innovation in power semiconductor industry: past and future

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 52, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005 429

Innovation in Power Semiconductor Industry:Past and Future

Natalia A. Moguilnaia, Konstantin V. Vershinin, Mark R. Sweet, Oana I. Spulber, Merlyne M. De Souza, andE. M. Sankara Narayanan, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Power microelectronics plays an important role inmany of the consumer and industrial applications today. Withincrease in demand for energy savings and efficient systems, therequirements for rapid advancement in MOS controlled powersemiconductor device concepts and technologies are becomingmore crucial than ever before. This puts a considerable pressureon industries to be innovative and competitive at the device,technology, manufacturing, and marketing levels. Today manu-facturing companies are faced with intensifying competition anda turbulent economic environment. To some extent technologyis seen as a means by which firms can strive to adapt to therequirements of this difficult and uncertain environment. On theother hand, rapid rates of technological change and associatedshorter product cycles are themselves part of the difficulty, as isthe increased blurring of long-established industrial boundaries(Kodama’s, 1985) process of “technological fusion.” The growingcomplexity and increased pace of industrial technological changeespecially in power microelectronics are forcing firms to forgenew alliances and to seek greater flexibility and efficiency inresponding to market changes. The aim of this paper is to explorethese aspects.

Index Terms—Innovation, power microelectronics industry, re-search and development, semiconductor devices, technology.

NOMENCLATURE

BiCMOS Bipolar complementary metal oxide semi-conductor.

BJT Bipolar junction transistor.CIGBT Clustered insulated gate bipolar transistor.CMOS Complementary metal oxide semiconductor.Cool MOS Trade mark.DMOS Double-diffused metal oxide semiconductor.EST Emitter switched thyristor.FiBS Five-layer BiMOS switch.GCT Gate commutated turnoff thyristor.GTO Gate turnoff thyristor.IC Integrated circuits.IGBT Insulated gate bipolar transistor.IPM Intelligent power modules.MCT MOS controlled thyristor.MOS Metal oxide semiconductor.MOSFET MOS field effect transistor.

Manuscript received May 1, 2003; revised January 1, 2005. Review ofthis manuscript was arranged by previous Department Editor A. S. Bean.This work was supported in part by the Engineering and Physical SciencesResearch Council (EPSRC) through the Intellect Scheme.

The authors are with Department of Strategy and Management and EmergingTechnologies Research Centre, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH,U.K. (e-mail: [email protected]).

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2005.856571

Fig. 1. World power semiconductor market.

PT and NPT Punch through and nonpunch through.SMEs Small to medium enterprises.SPM Smart power module.VSD Variable speed drive.

I. INTRODUCTION

THE WORLD market for power semiconductors has grownfrom $4.94 billion in 1996 to in excess of $11 billion

in 2001 (Fig. 1) and is expected to increase even furtherthrough emerging new applications [1]. Technological ad-vances together with a demand for MOS controlled powerdevices, which have reached the 6.5 kV barrier commerciallyand the 20 kV in SiC in academia, fuel this growth. Powersemiconductor devices belong to a separate segment of themass semiconductor application market, differing both inproduction technology and in end-user applications. Thesedevices are aimed to receive, process, and switch from a fewwatts to megawatts as efficiently and quickly as possible. Powersemiconductors are mostly sold directly from the manufacturerto the end user. Direct sales cover about 80% of the market andsales through distribution networks account for the remaining20%. Therefore, the power semiconductor industry, in contrastto the low-voltage integrated circuit sector with its handful ofmajor producers with mass output, has still room for SMEs thathave developed innovative products.

Rapid innovation in the power semiconductor industry isleading to new business models. The ways in which power

0018-9391/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE

430 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 52, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005

Fig. 2. Projected market for power devices [1].

devices are produced, distributed, and used are changing in pro-found ways. New product distribution methods are emerging.The competition at the market place is helping new deviceconcepts to be implemented in a rapid manner and it seems thata revolution is on the way.

II. POWER SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY

Power semiconductors are mainly sold as discrete devices(single) or modules (number of devices packaged within onemodule) in the market place. A module with some integratedfunction is termed integrated module. An integrated modulewith protection circuitry is called the SPM. Smart power modulediffers from the IPM mainly with respect to the additional intel-ligent circuits.

The projected worldwide market for some of the power com-ponents in discrete and module form is shown in Fig. 2. In com-parison to 1998, the diode products are expected to decreaseby more than 5% in real terms. Amongst MOS controlled de-vices, The IGBTs and MOSFETs are expected to continue to re-duce the market for BJTs, GTOs, and thyristors in both moduleand discrete form. At voltages below 600 V, the performanceof IGBTs are being advanced rapidly to higher frequencies (ashigh as 150 KHz) to encroach into the MOSFET market.

Of all power semiconductor segments, the highest rate ofgrowth is seen in the IGBT market—discrete IGBTs (about18%), SPM–26%, and IPM–19% [1]. The automotive andpower supply markets have driven short-term rapid growthof the IGBT market in the U.S. The North American IGBTmodule market (both standard and integrated types) is smallerthan the European market by around 70%. This is because thereare many more variable speed drive modules (main applicationfor IGBT modules) made in Europe than in the U.S. Japan/Asiais the largest market for IGBT modules and is around 50%larger than the European market. Japan has a massive VSDindustry (Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Toshiba, Yasakawa, etc.) andIGBT modules are also increasingly used in traction applica-tions (trains, trams, etc.) and nonindustrial applications such ashome appliances and hybrid electric vehicles.

