Intel shakes up manufacturing leadership as key Oregon executive sets retirement

[XYang2023]

Intel Vice President Ann Kelleher, an engineer charged with restoring the technological lead the company once held, plans to retire by year’s end, setting off a major transition in the company’s manufacturing arm.

A 29-year Intel veteran, Kelleher is one of Intel’s top Oregon executives. Intel said Thursday she will retire “sometime later this year” and gave her a new title as “strategic adviser” to Intel Foundry, the company’s manufacturing arm. Kelleher, 59, had been general manager of Intel’s technology development.

The announcement of her planned exit comes two days after new CEO Lip-Bu Tan formally started work. Naga Chandrasekaran, a former Micron executive Intel hired last year to run its factory operations, will take over Kelleher’s role in technology development and serve as Intel’s chief technology and operations officer for Intel Foundry.

Intel announced last fall that it had chosen a “long-term” successor to Kelleher — Navid Shahriari — but hadn’t indicated when she would be retiring. On Thursday, Intel named Shahriari executive vice president of a new organization that will coordinate various manufacturing activities across its factories.

This is a key moment for Intel, which is preparing to release a new class of microprocessor this year in hopes of closing its technological gap with rival Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Kelleher oversaw development of the new chip, which Intel calls 18A, in the company’s Hillsboro research factories.

Originally from Ireland, Kelleher joined Intel in 1996 and worked her way up through the company from process engineer to factory manager. She has led the company’s technology development since 2020.

“With a strong foundry leadership team in place and Intel 18A progressing well ahead of our first product launch and external customer tape-outs, this is a well-planned transition as we continue to advance our Foundry priorities in service to customers,” the company said in a written statement.

Intel’s headquarters are in Silicon Valley but the company’s largest operations are in Washington County, where the company has 20,000 employees. Those employees have long included some of Intel’s top executives, including Michelle Johnston Holthaus, who is CEO of Intel Products, the company’s chip design business.

Intel’s manufacturing research has long been centered in Hillsboro. Chandrasekaran is based in Arizona but Intel said he spends time at all the company’s factories.

Intel shakes up manufacturing leadership as key Oregon executive sets retirement

Ann Kelleher has been overseeing development of Intel's new 18A chip, designed to restore the company's technological edge.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[nghanayem]

Very weird. I don't really see how Naga is more qualified than Ann to head TD, since he has 0 foundry experience and 0 logic process development experience. Additionally, both have a long manufacturing history and development experience. The one thing I can think that is in Naga's favor is that he has more experience in R&D. Ann seems too young to retire, so that gives the impression she is being pushed out. But that also disagrees with the fact that Intel is keeping her as an advisor for Intel foundry after she steps down later this year. Logically it also doesn't really make sense to "fire" the TD head that rebuilt and reformed Intel's TD organization and successfully executed an extremely aggressive process roadmap and overhauled TSMC for the highest PPA process powering commercially available products in 2025 (of course assuming there aren't any last minute surprises). I hate to potentially jinx somebody, but maybe Ann is having health issues that have forced her/made her want to retire?

Another possibility is that Intel wanted to consolidate all of foundry under one head (like they did with Intel products), rather than having three chiefs in the kitchen (Ann, Naga, and Kevin) like there has been up until now. Based on the statement of Naga becoming COO of Intel foundry, it does sound like he is being promoted to what is effectively the CEO of Intel foundry (once the subsidiary is finally set up). If consolidating the leadership structure is the intent, I could see how retiring Ann and then making her an advisor might be the better choice. Much of Ann's work was rebuilding LTD into the most innovative TD organization in the semiconductor industry and returning roadmap stability. That work is evidently done, and iff Ann did a good job doing it; the team she rebuilt can in all likelihood survive without her. Meanwhile, the manufacturing half of TMG's mission IMO has a lot they could learn from a cash poor and scrappy semiconductor manufacturer like Micron. In other words, Naga still has a lot he can give to Intel while also being able to adequately shepard TD. Whereas I think Ann has done just about all she could accomplish. Intel's TD and manufacturing operations were built and operated like race cars (high volume/low mix, rapid process innovation, fast ramp, fast deramp, focus on maximizing wafer output and yield from a limited manufacturing footprint, and making sure that CPU volume upside could be met/no socket was left unfilled). But now they need to operate like a Prius (low volume/high mix, specialty process development for old nodes and new nodes, minimizing any and all sources of variation, ramps happening in waves over time/phases, never ramp down operations, often running more process in the same fab, minimizing output disruptions during process changeovers, cost being more visible now that the final product is wafers instead of high margin CPUs, and operational discipline/cost reduction being more important given Intel's state and Intel foundry's status as a subsidiary of the wider intel corp). Could Ann make those changes? I feel like the answer is yes. But I think Naga's outside Intel experience and perspectives will better prepare him for that specific mission than an Intel lifer, no matter how skilled or accomplished.

