Skip to main content

Semiconductor Research Corporation: A Case Study in Cooperative Innovation Partnerships

Minerva volume 52, pages 237–261 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

In the study of innovation institutions, it is important to consider how different institutional models can affect a research organization in conducting or funding successful work. As an industry collaborative, Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) provides an example of a privately funded institution that leverages the inputs of several member companies, along with federal funding, to accomplish innovation in its mission area. SRC has several component programs, all attempting to find innovative solutions to semiconductor problems, but on different time scales, and in different technology areas. But how does SRC use its resources to ensure these goals? Through data gathered from semi-structured qualitative interviews and SRC documentation, this paper addresses that question. SRC has found a way to leverage industry money to motivate and develop a robust field of university research for over 30 years. SRC uses several mechanisms for maintaining an application focused, member-centered decision process, institutional flexibility, and strong ties between industry contributors and university researchers. SRC has continued to keep its members satisfied by training thousands of graduate students for employment in their member companies, by focusing on precompetitive research that addresses industry requirements, and doing so in a manner that operates leanly, with low overhead to its funders. Given these successes, we identify aspects of SRC operations, such as a focus on its member company needs, frequent interactions between funders and researchers, flexible funding mechanisms, and focus on workforce development, that may be diffusible to innovation institutions, including federal research efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Dynamic Random-Access Memory, which supplies memory to electronic devices.

  2. http://www.src.org/about/mission/ accessed 07/11.

  3. http://www.src.org/program/grc/about/mission/ accessed 07/11.

  4. http://www.src.org/program/fcrp/about/mission/ Accessed on 7/11.

  5. http://www.src.org/program/eri/about/mission/ Accessed on 7/11.

  6. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: http://www.uspto.gov/about/nmti/recipients/2005.jsp accessed 11/10.

  7. The types of leveraged funding are: “directed”—funds from a non-industry sponsor are transferred to and managed by SRC; “collaborative”—funding by a third party, usually a government funding agency, that is invested jointly with SRC but that is transferred directly to the university; and “influenced”—funding by a third party that is invested in SRC-relevant research based on input from SRC.

  8. http://www.src.org/program/eri/about/mission/.

  9. http://www.itrs.net/about.html last accessed on 07/11.

References

  • Apte, Pushkar, and George Scalise. 2009. The recession’s silver lining. IEEE Spectrum 46(10): 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Barry. 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy 29: 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger R. M. 2000. Cooperative research: The new paradigm, semiconductor research corporation. (pp. 1–69). Unpublished manuscript.

  • Economist. 1980. Fighting off the Japanese. The Economist 79–80.

  • Etzkowitz, Henry. 1984. Solar versus nuclear energy: Autonomous or dependent technology? Social Problems 31(4): 417–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry, and Richard N. Spivack. 2001. Information infrastructure for healthcare: An evaluation of a government-industry technology development initiative. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 13(4): 507–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Erica R. H. 2009. Cloning DARPA successfully. Issues in Science and Technology 26(1): 65–70.

  • Laird, Frank N. 2001. Solar energy, technology policy, and institutional values. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Logar, Nathaniel. 2009. Towards a culture of application: Science and decision making at the national institute of standards & technology. Minerva 47: 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PCAST. 2010. Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy. Washington, D.C.: President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Herbert J., and Irene S. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • SRC. 2009. The Energy Research Corporation. Durham, North Carolina: Semiconductor Research Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurgood, Lori, Mary J. Golladay, and Susan T. Hill. 2006. U.S. Doctorates in the 20th Century. Washington D.C.: National Science Foundation.

  • Tyson Laura D. ed. 1992. Who’s Bashing Whom? Trade Conflict in High-Technology Industries. Washington D.C.: Institute for International Economics.

  • Zeng, Kejun, and Tu King-Ning. 2002. Six cases of reliability study of pb-free solder joints in electronic packaging technology. Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports 38(2): 55–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Doris Duke Charitable Trust for making this research possible. Additionally, the project would not have been possible without the willing participation and access granted by SRC staff, industry members, SRC-funded researchers, and alumni. Also, thank you to Patricia McLaughlin for review and editing help on this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Nathaniel Logar, Laura Diaz Anadon & Venkatesh Narayanamurti

Authors
  1. Nathaniel Logar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Diaz Anadon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Venkatesh Narayanamurti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathaniel Logar.

Appendix: List of Interviewees

Appendix: List of Interviewees

Larry Sumney, SRC President and CEO

Steven J. Hillenius, SRC Executive Vice-President

Celia Merzbacher, SRC Vice President, Innovative Partnerships

Elizabeth Weitzman, SRC Executive Vice-President and Executive Director, FCRP

Jeffrey Walser, NRI Director

Ralph Cavin, SRC Chief Scientist

James Hutchby, SRC Senior Scientist

Daniel Herr, SRC Director, Nanomanufacturing Science

William Joyner, SRC Director, Computer Aided Design and Test

Robert Esterveldt, Harvard University, Professor of Physics

Charles Sodini, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor of Electrical Engineering

Walden Rhines - Mentor Graphics, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

Wilbert Van den Howk – Novellus, Former Executive Vice President and Technology Officer

Allen Bowling, TI, Fellow and Manager of Research & Consortia, Analog Technology Development

Sandy Aivolotis, Nexans, Senior Vice President, Operations, Technology and Business Development

David Kyser, Applied Materials, Senior Director

Derek Martin, Agilent Technologies, Digital ASIC Operating Manager

David Newmark, Advanced Micro Designs, Design Fellow

Paul Besser, GLOBALFOUNDRIES, Fellow

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Logar, N., Anadon, L.D. & Narayanamurti, V. Semiconductor Research Corporation: A Case Study in Cooperative Innovation Partnerships. Minerva 52, 237–261 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9253-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9253-2

Keywords

  • Technology policy
  • Innovation
  • Energy
  • Semiconductors
  • Institutions