2.3 Problem Analysis



next up previous contents index
Next: 2.3.1 Human Aspects of Up: 2 The Application-Framework Architecture Previous: Overall Architecture and

2.3 Problem Analysis

The general view of the TCAD scenario depicted so far is still overly optimistic. There are many (often trivial) problems which preclude the application of Technology CAD in a creative manner. Several different process simulation tools are required to simulate a whole modern fabrication process, each traditionally using different data formats for design representation and a different control mechanism. The various device simulation tools have all been developed independently and are just rarely able to read the process simulation results. Point tool insufficiencies and incompatibilities and the lack of a well-established high-level wafer state representation hinder the application of Technology CAD. Furthermore, the most often complained nuisance is that process and device simulation is always at least ``one technology generation behind'', and it is a common saying that TCAD is always able to simulate yesterday's technology.

But also the Electronic CAD field (and very likely many other CAD disciplines) suffers from similar problems. In a review of integrated ECAD systems [52], L.MALINIAK depicts the situation as follows.

Picture yourself supervising a group of engineers working together to build the world's fastest computer. All of them have complementary expertise, and together they have the know-how to complete the project with minimal difficulty. However, the endeavor has a huge shadow cast over it - the engineers all speak different languages and the're totally unable to communicate with each other. What seemed like a manageable project has turned into a tangle of confusion and frustration.

If this scenario sounds familiar, then you're probably among the many engineers struggling to integrate today's disparate electronic-design automation (EDA) tools into a unified design environment.

It is equitable to investigate the causes of these problems, and some clues may indeed be found by inspecting the human aspects of TCAD methodology. These aspects are much too often neglected. In an empirical study of reasons for the delay of software [53], M. VAN GENUCHTEN says

Obviously, the subtle reasons [for delays and software problems] cited by the project leaders and general managers were not technical reasons, but related to organizational, managerial, and human aspects.





next up previous contents index
Next: 2.3.1 Human Aspects of Up: 2 The Application-Framework Architecture Previous: Overall Architecture and



Martin Stiftinger
Thu Oct 13 13:51:43 MET 1994