The power supply and power management IC market has seena significant growth in the last few years. The market for powerICs was $2.8 billion in 1998 and increased considerably to over

$5.1 billion by the end of 2000 at the annual growth rate of35%. However, in 2001, the growth reduced to only 5%. De-spite this slump, in the following five years, the recovery is ex-pected with the market for power ICs of $7.5 billion by 2005. [2]From 1998 through 2001, the power microelectronics raced tonew highs in mergers and acquisitions. With emerging new ap-plications, new product introduction resulted in the companies’growth exceeding 100%. Typical applications include electronicdata processing, telecommunications and consumer electronics,industrial automation for power generation, conversion and am-plification, automotive and other heavy-duty industrial sectors,traditionally, the field of electromechanical components withanalog functions.

Two major characteristics of IGBTs (low-cost and high reli-able performance) drive their proliferation. In Fig. 3 is shownthe proliferation of the IGBT products in various applications.

Frost and Sullivan report that, though demand is expected toshow within a number of traditional discrete IGBT markets, theemergence of new application segments is expected to makeIGBTs a growing part of the power semiconductor industry.The automotive and power supply markets are expected to driveshort-term growth, while traditional markets such as motordrive and welding applications are forecast to lose marketshare [3]. The increasing competition is a reflection of threeimportant challenges facing the IGBT market participants: Theexpectation of new market entrants, increasing competitionbetween discrete and module IGBT products in mature markets,and growing competition among competing power devices suchas power MOSFETs. Greater product line restructuring anda more targeted emphasis on niche applications is expected,as market participants seek to create greater product differ-entiation between competing IGBT devices. Within Europe,Germany represents the largest national market, accounting for1/3 of power semiconductor demand (33.5%), almost twicethe demand of the second largest end-user market, the UnitedKingdom (17.8%).

The ability to rapidly commercialize power semiconductortechnology has become a matter of survival in many industries.It is well known that companies that are first to market withproducts based on advanced technologies are able to commandhigher margins and gain market share. The companies that spinout variants more rapidly and leverage core technologies across

MOGUILNAIA et al.: INNOVATION IN POWER SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY: PAST AND FUTURE 431

Fig. 3. Typical application range of IGBTs [1].

Fig. 4. Innovation age [4].

a wider market range earn higher returns. Therefore, the abilityto commercialize technology depends upon four factors: 1) timeto market; 2) use of the technology to generate products acrossa wider range of markets; 3) introduction of more products; and4) incorporation of a breadth of technologies.

Therefore, it is obvious that the driving force behind the suc-cess is the high innovation level. More than 70% of the totalbusiness is generated by products developed during the past fiveyears, as shown in Fig. 4.

The continuous commitment to invest heavily into researchand development ensures that this high rate of innovation willcontinue. As a result, the aim of the companies is to becomethe technological leader for several products. In order to satisfycustomers, they have to continue with a high innovation rate,while keeping the cost of manufacture as low as possible.

III. WHAT IS INNOVATION?

There are various definitions of “innovation” that appear inthe academic business literature. Joseph Schumpeter is often

thought of as the first economist to draw attention to the im-portance of innovation. He defined, in the 1930s, five types ofinnovation [5], [6].

• Introduction of a new product or a qualitative change inan existing product.

• Process innovation new to an industry.• The opening of a new market.• Development of new sources of supply for raw materials

or other outputs.• Changes in industrial organization.

Kondratieff’s theory on long waves [7], [41] postulated thatsince the first industrial revolution. Global economic growthhas followed a succession of approximately 55 year cycles orlong-waves driven by new knowledge or new technologies.

According to Schumpeter, most capitalist economies havegone through periods of major technological innovation whichchanged the course of social development and promoted dis-continuous rapid economic growth; the innovation process hasphases of “creative destruction,” the history of which is reflectedin the Kondratieff long waves.

The neo-Schumpeterian economist Christopher Freeman hasinsisted that technical change follows a determinable course:from incremental innovation to fundamental innovation, “tech-nical system” change, and technical economic paradigm change[8], [9]. The Freeman hypothesis is also known as the employ-ment theory of long waves.

Noncontinuous innovation is caused by investments inresearch and development; by the cumulative creation ofknowledge and information; by the exhaustion of the processof peripheral technical progress.

An innovative business is one which lives and breathes “out-side the box.” It is not just good ideas; it is a combination ofgood ideas, motivated staff, and an instinctive understanding ofwhat your customer wants’ [10].

Phillips distinguishes between technological innovation andnontechnological innovation (which includes novel marketingstrategies and changes to management techniques or organiza-tional structures) [11]. In Phillips’ analysis, the firm is defined


as technologically innovative if it introduced at least one or twosubstantially improved product or process in a three year pe-riod. Similarly, nontechnologically innovative firm was definedas having introduced one of the changes mentioned above.

Innovation, at the level of an individual firm, might be definedas the application of ideas that are new to the firm, whether thenew ideas are embodied in the products, processes, services, orin work organizations, management, or marketing systems [12].

For the purpose of this paper, the innovation is defined assomething that is new or significantly improved, done by anenterprise to create added value either directly for the enter-prise or indirectly for the customers. In this definition, innova-tion is regarded to “ADD VALUE,” and it can only occur if ithas been implemented or/and commercialized in some way. Thecreation of abstract knowledge, or the invention of new productsor processes, is not normally considered innovation until it hasbeen productively incorporated into the enterprise activity. Thismeans that innovation is not something that can occur separatefrom the firm’s core activities; rather it must involve the coordi-nation of various inventive, learning, and implementation skills.