 

[Artificer60]

This isn't a complete surprise as Ann Kelleher announced her pending retirement in October of last year. The big change here is that Navid Shahriari, who was supposed to take over the TD org for Kelleher, has been put in charge of the post fab operations rather than taking over the TD org. This doesn't feel like Kelleher is being pushed out, though I agree it isn't clear exactly why she is stepping away.

 

[fansink]

Possibly Health

 

[benb]

This doesn't refute the idea that TD will be replaced with an external source.

 

[XYang2023]

Many things in life cannot be refuted...

 

[MKWVentures]

Tan has been in job 2 days, looked at the foundry/TD org chart and said "are you kidding me??".... I like Ann but Intel needs to move forward quickly... Naga is perfect for this. I have tons of optimism for Intel suddenly.

Can't wait to see the external people Tan brings in.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

This isn't a complete surprise as Ann Kelleher announced her pending retirement in October of last year. The big change here is that Navid Shahriari, who was supposed to take over the TD org for Kelleher, has been put in charge of the post fab operations rather than taking over the TD org. This doesn't feel like Kelleher is being pushed out, though I agree it isn't clear exactly why she is stepping away.

I met Ann last year. I really liked her. She was quite the opposite of Pat Gelsinger though so I wondered how long that would last. She actually rolled her eyes at some of the things Pat said. But yes, her health is definitely in question. That had to be a very stressful period of her life.

Intel is going big on their event next month. The briefings are coming and I'm sure there will be "leaks". I really can't wait to hear about 18A customers and see Lip-Bu at the helm! Exciting times, absolutely!

 

[kevin01]

Tan has been in job 2 days, looked at the foundry/TD org chart and said "are you kidding me??".... I like Ann but Intel needs to move forward quickly... Naga is perfect for this. I have tons of optimism for Intel suddenly.

Can't wait to see the external people Tan brings in.

Last year, Ann announced her intent to step down. However, the timing now seems too coincidental.

Pure speculation: TD will likely see some RIF (along with other parts of Intel), and it would be easier for an outsider (Naga) to implement this than for Ann.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Last year, Ann announced her intent to step down. However, the timing now seems too coincidental.

Pure speculation: TD will likely see some RIF (along with other parts of Intel), and it would be easier for an outsider (Naga) to implement this than for Ann.

If I were Ann I would wait for the new CEO to start before formally retiring as well. Jumping ship without a Captain seems awkward? Naga is a good pick for sure and I would bet Lip-Bu knows him. That is the advantage of picking a CEO who has deep Intel experience.

I would expect another RIF for sure. The Intel reporting structure needs to be flattened, maybe another 5-10%? That is a guess, I have no idea what is in the works.

 

[IanCutress]

I've interviewed Ann twice over the years. She comes across as someone who doesn't take any nonsense and knows the goals. I didn't get the sense she was annoyed at Pat - he was the aspirational and she was the realist.
But I don't see why TH has acted like this is a big expose. We already knew she was retiring. TH makes it sound like this is going to shake Intel's foundations to the core. Mountain out of a molehill.

(Hope you don't mind me sharing, my previous interview was:

at the Ireland fab opening)

 

[XYang2023]

I've interviewed Ann twice over the years. She comes across as someone who doesn't take any nonsense and knows the goals. I didn't get the sense she was annoyed at Pat - he was the aspirational and she was the realist.
But I don't see why TH has acted like this is a big expose. We already knew she was retiring. TH makes it sound like this is going to shake Intel's foundations to the core. Mountain out of a molehill.

(Hope you don't mind me sharing, my previous interview was:

at the Ireland fab opening)

Who is TH?

There is also new information from the report. Naga is taking over the responsibility of Ann.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

I've interviewed Ann twice over the years. She comes across as someone who doesn't take any nonsense and knows the goals. I didn't get the sense she was annoyed at Pat - he was the aspirational and she was the realist.
But I don't see why TH has acted like this is a big expose. We already knew she was retiring. TH makes it sound like this is going to shake Intel's foundations to the core. Mountain out of a molehill.

(Hope you don't mind me sharing, my previous interview was:

at the Ireland fab opening)

Ann was not on board with Pat's 5N4Y schtick I can tell you that much. Over promising, as Pat did, made a realist's job that much more difficult. Ann would have gotten along much better with Lip-Bu. I agree though that this is a nothing burger. Just another opportunity to bash Intel for no reason.

