 2 etc
UK Universities:
Cambridge – 6
Glasgow – 5 etc
•
•
•
A relatively small group of key participants is involved in multiple EU Nanoelectronics collaborative
R&D projects
33 companies (out of 647) and 60 Research Institutes (out of 324) are involved in 5 or more projects
There is a ‘long tail’ of organisations only involved in a few projects - there are approx 466
companies and 186 Research Institutes involved in only one project
12
Involvement of Major Supply Chain Players
(a) Equipment & Material Suppliers
•
•
•
Major Equipment providers are much more involved in EUREKA/ENIAC than FP7.
Note the absence of BE Semiconductor Industries N.V. in all EU-funded projects and the absence of
ASML in FP7, which is important since the NL equipment industry accounts for 70% of the EU total.
Some US owned Equipment companies with a European presence participate to a limited degree, e.g.
Lam, Applied Materials and KLA-Tencor (the latter only in FP7).
13
Involvement of Major Supply Chain Players
(b) Design houses and tool suppliers
•
Major design companies have limited involvement in both EUREKA/ENIAC and FP7 Programmes
(each participant is involved in a relatively small number of projects), reflecting fragmented activity/
capability and the high involvement of SMEs in this domain.
14
Involvement of Major Supply Chain Players
(c) IDMs and Foundries
•
•
•
•
•
Major IDMs are much more involved in EUREKA/ENIAC Programmes than FP7
Although major IDMs are collectively involved in 43% of FP7 projects this is dominated by STM and
Infineon, who between them are involved in 33% of FP7 projects. NXP, Lfoundry, Xfab and AMS have little
or no involvement in FP7.
Some US owned companies with a European presence do not participate in FP7 at all, e.g. TI. Other US
companies participate to a limited degree, e.g. Global Foundries, Intel, Micron (now acquired Numonyx)
There is very limited UK Industry involvement in FP7 and EUREKA/ENIAC Programmes, with no
significant players involved e.g. ARM is in 1 FP7 Nanoelectronics project – UK Universities in EC projects
link overseas rather than with UK companies
Fabless design companies are absent from the data, reflecting the lack of major fabless EU companies
15
Involvement of Major Supply Chain Players
(d) Electronic Contract Manufacturers
•
Electronic Contract Manufacturers, including Electronic Manufacturing Service (EMS)
companies that provide Packaging, Assembly and Testing for OEMs, and Original Design
Manufacturing (ODM) companies that assemble electronics systems in high volume markets,
are dominated by US and Taiwanese companies.
•
Major EU EMS companies such as Elcoteq (FI) (ranked at no 7 in the global market with
2.9% market share), NOTE (SE) and new players like Nanium (PT) are not involved in these
EU Programmes.
•
There are no significant ODM companies in the EU – the top 10 world players are all
Taiwanese.
•
The US and Taiwanese EMS and ODM companies do not participate in EU R&D
programmes, which may be a significant gap and disadvantage for the commercialisation of
European R&D in global markets and supply chains.
16
Involvement of Major Supply Chain Players
(e) OEMs
•
•
•
Major OEMs are much more involved in EUREKA/ENIAC Programmes than FP7 – NB there are more
(twice as many) ‘Application’ projects in the former
Note the extremely low involvement of Nokia and Philips in FP7
The data contain evidence on the extent of geographical clustering, with obvious examples being clear,
e.g. CEA with STM, but due to the complexity and large volume of data it was not possible to analyse these
geographical connections (e.g. how well Institutes like IMEC connect to nearby companies like Philips) in
the time available
17
Influence of Research Institutes on Industry Supply Chain Players
• As Industry participates more in the EUREKA/ENIAC Programmes than FP7 (examples
include IDMs such as Lfoundry and On Semiconductor and OEMs such as Gemalto and
Philips) the EU relies on technology transfer partnerships in non-FP7 instruments to
transfer expertise developed in FP7 projects to such companies
− e.g. through Research Institutes involved in both FP7 and EUREKA/ENIAC
Programmes such as CEA (rather than those that focus more on FP7 such as EPFL,
UCC, UK Universities)
• Networks of Excellence can assist in
transferring knowledge from
Research Institutes to IDMs e.g.