More businesses are recognizing that competitive advantagecomes from knowledge and new ideas. That means companiesneed to develop and protect intellectual property as a mecha-nism for growth within their business. Businesses must investin the development of new products, seek out new markets anddevelop and exploit the potential of new partnerships if they areto survive and grow.

“Entrepreneurship and innovation are central to the creativeprocess in the economy and to promoting growth, increasingproductivity and creating jobs. Entrepreneurs sense opportuni-ties and take risks in the face of uncertainty to open new mar-kets, design products, and develop innovative processes. In theknowledge driven economy, this process is even more critical, insmall and large businesses alike. The pace of innovation meansthat competitive advantage has to be refreshed constantly. TheU.K. needs more risk takers who can rapidly turn ideas intoproducts and businesses” [13].

According to Saren, the process includes the following: ideageneration, screening, commercial evaluation, product develop-ment, test marketing, and commercialization. [14]. This leadsto the idea that innovation is a dynamic process and is contin-ually changing, as it has been stated: “By its very nature inno-vation tends to be chaotic [15] and no two innovations seem tofollow the same path from conceptualization to commercializa-tion—even within the same organization” [16].

“Continuous innovation occurs largely because a few key ex-ecutives have a broad vision of what their organizations can ac-complish for the world and lead their enterprises toward it. Theyappreciate the role of innovation in achieving their goals andconsciously manage their concerns, value systems, and atmo-spheres to support it” [17].

Innovation is the total process of developing a new conceptinto a new product or process which adds value to the business.This process needs to be managed through the recognition of themarket needs. Not being aware of the need for such continuitywill lead to wastage of scientific effort and to problems beingunresolved. Innovation is frequently considered to be triggeredby “technology push” or “market pull” (marketplace pull and

Fig. 5. Time scale for innovation.

technology push are terms that are used to describe whether aproduct was developed in response to a preconceived market-place need or the result of a technical breakthrough in a labora-tory). However, in isolation these two forces will not lead to in-novations. These two elements of the innovation equation mustmerge.

For innovation to be effective and successful, the businessoperations should accept the cost and effort of the whole in-novation process, of which R&D is only a part. This is the keypoint—if marketing and production resources will not be avail-able, in say three years time to exploit the results of a project,then that project should not be started. Conversely, agreeing theproject implies management commitment to exploit the resultsif it is technically successful. Such commitment leads to com-pany wide ownership of the innovation process.

Global competition continues to intensify and technolog-ical change remains at a high level; driven by environmentalconcerns and the opportunities afforded by Information Tech-nology. Companies have responded by restructuring in severalways: focusing on core activities and competencies, removinghierarchies, moving from functionally based to product ormarket-based structures, and forming alliances.

Many businesses also reduced their R&D and concentratedon the shorter term during the recession, although the need forproduct innovation for long-term survival is now being realizedagain. In response to customer demands and the need to guideand focus innovation, business processes are often restructuredto serve the customer directly with companies forming teamsthat reach from customer to researcher, encompassing all therequired skills both from within and outside the company [18].

The two types of innovation are differentiated on the basis ofcustomer and technology or product. The key difference is theabsence of customer pull for a truly new product or a previouslynonexistent market (radical innovation). Incremental innovationis seen as highly structured and certain (Fig. 5).

A. Incremental Innovation

In the main growth phase of a product-life cycle, the companypursues innovation in order to defend or strengthen market posi-tion by improvement of the existing product. This is achieved by


gradually modifying technology, improving perceived quality,or expanding the market. The changes involved must be intro-duced in a low risk, precisely managed process so as not to en-danger the company’s “cash cow” for future company growth.Setting up and cultivating relations with the relatively exten-sive customer base is usually the responsibility of the marketingand sales departments. Innovation in this environment meansreducing the separation between the marketing and sales andthe R&D departments (Fig. 5) by forming integrated technologyunits or forming project teams combining all the disciplines in-volved in producing a new product at an early stage. Customerneeds and technical opportunities can then be merged into anoptimum specification of the modified product, and tested bymarket research as early as possible [19].

It has been stated that: “ Incremental innovation reinforcesthe capabilities of established organizations, while radical inno-vation forces them to ask a new set of questions, draw on newtechnical and commercial skills, and to employ new problem-solving approaches” [20]–[22].

Therefore, it is very important to make the distinction be-tween radical and incremental innovation. Radical innovationsare those that can rephrase the technical and economic rules ofthe game [23]–[25]. They can also lead to new markets and evendevelop new industries. Incremental innovations are minor in-novations and they can have great competitive consequences inthe market [25]. It is known that most innovations are incre-mental and easier to manage in comparison to those describedas radical.

In this changing world that incremental innovation will be in-sufficient to sustain a competitive edge in the longer term. De-spite financial pressures, resources must be found to assess thetechnological threats and opportunities, and to develop radicalinnovations.

B. Radical Innovation

When business growth begins to level off, the company’s in-novation goal shifts to finding new areas of growth, introducingstep changes in technology for products in existing markets,and/or exploring totally new markets. Both changes lead to rad-ically new product concepts for the benefit of new and existingcustomers. However, a radical innovation often needs to be pro-tected from the influence of shorter term goals [26]. In con-trast to the incremental innovation processes, there is no ex-isting organizational structure for a radical innovation. It has tobe generated, e.g., by the “product champion,” accommodatingthe specific functions necessary for development of the idea intoa successful product. Radical ideas can come both from insideand outside the company. Very often, partners are needed forestablishing technical feasibility, distribution channels, etc.

