A national centre For System-on-Chip
design
8.32 Computing in all its forms is already of
overwhelming importance. As new applications come on stream (by
exploiting present technologies, let alone the projected improvements),
its significance can only increase. The United Kingdom has, through
the design and architecture industry that has emerged comparatively
unnoticed from a number of uncoordinated sources, a significant
stake in the global industry. We see it as essential to underpin
the currently fragmented industry with a clear and dedicated research
infrastructure. So that UK strengths in computer design and
architecture can be maintained and developed within the global
market, we therefore recommend that the DTI and EPSRC should urgently
establish a single national research institute for System-on-Chip
design.
8.33 The Royal Academy of Engineering helpfully
produced an outline proposal for such an institute in its supplementary
memorandum (p 110). We were pleased to note that, when we
discussed this matter with the Minister, he indicated (Q 469)
that EPSRC was indeed looking into such a centre in order to concentrate
UK resources into a place where critical mass could be achieved.
8.34 To minimise possible turf wars, any new
national centre for these purposes would need to be located off
any existing university campus but, to assist in gaining critical
mass, perhaps near one of our major national laboratories. Its
site would need to have room for a spin-off park, and have good
physical communications. It should look to funding from the Research
Councils, Regional Development Agencies and EU programmes. It
would also be important for industry to be strongly involved in
both the setting up and operation of the proposed centre, where
the aim should be to establish a new style of institution, learning
lessons from the difficulties that have been experienced in previous
initiatives.
8.35 For the centre to succeed, it will need
to establish and retain a good body of experienced researchers.
This has been a particular difficulty for university groups because
of the fixed-term contracts commonly used to provide a means of
matching expenditure commitment to income. The centre should be
able to offer longer-term employment opportunities thereby avoiding
these problems and ensuring the continuity of knowledge and experience
that it will need.
8.36 The purposes of such a centre should be
to:
(a) do development work;
(b) train students;
(c) co-ordinate university research;
(d) co-ordinate EU applications; and
(e) take on contract research and development
for industry.
8.37 We would also see advantage in setting up
this institute with a strong application focus. This would require,
as desirable, the institute to be of an interdisciplinary nature.
It should draw on academic research for the fundamental insights
required to develop useful prototypes, and industry should take
those prototypes through to production. Care would, of course,
need to be taken in selecting an appropriate focus. Possibilities
we advance for consideration are ambient computing (a focus of
the next EU programme see paragraph 7.29) or, as Sir Robin
Saxby noted (Q 357), biomedical systems which would mesh
in well with other UK strengths.
8.38 There is some overlap between our proposal
and the Institute for System Level Integration (ISLI) based in
Livingston, near Edinburgh. Opened in 1998, this has, as noted
by Scottish Enterprise (p 227), a mission to "support
the growth of systems design, SLI, SoC and related activities
with world-class research, education and training programmes."
It is a joint venture of the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Strathclyde and Heriot-Watt and forms an integral part of Scotland's
Alba Centre. Again as indicated by Scottish Enterprise, this "has
at its heart the mission to develop Scotland as a leading world
centre in microelectronic product design and technology."
8.39 However, we see our proposal as distinctively
different. Rather than a university-based enterprise, it would
be a free-standing centre with both direction and significant
funding from industry. Moreover, it would have a significant core
of full-time professional staff with terms of employment commensurate
with its industrial standing. Above all, it would have an explicitly
UK-wide reach.
A national programme
8.40 It is clear that there needs to be a better
bridge between academic design and architecture research and the
industry. Our proposed national centre would provide a clear physical
focus for increased and more coherent activity in design and architecture.
Inevitably, it will take a little time to get off the ground.
We recommend that the DTI and EPSRC establish a national programme
for design and architecture, along the lines of the e-Science
initiative, for the three-fold purpose of providing an earlier
focus for research and development in design and architecture;
wider support for the institute when established; and a framework
for potentially useful activities not central to the particular
focus selected for the institute.
8.41 To facilitate the early establishment of
this national programme and ensure its continuing relevance, it
should be developed from and round the nodes of other relevant
activity. These might include existing research establishments,
DTI's new nanotechnology centres (as noted in paragraph 8.10)
and other relevant initiatives perhaps particularly those
emerging from Regional Development Agencies[85].
The opportunities such nodes should provide for bringing together
research, academic, industry and finance interests should also
assist the development of clusters to help generate greater critical
mass for developing the market, as discussed further in Chapter
10.
Short-termism
8.42 It is important that any plans to develop
research should, as discussed in paragraph 7.34, recognise the
long-term nature of any such activity. Many past initiatives have
had unrealistic expectations of early returns on the invested
funding. For example, the 1980s Alvey programme[86]
was perceived as largely unsuccessful immediately after its termination.
However, as Professor O'Reilly noted (QQ 71-73), there is
now a much more positive view of the benefits the programme brought,
ten years after its conclusion.
8.43 There are numerous examples that demonstrate
that, despite the reputation of the microelectronics industry
for very rapid product cycles and its emphasis on short time-to-market,
fundamental research frequently takes twenty years or more to
reach fruition. A case in point is the ARM processor. This was
designed in the early 1980s, but its commercial success was not
widely apparent until quite recently. We therefore recommend
that the DTI and EPSRC should explicitly recognise that any new
funding initiative in this area would require sustained long-term
commitment.
Summary
8.44 By way of summary, we can do no better than
to quote the closing paragraph of the memorandum by the IEE (p 45).
"The United Kingdom is in a fortunate position
of being a significant player in certain areas of microprocessor
design. It also has a small but important cadre of world-class
academic researchers. Current research funding is arguably targeted
more at devices than design and would benefit from a closer alignment
with UK industrial capability. However, the will is there to create
a coherent and competitive academic research capability to support
a flourishing UK industry. Better co-ordination and a targeted
programme of support to ensure adequate manpower and research
capability will help ensure that in the next 25 years the United
Kingdom maintains and extends its dominance in embedded and application-specific
microprocessor design. This is a significant field and we are
significant players."
71 Of which Professor Enderby is the Physical Secretary. Back
72
See Exitech's memorandum on p 194. Back
73
New Dimensions for Manufacturing - a UK strategy for nanotechnology,
DTI, June 2002, URN 02/1034. Back
74
DTI Press Notice P/2002/479, 23 July 2002. Back
75
See www.foresight.gov.uk Back
76
www.nwda.co.uk - follow links to "Business Development"
and "Innovation", or search for "nmpc". Back
77
Microsystems here are combinations of micron-sized sensors or
actuators with electronic functions manufactured on a single chip. Back
78
A derivative of the Inmos transputer, see paragraph 7.4. Back
79
See also the written evidence from the founder of Amphion, Professor
McCanny (p 203). Back
80
Semantics relates to giving a computer language (for either hardware
or software definition) a rigorous mathematical interpretation
and using this to reason about the function of a program. Back
81
Edited by Fred Schneider and Mike Rodd, published by the IEE in
November 2001. Back
82
See, for example, the comments in the memorandum by the Royal
Society of Edinburgh on UK strengths in parallel processing and
computing "mavericks" (p 226). Back
83
See the Appendix to Annex 2 in the supplementary memorandum from
the DTI on p 14. Back
84
See Appendix 7 for a note of our visit to IMEC. Back
85
Such as the Microsystems Packaging Centre noted in paragraph 8.12. Back
86
See Evaluation of the Alvey Programme for Advanced Information
Technology, HMSO 1991. Back