Nanofunction which is developing a
virtual Fab
18
How well are the major market players involved in FP7
Nanoelectronics projects?
14 FP7
18 FP7 DESIGN Projects
EQUIPMENT
Projects
No
% of Total (99)
35 FP7 INTEGRATION
26 FP7 APPLICATION
Projects
Projects
EQUIPMENT & MATERIALS
SUPPLIERS
DESIGN
COMPANIES
IDMs & FOUNDRIES
OEMs
9
8
43
25
9%
8%
43%
25%
• Major players here are defined as those who are prominent in current manufacturing supply
chains (taken from EC reports, e.g. ICT MAN study):
− OEMs: NOKIA, ERICSSON, BOSCH, SIEMENS (5), PHILIPS (5), THALES (9), EADS, FIAT (5)
− IDMs and Foundries: INTEL, STM (24), INFINEON (12), GLOBAL FOUNDRIES, NXP (4), NUMONYX, BOSCH, AMS, ARM
− Design Companies: CADENCE, PHOENIX, SYNOPSYS (4)
− Equipment and Materials Suppliers: SILTRONIC, SOITEC, APPLIED MATERIALS, KLA-TENCOR (3), LAM, ASMI, AIXTRON,
SUSS MICROTEC, ADIXEN, ION BEAM SERVICES
FP7 is successfully involving major players across the supply chain in line with the types of
projects being funded, but participation of key players is patchy and there are significant omissions
(e.g. ASML, Lfoundry, Xfab)
19
Linkages between major Industry players in FP7 projects
12
OEMs
IDMs &
FOUNDRIES
25
Top OEMs – THALES,
FIAT, PHILIPS and
SIEMENS - are
involved in 18
projects. Another 7
projects involve
other OEMs eg
Ericsson
43
7
6
2
2
EQUIPMENT &
MATERIAL SUPPLIERS
DESIGN
COMPANIES
8
Top IDMs – STM and
INFINEON - are
involved in 33
projects. Another 10
projects involve
other IDMs eg
Numonyx, Bosch,
NXP, Global
2
9
20
Duration: 36 months
Project Cost: 4.03 million euro
Project Funding: 2.6 million euro
Aim:
To develop an enhanced sensing and communication capability on an autonomous sm
micro system powered by a new 3D high capacity integrated micro battery.
Example Supply Chain in STREP: E-STARS
E-STARS
Efficient smart systems with enhanced energy storage
ICT-2007.3.6 Micro/nanosystems
Project Acronym: E-STARS
Contract Type: Collaborative project (STREP)
Start Date: 2008-06-01
Duration: 36 months
Project Cost: 4.03 million euro
Project Funding: 2.6 million euro
OEM
FIAT
(Italy)
ST MICROELECTRONICS
(France)
IDM
Aim:
To develop an enhanced sensing and communication capability on an autonomous smart
micro system powered by a new 3D high capacity integrated micro battery.
SMEs
(Tier 2s)
This is the only FP7 project where
major Equipment,
IDM
and OEM
OEM
FIAT
companies are all involved
–
(Italy)
spanning all parts of the supply
chain. A specific major Design
ST MICROcompany
IDM is not involved,
ELECTRONICS but design
(France)
activities here are covered
by the
IDM and Research Institutes
SMEs
(Tier 2s)
BIOAGE
(Italy)
Applied
Materials
(Germany)
Equipment
Supplier
Research
Institutes
Cora Tine
Teoranta
(Ireland)
BIOAGE
(Italy)
Univ Paris
Sud (France)
CEA (France)
TU Delft
(Netherlands
)
Cora Tine
Teoranta
(Ireland)
21
Project Cost: 11.03 million euro
Project Funding: 7.4 million euro
Aim: to develop new technologies and materials for low thermal resistance interfaces and
electrical interconnects by exploring systems such as carbon nanotubes, nanoparticles and
nano-structured surfaces using different enhancing contact formation mechanisms combined
with high volume compatible manufacturing technologies such as electro-spinning.