Henderson and Clark define radical innovation as fulfillingtwo necessary conditions: an “overturned” core concept of theproduct, and major change in the linkage among the core com-ponents of the product [26]. Mansfield et al. focus on the com-petitive consequences of radical, as opposed to incremental, in-novation [27], [28]. Moore concentrates on how the product isused, and defines “discontinuous innovation” as products thatrequire us to change our current mode of behavior or to modifyother products and services we rely on“ [29].

The early identification of lead customers and direct contactsbetween them and the radical innovation team to test the proto-type, perhaps even to codevelop is vital for success. Customerparticipation is more difficult in consumer markets than withprofessional users.

Radical innovation is uncertain—and a risky business, takingthe company into uncharted waters. However, a greater riskis taken by neglecting it and letting the competition enter themarket with a radically new product [30]. Recent personalexposure of the CEO to key prospective customers is oftenessential in giving the executive sufficient “feel” to have confi-dence in decision making.

It is necessary to commit sufficient resources at an early stageto assess and make informed judgements about the implicationsof any radical innovation. Understanding the customer struc-ture is extremely important, in particular, when he is not thefinal customer/consumer. The lack of market pull and customerknowledge, may lead to a dangerous information gap, which cancause valuable innovations to be shelved unnecessarily, or con-versely, lead to over commitment based on ignorance and mis-understanding. Cooperation with companies/people outside theestablished customer base is essential.

The innovation team encompasses the basic functions ofR&D, manufacturing, marketing, and sales. The work pro-gresses in parallel in all four functions, and communicationacross the interface presents the same parallel characteristics.As the outline of the new business becomes more distinct,the emphasis of the communication moves from R&D via theother functions to sales. Basic players at the interface are themembers of the innovation team, the prospective customers,the competition and the authorities.

It is the product specification process that should generateclear mutual understanding about the optimum functionality,marketing mix, and other relevant elements of the technology-product-market combination [31]. It is an interactive process be-tween the originator of a product idea, the prospective users and,to a lesser extent, the other players. It takes place across the com-pany—customer interface.

All activities involve information flow between parties insideand outside the company. The integral result of the specifica-tion process is a business plan for a technology-product-marketcombination.

During the innovation process the information flow includes:competitor intelligence, market structure, proposed specifica-tion, customer views on need in terms of performance, price,quantity, and timing for such a new product, as well as the socialand regulatory frameworks and influences that affect the targetmarket. Customer interaction for radical innovation starts from amuch less defined position than for incremental innovation andgreater effort will be required to identify the customer. Oncean outline product/service specification has been produced, thiscan be “shown” to key customers and the feedback is used todetermine the likelihood of commercial success [31].

C. Future Trends

The impact of new technology, in particular rapid interna-tional communications and instant media coverage has been aconsiderable influence in bringing about changes, and the rate of


change is increasing [32]. The formation of national or multina-tional alliances of independent firms—“virtual firms”—for in-creased flexibility is likely to intensify. In addition to these novelpartnerships, traditional restructuring is carried out to positioncompanies for further growth, by acquisition, merger, joint ven-ture, and less frequently, split-up.

Enhanced awareness of the needs of the customer, andthe customer’s customer will help to assess the opportunitiesearlier, which is crucial given intensified competition and re-duced development time. These opportunities will increasinglyinvolve partners who are competitors, or supplier—customeralliances. Efficient and effective resource use will call forintegrated project planning, compression of time scales andsimultaneous, and/or reverse engineering. It might become acommon feature for R&D people to cross the line betweencompany and customer, temporary or permanently.

IV. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATION IN POWER

SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY

The next decade will see a revolution in the electronicsindustry in which the functionality of ICs grows beyond thetraditional role of processing and storing data and controllingelectrical functions. The intelligent microsystem revolution isthe next step in the evolution of the electronics industry and willbegin to allow complex systems-on-a-chip to directly interactwith their environment by sensing, actuating, and communi-cating without the need for external hardware. The electronicsindustry is already evolving toward increased functionality ona single chip. For instance, microprocessors and microcon-trollers have grown from multichip sets in some cases, dynamicmemory. Similarly, mixed signal (analog/digital) functions didnot appear in the marketplace until quite recently. The intelli-gent, integrated microsystem revolution will be the next leap infunctionality for the electronics industry. The emerging trendin power microelectronics is toward monolithic integration ofthe control electronics and the micromechanical elements.

The power semiconductor industry has changed signifi-cantly in the past decades (Fig. 6). Presently, thyristors, GTO,MOSFET, GCT, IGBT, and diodes are the principle compo-nents of any power systems available today. They representtwo major classes of devices: switches and rectifiers. The firstfour devices target a specific voltage range competing witheach other by means of expanding the current and voltagelimits, while diodes can still be used at any voltages and areclassed in terms of reverse recovery characteristics. With therevolutionary developments, MOSFETs and now IGBTs havecaptured most of these applications leaving little room now forthyristors and bipolar transistors to grow.

Currently there are several strategies employed toward in-novation by power semiconductor companies: innovation indevices (innovation in device concept, innovation in materialsusage, innovation of process and technologies and innovationin design of power electronics systems), and innovation at themarket place (licensing technologies, mergers/acquisitions,rapid commercialization, and sales marketing). All these areinterlinked and the advances in one area of innovation create

Fig. 6. Models of scientific and continuous evolution.

possibility and demand for new ideas in other fields. The modelwhich represents these links is illustrated in Fig. 7.

A. Innovation in Device Concept

1) Discrete Devices: In the last decade, no new concepts ofpower semiconductor devices were introduced to the market,leaving the research and manufacturers to perfect the featuresand characteristics of the existing devices.

The most foreseen innovation, which is set to appear in thenearest future, is the MOS gate controlled thyristor to reducethe on-state losses lower than that of the IGBTs. Several deviceshave been proposed to replace current IGBT structure (EST,MCT, FIBS, etc.), and they still remain of academic interestonly.

Most recently, a new device called CIGBT has been devel-oped. This structure has been demonstrated to show significantreduction of power losses in comparison to IGBTs [33]. Trialsare currently underway for evaluation of these devices underharsh conditions.

As soon as any of these devices could be proven to be manu-facturable and have superior qualities (Table I) to an equivalent


Fig. 7. Proposed innovation model.

TABLE IIGBT INNOVATIONS

IGBT, it is likely to capture a significant share of power semi-conductor market led by energy efficiency.

2) Modules: Both IGBT-based modules and MOSFET-based modules are increasingly being used in power electronicsystems at the expense of bipolar transistor-based modules. Themarket for press pack modules are set to grow at a high rate toreplace the standard high-voltage IGBT and GTO modules atthe high-power end applications such as the trains.

Significant developments are projected in the area of smartpower or intelligent power modules comprising of trenchIGBTs with hybrid control and protection circuits. The intelli-gent power module was first introduced by Mitsubishi and usedwith 600 and 1200 V trench IGBTs in their structures. Toshibaalso uses trench IGBTs within an IPM for traction market.More and more applications are benefiting from smart/intelli-gent power modules which are performing a power function,including internal fault management and/or diagnostics. IPMscan satisfy particular customer needs for higher frequencyoperation to provide a “noiseless” inverter, operating above theaudible range. For the manufacturer, the benefits are systemminiaturization (a good marketing aspect) and reduced time tomarket, simpler, less costly designs and improved reliabilityand value addition. For that fact, the smart and IPMs are signif-icantly more expensive than standard modules. Market research[1] identifies the continuing development of smart power as

one of the most significant trends in this market, with a growthrate exceeding 20%. In the Asian market, IPMs are predictedto account for more than 50% of the module market in the nearfuture. The integrated modules available today are based onhybrid approach and are available only up to 1.2 kV [1], [3].Advancement of core device technologies will increase growthtoward higher power/higher performance modules. Growth isalso expected toward, high-volume, low-power/multifunction-ality region, where the increased use of inverters is expected tobecome essential to satisfy the need for energy conservation.

a) Innovation in Intelligent Power Chip: If it were pos-sible to integrate the protection functions at the chip level ratherthan through the hybrid approach used until today, it would bepossible to achieve “smartness” even in standard modules. Thebenefits of such intelligent power chips are shown in Fig. 8. Asthe CIGBT technology is fully compatible to both CMOS andDMOS technologies, and because of its unique self-clampingfeature, it is now possible to achieve IPCs at a cost similar tothat of the power device. Such IPCs can integrate over current,over voltage, and over temperature functions at the chip level,to enhance the reliability even further.

B. Innovation of Process and Technologies

Technology innovation follows conceptualization of devices.The typical example of this is the Cool MOS™ device. Theinnovation in process—multi-epitaxy has helped to realize theCool MOS concept.

The advances in trench silicon etch process have influencedthe way most of the existing MOS gate controlled devices arefabricated. They utilize trench gate structures, which has beenproven to be more area efficient in comparison to planar gate de-vices and achieve a much improved resistance. However, devel-opment of deep trench devices involves high technology costs,due to the requirements of uniform control in the trench param-eters in a wide area.

Advances in silicon material growth have resulted in in-creased wafer size up to 300 mm. Larger wafers provide lowerunit costs. Transition from 200 to 300 mm has (theoretical)

area increase and investments increase . Upgradeto larger wafer size equipment is only feasible when whole in-frastructure (equipment, wafers, and automation) is sufficientlymature. Wafer size transitions have historically taken 8–9 years,as can be seen on Fig. 9.

Advances in wafer handling capabilities have made it pos-sible to use thinner wafers. Traditionally, there were only twoconcepts of drift-region technology: punch through and non-punch through technology. First, one is characterized by rela-tively thin drift region and highly doped buffer epitaxially grownon to a thick low resistivity wafer, lifetime control is also associ-ated with this technique. Many industries use PT technology toproduce IGBTs in 300–1200 V voltage ranges, where thin waferprocess technology is still not feasible.

Second type—non-punch through—is characterized by thickdrift region and no buffer and no lifetime control. With the thick-ness reduction down to 250–300 m IGBTs expanded its marketshare toward high voltages utilizing nonpunch through tech-nology. 1.7, 2.5, and 3.3 kV are now well-established ratingsof high-voltage IGBTs now. As a next step, an idea of the field


Fig. 8. Intelligent power chip.

Fig. 9. Relationship between die cost and wafer size [3].

stop IGBT emerged from combining the best features of the PTand NPT technology. These devices utilize thin drift region lowbuffer and low-efficiency emitter improving IGBT characteris-tics even further. These technologies are expected to make inroads in all voltage ratings in the near future.