Example Supply Chain in Integrated Project: NANOPACK
EMS
Aim: to develop new technologies and materials for low thermal resistance interfaces and
electrical interconnects by exploring systems such as carbon nanotubes, nanoparticles and
nano-structured surfaces using different enhancing contact formation mechanisms combined
with high volume compatible manufacturing technologies such as electro-spinning.
Relatively small
players
involved
Bosch
in(Germany)
only one or
two projects
overall
Thales
Avionics
(France)
OEM
EMS
Test
equipment
suppliers
Test
equipment
suppliers
Micred
(Hungary)
Bosch
(Germany)
Micred
(Hungary)
Materials supplier
FOAB
(Sweden)
Bosch
(Germany)
Research
Institutes
Bosch
(Germany)
FOAB
(Sweden)
IDM
VTT
(Finland)
IDM
Thales
Avionics
(France)
OEM
NANOPACK
Nano-packaging technology for interconnect and heat dissipation
ICT-2007.3.1 Next-Generation Nanoelectronics Components and Electronics Integration
Contract Type: Collaborative project (Integrated Project)
Start Date: 2007-11-01
Duration: 47 months
Project Cost: 11.03 million euro
Project Funding: 7.4 million euro
CNRS
(France)
IBM
Research
(Switzerland)
Nanotest
(Germany)
Electrovac
(Austria)
Chalmers
Inst
(Sweden)
Thales Research
& Technology
(France)
FhG
(Germany)
BUTE
(Hungary)
Catalonia Inst of
Nanotecnology
(Spain)
Nanotest
(Germany)
Electrovac
22
Comparison of estimated funding levels (2007-2010)
FP7 Projects – EC
contribution
(€ p.a.)
Other Funding
Streams – Total
Costs (€ p.a.)
EU Turnover
(€ p.a.)
Automotive
200M
550B
Security
320M
20B
(OEM PV)
Mainly national funding
programmes
910M
(EUREKA)
230M (CleanSky)
+12B (OEM PV)
Sector
Nanoelectronics
Aerospace
115M
(plus 35M ENIAC)
350M
79B
30B
105B
• Funding reflects maturity and nature of the different market sectors
- Automotive and Aerospace are mature and R&D programmes are driven by leading industry players, with
significant OEM Private Venture (PV) funding investment. EU investment is focused on specific themes
reflecting societal needs such as low carbon transport, more efficient vehicles.
- Security market is fragmented and it can be difficult to justify industry Private Venture funding investment.
Hence R&D programmes tend to be driven by national government requirements and funding.
- Nanoelectronics market is relatively immature but rapidly growing. Hence the need for significant national
and EU investment in R&D.
23
Benchmarking Major Nanoelectronics Supply Chain Player
Involvement with Automotive FP7 Projects – (a) OEMs
•
Major Automotive OEMs are involved in far higher numbers of FP7 projects than their Nanoelectronics
equivalents: Nokia and Philips for example are not significant players in these FP7 Nanoelectronics
projects.
24
Benchmarking Major Nanoelectronics Supply Chain Player
Involvement with Automotive FP7 Projects – (b) Tier 1s
•
The top Nanoelectronics IDM participants and Automotive Tier 1s are involved in similar numbers of FP7
projects.
25
Benchmarking Major Nanoelectronics Supply Chain Player Involvement
with Automotive FP7 Projects – (c) Research Institutes
•
Top Research Institutes are more extensively engaged in FP7 activities for Nanoelectronics than
Automotive.
26
Comparison of Nanoelectronics and Automotive emerging
supply chains in EC R&D projects
• The higher level of involvement of OEMs and lower level of involvement of key
Research Institutes in the Automotive FP7 Programme compared to the
Nanoelectronics FP7 Programme is consistent with the higher automotive focus on
application projects driven by top-down OEM requirements.
• The Nanoelectronics FP7 projects are more driven by Research Institutes and IDMs.
• Concerns have been expressed by the EC and some major OEMs that the automotive supply chains
are too rigid and there are major barriers to increasing SME involvement and getting SME
innovations into OEM supply chains.