Progress in the lithography and development of theself-aligned processes results in further miniaturization ofcell dimension. This is a significant achievement in terms ofsavings the cost of production and it proves the concept ofeconomies of scale (Fig. 9).

C. Innovation in Materials Usage

Silicon is a mainstream material used in power semiconductorproduction process with low cost and used for all device types.Many companies are exploring the possibilities of using com-pound semiconductors for specific devices due to their charac-teristics, as shown in Table II.

GaAs is a key semiconductor material for high-frequency,low-voltage (mobile communications radio section, data com-munications), and photonic (laser diodes, photodetectors) ap-plications. These materials are also used in Schottky diodes upto 200 V for power factor correction applications.

SiGe is a composite material between silicon and GaAs. It hasthe following features: high-frequency, low-power operation. Amajor benefit of this technology is its compatibility with tradi-tional silicon processing (BiCMOS).

The most promising material for diode applications is SiC.Recent research success made it possible to forecast that most

of the high-voltage diodes will be based on SiC in the next fiveyears. In comparison, materials such as GaN, InN, InP, GaAlAs,and diamond are also expected to play ever increasing role inpower microelectronics in the next 10–20 years.

D. Innovation in Design of Power Electronics System as aWhole

New ideas have been developed in the last decade, whichallow for usage of different topologies in power switching sys-tems such as zero voltage, zero current switching. Due to thisdevelopment new requirements toward the IGBT have arisen.Progress in devices toward improving ruggedness facilitates lifeof system design engineers allowing them to omit some protec-tion circuitry such as snubbers to simplify the overall circuit de-sign, cost, and size.

V. COMPETITION

Most innovations were initially introduced by the larger,well-established firms. However, new entrants were mainlyresponsible for diffusion of the innovations. But why were thenew firms relatively underrepresented in terms of invention?One reason is that the founders of many of the startup firms“brought their technology with them” when they left theirprevious employers. Their entrepreneurial efforts left them withlittle time and fewer resources for R&D. Several firms—TexasInstruments, Motorola, and Fairchild—did, however, emerge asleaders in both market share and in research [35].


TABLE IICHARACTERISTICS OF MATERIALS [3]

The power semiconductor industry is one of the most cap-ital-and research- intensive of all manufacturing industries withvery high capital barriers to entry. As an increased number ofIGBT suppliers and other discrete and module manufacturerstarget similar end-user markets, the need for product differen-tiation becomes even more crucial [3]. “Long-run growth re-quires either a steady geographical expansion of the market areaor the continuous innovation of new products. In the long run,only product innovation can avoid the constraint imposed by thesize of the world market for a given product” [36]. According toFig. 7, the innovation concept on the market can be developedthrough the ways firms compete through time-to-market, foun-dation of partnerships, through marketing and sales, customerrelationships, and supply-chain management.

Today’s global economy is genuinely borderless. Informa-tion, capital, and innovation flow all over the world at top speed,enabled by technology and fueled by consumers’ desires for ac-cess to the best and least expensive products [37].

Global competition is no longer a trend but a reality. Today,global competition can rarely be dealt with simply through ex-ports or with freestanding foreign subsidiaries [38]. The mul-tiplicity of participants can be considered to be in competitivegroupings, such as the following [39].

Large firms with broad portfolios, highly focused onpower supply and power management ICS (LinearTechnology and Maxim).Well-established, broad-line semiconductor firms such asAnalog Devices, Infenion, National, ON Semiconductor,Philips, STMicroelectronics, Texas Instruments, andInternational Rectifiers.Firms based in the Far East, many of which have con-centrated on consumer electronics applications (e.g.,Fujitsu, Toshiba, Mitsumi, Mitsubishi, NJR, Rikoh,Rohm, Sanken, Seiko, Sharp, and Toko);.Medium-sized suppliers which typically specializein a particular application, product area, or verticalmarket such as Dallas, Fairchild, Intersil, Microsemi,Micrel, Microlinear, Power Intergrations, Semtech,Sipex, Supertex, Telcom, ABB, and Vishay/Siliconix.Small niche firms, startups, and new entrants suchas Alpha, Elantec, IPM, Impala, O2 Micro, Semelab,Powersmart, and Unisem.

Firms which are able to establish a presence in the highlycompetitive market for power semiconductors, procure a pieceof a very big pie. Due to the increasing market size of the powersemiconductor market, tactical and strategic manoeuvres, whichenlarge a firm’s market share will, therefore, accelerate theirgrowth.

Because of their size, SMEs are well positioned to make dy-namic changes necessary to achieve superior commercializationprocess; however, many fail or unable to do so, mainly becauseof cash flow problems usually persistent in SMEs as technologyis increasingly expensive today.

Recent mergers and acquisitions just prove the point of glob-alization of businesses and battles for bigger pieces of the powersemiconductor market. In additional to market share as one ofthe major reasons for acquisition the companies are looking intothe ability to innovate in terms of the research in new devices,processes, and applications.

The types of deals that exist between customers and suppliersvary quite considerably because there are many ways companiesoperate to try to ensure the best possible bargain. Customersoften use a number of suppliers and try to “tradeoff” betweenthem to get the best possible starting point. Fortunately, bothparties can benefit from good relationships.