• There is a complex ‘long tail’ of niche companies involved in one or two FP7
Nanoelectronics projects, with key roles in some of the emerging supply chains being
formed.
− SMEs appear to be key players here, particularly in Design and Equipment, but the publicly
available data used in the study does not identify SMEs and therefore it was not possible to
analyse the effects of the programme on SMEs
− This gives an opportunity for FP7 to support value-adding Nanoelectronics collaborative links
between SMEs and other supply chain partners that is less evident in the automotive domain.
27
Comparison of SME funding instrument projects in
Automotive and Nanoelectronics (from 2007-2010)
Area of Activity
Total Number of
Projects
Automotive
Nanoelectronics
141
191
Capacities/ Research
for SME & SME
Association Projects
5
1
Eureka/
EUROSTARS
Projects
7
0
Total R&D Projects
for innovative SMEs
(No, % of total)
12 (9%)
1 (<1%)
• Significantly more automotive projects have been contracted using EU
funding instruments specifically aimed at innovative SMEs than for
Nanoelectronics.
• Are support measures for innovative Nanoelectronics SMEs sufficiently
covered by the main FP7 Cooperation Programme?
− There are a few Nanoelectronics Equipment projects that involve SMEs and
Research Institutes working together in partnership e.g. SEAL, but these are
collaborative R&D projects with SMEs performing R&D rather than having R&D
performed on their behalf (as in the Capacities/ Research for SMEs Programme).
28
Conclusions, Issues and Recommendations
The report:
• Summarises the conclusions and issues raised by the analysis for each part
of the supply chain:
− Product/system suppliers
− Sub-system providers (including EMS), Integrated Device Manufacturers (including
Fabless) and Foundries
− Design Houses and Design Tool Suppliers
− Processing and Metrology Equipment Manufacturers and Materials Suppliers
− Research institutes and Universities
• Suggests recommendations that follow from the analysis
29
Product/ system suppliers – Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
• Market-leading OEMs are involved in FP7 in line with the numbers of ‘Application’ projects
being funded, but there are surprising gaps, e.g. Nokia, Philips.
• The pull-through to market of know-how being developed in FP7, e.g. by Research Institutes,
relies on the linkage with the EUREKA/ENIAC Programmes. This is a problem as certain
Member States are only slightly or not at all represented.
− How can the output of FP7 projects be made available to other OEMs who do not currently participate?
Recommendations
1) The FP7 Nanoelectronics Programme should be integrated as closely as possible with
ENIAC and CATRENE
2) Consider mechanisms to provide funding for key participants from key MS with limited
involvement in ENIAC and/or CATRENE, e.g. ARM.
3) Simpler rules for participation should be considered such as a reduced number of partners
(2-3), which would reduce bureaucracy and allay fears of IP leakage in large consortia.
4) Consider specific programmes aimed at strategically important societal problems with 100%
funding and/or payment on deliverables (cf. ESA, DARPA).
30
Sub-system providers (including EMS), Integrated Device Manufacturers
(including Fabless) and Foundries – Conclusions and Issues to address
Conclusions
• Major Electronic Manufacturing Service (EMS) companies are not involved, although there are many
SMEs involved in PAT that are present in single projects only. Also, IDMs may be doing R&D on this
in-house.
• Major EU IDMs participate far less in FP7 than EUREKA/ENIAC Programmes – especially important
for More than Moore.
− STM and Infineon dominate participation, others are less visible.
• ‘Fabless’ design companies not visible – lack of major EU market players (not in world Top 10).
− One issue is lack of UK industry involvement (including fabless) in FP7 and Joint Programmes.
Recommendations
5) Consider specific Industry-only project calls for strategic topics.
6) Consider incentives used by the UK Technology Strategy Board (TSB), which could encourage
Industry involvement in FP7. For example:
- Limit Research Institutes to no more than 30% of project funding
- Disallow Research Institute participation without a national Industry partner.
7) Consider mandating use of EU manufacturing facilities or technology transfer to EU product suppliers.