VI. CONCLUSION

In this paper, we set up the background to innovation pro-cesses and introduce theories of innovations. We have also at-tempted to explore some of the innovations in the power semi-conductor industry and conceptualize the competition in themarket place. The power semiconductor industry is price sen-sitive. Incremental increase in performance through innovationat high manufacturing cost will not aid the industry. However,innovation is key for the growth of power semiconductor in-dustry and innovation in devices/technologies/modules shouldbe aligned to manufacture right from the conceptual stage. Ifnot, however innovative the idea can be, it might be of verylittle use.

It has been suggested in the theoretical part of this paper thatthe incremental innovation is the safer way to grow within thepower semiconductor industry, although the radical innovationbeing very risky gives a higher competitive advantage, hence,the opportunity to become a leader in the field.


The current economic downturn has not helped the powersemiconductor industry in 2000–2002. However, it is expectedthat the economic slow down will perhaps result in reduced pricedecreases in power semiconductor market.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank Semelab plc for their supportin this work.

REFERENCES

[1] Intex Management Services Report, The European, North American andJapanese and Asia Pacific Market for Power Semiconductors, 2000.

[2] N. Andrews, Ed., “Venture Development Corporation Supplement,” inThe World of Power Management ICs: POWER: CMP Media’s Elec-tronics Publications, 2001.

[3] Frost and Sillivan, Market engineering consulting report, 2000.[4] EUPEC. (2001) Power the future R&D innovation is a decisive factor.

[Online]. Available: http://www.eupec.com/ie-sea.html[5] Technological Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2000. OECD-

TIP.[6] Technological Innovation and Sustainable Development, 1999. OECD,

Boosting Innovation, the Cluster Approach.[7] R. Ayres, “Technological transformations and long waves,” Technol.

Forecasting Social Change, pt. I, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–37, Mar. 1990.[8] C. Freeman, “Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues,”

Res. Policy, vol. 20, pp. 499–514, 1991.[9] J. M. Utterback and W. J. Abernathy, “A dynamic model of process

and product innovation in Freeman C.,” in The Economics of Innova-tion. Aldershot, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1990.

[10] R. Branson, , 1998. DTI Innovation lecture.[11] R. Phillips, “Innovation and firm performance in Australian manufac-

turing,” Industry Commission, Staff Res. Paper, Canberra, Australia,1997.

[12] M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, andM. Trow, The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Scienceand Research in Contemporary Societies. London, U.K.: Sage, 1994.

[13] DTI, Competitiveness White Paper, 1998.[14] M. A. Saren, “A classification and review of models of the intra-firm

innovation process,” R&D Manage., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 11–24, 1984.[15] W. Quinn, “Managing innovation: Controlled chaos,” Harvard Bus. Rev.,

vol. 73, no. 80, May–June 1985.[16] R. M. Kanter, The Change Masters: Innovations for Productivity in the

American Corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983, p. 432.[17] J. B. Quinn, The Change Masters: Innovations for Productivity in the

American Corporation. New York: Pergamon, 1986, p. 170.[18] P. Patel and K. Pavitt, Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and

Technological Change (in P. Stonema, Patterns of Technological Ac-tivity: Their Measurement and Interpretation). Oxford, U.K.: Black-well, 1995, pp. 14–51.

[19] A. Ali, “Pioneering versus incremental innovation: Review and researchpropositions,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 11, pp.46–61, 1994.

[20] J. Hage, Theories of Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1980.[21] J. Ettlie, W. Bridges, and R. O’Keefe, “Organization strategy and struc-

tural differences for radical versus incremental innovation,” Manage.Sci., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 682–695, June 1984.

[22] M. Tushman and P. Anderson, “Technological discontinuities and or-ganizational environments,” Admin. Sci. Quart., vol. 31, pp. 439–465,1986.

[23] J. M. Utterback, Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press, 1994.

[24] J. M. Utterback, “The process of innovation: A study of the originationand development of ideas for new scientific instruments,” IEEE Trans.Eng. Manage., vol. EM-18, no. 4, pp. 124–131, Nov. 1971.

[25] R. Henderson and K. Clark, “Architectural innovation: The reconfig-uration of existing product technologies and the failure of establishedfirms,” Admin. Sci. Quart., vol. 35, pp. 9–30, 1990.

[26] R. D. Dewar and J. E. Dutton, “The adoption of radical and incrementalchanges: An empirical analysis,” Manage. Sci., vol. 32, no. 11, pp.1422–1433, Nov. 1986.

[27] E. Mansfield, Industrial Research and Technological Innovation: AnEconometric Analysis. New York: Norton, 1968.

[28] R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of EconomicChange. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1982.

[29] G. Moore, rossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Technology Prod-ucts to Mainstream Customers. New York: Harper Business, 1991.

[30] K. Smith, Systems Approaches to Innovation: Some Policy Is-sues. Oslo, Norway: STEP-Group, 1996.

[31] P. Senge and G. Carstedt, “Innovating our way to the next industrialrevolution,” IEEE Eng. Manage. Rev., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 76–89, 2001.

[32] R. K. Chandy and G. J. Tellis, “Organizing for radical product innova-tion: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize.,” J. Market. Res.,vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 474–487, Nov. 1998.

[33] K. V. Vershinin et al., “A novel, ultra-high performance 2.4 Kv clus-tered insulated gate bipolar transistor,” in Proc. Power Syst.s World 2001Conf., 2001, pp. 243–248. PE5 High Power Semiconductors.

[34] B. Lynch, Semiconductor Industry Technology Tutorial. Munich, Ger-many: SEMInvest, 2001.

[35] V. W. Ruttan, Technology, Growth, and Development. An Induced Inno-vation Perspective. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001.

[36] M. Casson, The Growth of International Business. London, U.K.:Allen and Unwin, 1983.

[37] K. Ohmae, The End of National State: The Rise of RegionalEconomies. New York: Free Press, 1995.

[38] D. Bowman and H. Gatignon, “Determinants of competitor responsetime to a new product introduction.,” J. Market. Res., vol. XXXII, pp.42–53, Feb. 1995.

[39] Venture Development Corporation (VDC), “The global market forpower supply and power management integrated circuits,” Rep., PowerSection, 2000.

[40] D. Berry, D. Towill, and N. Wadsley, “Supply chain management in elec-tronics products industry,” Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logistics Manage., vol.24, no. 10, pp. 20–32, 1994.

[41] R. Ayres, “Technological transformations and long waves,” Technol.Forecasting Soc. Change, pt. II, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 111–137, Apr. 1990.

Natalia A. Moguilnaia was born in St. Petersburg,Russia, in 1975. She received the D.Eng. degree(with distinction) in management and foreign eco-nomic relations from St. Petersburg State Universityof Technology and Design, St. Petersburg, Russia,in 1997, the M.B.A. degree (with distinction) fromLeicester Business School, Leicester, U.K., and thePh.D. in strategic management from De MontfortUniversity (DMU), Leicester, in 2005.

She has worked as a Research Fellow at EmergingTechnologies Research Centre, DMU (2001–2003),

and now lectures in Strategic Management within the Leicester Business School.She is also a Reviewer for the Academy of Management Conference (BusinessPolicy and Strategy Division). Her research focuses on issues of growth andcultural adaptations in mergers and acquisitions, implementation of technologystrategy in technology intensive organizations, and managing technological in-novations in a number of industrial sectors.

Konstantin V. Vershinin was born in Obninsk,Russia, in 1975. He received the B.Sc. and M.Sc.degrees (with distinction) in applied physics andmathematics from the Moscow Institute of Physicsand Technology, Moscow, Russia, in 1996 and 1998,respectively. He is currently working towards thePh.D. degree at De Montfort University (DMU),Leicester, U.K.

Since October 2001, he has been working as a Re-search Fellow at Emerging Technologies ResearchCentre, DMU, on the development of the novel

power semiconductor devices and technologies.


Mark R. Sweet was born in Newmarket, U.K., in1974. He received the B.Sc. degree in electronicsengineering and the Ph.D. degree in high-voltagemicroelectronics from De Montfort Univer-sity, Leicester (DMU), U.K., in 1998 and 2004,respectively.

In 2001, he joined the Emerging TechnologiesResearch Centre, DMU, as a Research Fellowworking in the field of vertical power semicon-ductor devices. His current research interests arehigh-voltage power semiconductor device technolo-

gies, power microelectronics, and test/characterization techniques.

Oana I. Spulber received the B.Eng. degree inelectrical engineering and computer science fromthe Politehnica University of Bucharest, Bucharest,Romania, in 1998 and the Ph.D. in microelectronicsfrom De Montfort University (DMU), Leicester,U.K., in 2003.

She is currently a Research Fellow at EmergingTechnologies Research Centre, DMU, where she isworking in the development of high-voltage MOS-gated devices.

Dr. Spulber is a member of the Institute ofElectrical Engineers.

Merlyne M. De Souza was born in India, in 1964.She received the B.Sc. degree in physics and math-ematics from the University of Bombay, Bombay,India, in 1985, the B.E. degree in electronicsand communications engineering from the IndianInstitute of Science, Bangalore, in 1988, and thePh.D. degree from the University of Cambridge,Cambridge, U.K., in 1994.

She is one of the founding members ofthe Emerging Technologies Research Centre,De Montfort University (DMU), Leicester, U.K.,

and holds a Chair in Electronics and Materials since 2003. She has authored/coauthored 120 articles in journals and conferences. She has served on theTechnical Program Committee of International Reliability Physics Symposium(IRPS) and serves on the Editorial Board of Microelectronics Reliability. Hermain research interests include ultrashallow junctions, reliability, functionalmaterials, high-k gate dielectrics, RF power and power semiconductor devicesand technologies.

E. M. Sankara Narayanan (M’87–SM’00) wasborn in India, in 1962. He received the B.Sc. andM.Sc. degrees from the PSG College of Technology,Coimbatore, India, the M.Tech. degree from theIndian Institute of Science, Bangalore, and thePh.D. degree from the University of Cambridge,Cambridge, U.K.

He was a Maudslay Engineering ResearchFellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and aResearch Associate with the Engineering Depart-ment, Cambridge University, from 1992 and 1994.

He has held his present position as Head of Emerging Technologies ResearchCentre, De Montfort University (DMU), Leicester, U.K., since 1994 andbecame a Professor of Microelectronics in 1998. He has published 165 articles.He has five patents (approved/pending approval). His main research interestsare presently integrated and discrete power devices and technologies. His otherinterests include functional materials, thin-film transistors, RF technologies,and technology strategies in microelectronics.

Prof. Sankara Narayanan is a member of the Technical Program Commit-tees of the International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs(ISPSD), and the International Seminar on Power Semiconductors (ISPS), andother international conferences.

innovation in power semiconductor industry: past and future

Documents