8) Consider mandating particular types of participants (e.g. IDMs) in selected FP7 projects
31
Design Houses and Design Tool Suppliers – Conclusions
and Recommendations
Conclusions
• Major design companies low involvement in FP7 and EUREKA/ENIAC
Programmes reflects fragmented market and higher involvement of Electronic
Design Automation (EDA) SMEs. SME role is especially important here.
− How can the SMEs in this part of the supply chain, many of which
participate in only 1 or 2 FP7 projects over 3-4 years, be supported to have
a more sustainable presence?
Recommendations
9/10) Improve access of SMEs (e.g. EDA and PAT) to FP7 programmes by use
of SME-specific measures
32
Processing and Metrology Equipment Manufacturers and
Materials Suppliers - Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
• There are a low number of Equipment projects in the FP7-only programme so Equipment companies are
more involved in EUREKA/ENIAC Programmes.
- There may be equipment development embedded in ‘Integration’ focused projects.
• There is low consumption in EU and the large export market in US/ Asia is difficult for SMEs to access.
− How can SMEs be helped to develop innovative equipment solutions with a view to these being taken
up by fabs in the EU and beyond?
Recommendations
11) Consider developing a new instrument to support bilateral assessment between equipment suppliers and
users, building on the successful elements of the old Semiconductor Equipment Assessment (SEA)
initiative, to encourage manufacturing-driven innovations and links between researchers, SMEs and fabs.
‒ Cost is a significant barrier to implementing the same model as before, but there could be scope for a
more creative approach if cost sharing is approached more flexibly, e.g. focusing the support funding on
the prototype equipment
12) Develop joint international programmes with key export market areas such as US, Far East focused on
Equipment and take-up by end-users.
‒ For example, a joint EU-US SEA Initiative including US fabs based in EU, may encourage take-up and
potential export of EU equipment to their main fabs in US.
33
Research Institutes and Universities - Conclusions and
Recommendations
Conclusions
• Research Institutes are well engaged in FP7 but there are important Institutes,
e.g. UK universities, EFPL, etc that are far more involved in FP7 than the
EUREKA/ENIAC Programmes where major Industry players are more
involved.
Recommendations
13) The FP7 Nanoelectronics Programme should be integrated as closely as
possible with ENIAC and CATRENE (this is Recommendation 1).
34
Cross-supply chain Conclusions
Conclusions
• In FP7-only Nanoelectronics projects there are only a few examples with major players (e.g.
OEMs, IDMs, equipment suppliers) covering the complete supply chain.
• Major players need to access innovations developed by small companies and bring them rapidly
into their supply chains
• SME involvement is especially important for PAT, Design and Equipment but involvement in FP7
is through a large number of small companies participating in one or at most two projects. It is not
clear how well these companies are linked with the major IDMs and OEMs or supported by FP7.
• Nanoelectronics SMEs are not significantly involved in EU pan-thematic support measures
targeted at small companies, such as Research for SMEs or EUROSTARS
• There is only limited involvement of US-owned companies in EU programmes.
‒ Should this be increased. If so, how can jobs/ technology/ profits be kept in the EU?
‒ IP is an inhibiting issue from US company perspective.
• There is limited UK Industry involvement in FP7 and EUREKA/ENIAC Programmes. UK
Universities are involved, but there is therefore a lack of local Technology Transfer in EU
Programmes.
35
Cross-supply chain Recommendations
14) Consider mandating participants covering key parts of the supply chain. E.g. to
encourage major players, IDMs, OEMs, etc to collaborate across the supply chain
with, e.g. equipment, design, packaging suppliers?
15) Increase flexibility in existing collaborative projects to bring in new partners rapidly
and with minimum bureaucracy.
16)The Nanoelectronics programme should consider introducing specific SME support
measures, as implemented by other FP7 themes, e.g. NMP, Security and national
funding schemes, such as:
‒ SME topics mandating 50% of funding to SMEs and/or an SME Coordinator
‒ UK TSB ‘Grant for R&D’ scheme (Proof of Market/ Proof of Development) especially
useful for micro/small companies
‒ UK-like Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) calls providing 100% funding for small
consortia (1 or 2 partners) addressing societal problems, building on lessons from the US
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Programme
36
TSB Support for SMEs: Grants for R&D
37