My wife is a realist, I am aspirational, and I annoy her to no end!

 

[nghanayem]

Ann was not on board with Pat's 5N4Y schtick I can tell you that much.

You say that as if it wasn't her idea and her plan... Said plan that she wanted to do before Pat, but she couldn't because Bob was too busy not investing in R&D for her to actually have the resources to execute said catchup plan. And considering the results, I can hardly call 5N4Y an overpromise considering it looks like Intel will have not just have "unquestioned power-performance leadership" and "unquestioned process technology leadership" in 2025; but also unquestioned PPA leadership until first N2 products break onto the market 3-4Q after the first 18A products start getting sold to Intel product's customers. Unless intel doesn't start selling 18A chips this year, then I don't see how one could say that Intel has even partially failed to reach their publicly stated end goal.

 

[fansink]

You say that as if it wasn't her idea and her plan... Said plan that she wanted to do before Pat, but she couldn't because Bob was too busy not investing in R&D for her to actually have the resources to execute said catchup plan. And considering the results, I can hardly call 5N4Y an overpromise considering it looks like Intel will have not just have "unquestioned power-performance leadership" and "unquestioned process technology leadership" in 2025; but also unquestioned PPA leadership until first N2 products break onto the market 3-4Q after the first 18A products start getting sold to Intel product's customers. Unless intel doesn't start selling 18A chips this year, then I don't see how one could say that Intel has even partially failed to reach their publicly stated end goal.

Can you please name those 5 nodes?

 

[nghanayem]

Can you please name those 5 nodes?

Considering, 18A is better than 20A, 18A tracking towards launching products within 2025 (4 years after 2021), and every other node on this list came out on time AND with better performance than Intel promised here. Seems like a job well done to me. Now granted 10nm SuperFin and Intel 7 are something of gimmes, but this is also the same industry where a foundry can call a 4% PPA improvement a new node. Semantics aside, to most people all that matters is the end result of a given journey or mission. So if Intel wanted to have some freebie check points along the path towards overhauling TSMC, then I don't see any harm so long as they meet or beat their commitments. ESPECIALLY the deliverables that are required for Intel to move back into a position of technology leadership by 2025.

 

[siliconbruh999]

The only issues with this is 20A there was no product that shipped on it even though they saved money by skipping it

 

[fansink]

View attachment 2910

Considering, 18A is better than 20A, 18A tracking towards launching products within 2025 (4 years after 2021), and every other node on this list came out on time AND with better performance than Intel promised here. Seems like a job well done to me. Now granted 10nm SuperFin and Intel 7 are something of gimmes, but this is also the same industry where a foundry can call a 4% PPA improvement a new node. Semantics aside, to most people all that matters is the end result of a given journey or mission. So if Intel wanted to have some freebie check points along the path towards overhauling TSMC, then I don't see any harm so long as they meet or beat their commitments. ESPECIALLY the deliverables that are required for Intel to move back into a position of technology leadership by 2025.

Seems like this has been rehashed ad nauseum, since 10nm and Intel 7 are the same, and were in production when Pat arrived, they don't count, 4 and 3 can count as 2 but many have argued they are half-nodes, lets call them 2, 20A is out since it never saw the light of day, and 18A could count, but others including @Daniel Nenni say it doesn't count until HVM (times up on July 26, 2025), so at best 3N4Y, if half-nodes and non-HVM are out, then 1N4Y.

 

[Artificer60]

Seems like this has been rehashed ad nauseum, since 10nm and Intel 7 are the same, and were in production when Pat arrived, they don't count, 4 and 3 can count as 2 but many have argued they are half-nodes, lets call them 2, 20A is out since it never saw the light of day, and 18A could count, but others including @Daniel Nenni say it doesn't count until HVM (times up on July 26, 2025), so at best 3N4Y, if half-nodes and non-HVM are out, then 1N4Y.

So you object to the marketing. Fine.

Remind me how far behind in PPA Intel was 4 years ago and where they are now? I don't care what you call it from a marketing perspective, Intel has gone from dead in the water at 10nm to at least having something worth looking at in 4 years. That is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. If Intel caught up to TSMC in a single node in 4 years, who cares. They are back in the race and have the next node (14A) in the works.

 

[nghanayem]

Seems like this has been rehashed ad nauseum, since 10nm and Intel 7 are the same, and were in production when Pat arrived, they don't count, 4 and 3 can count as 2 but many have argued they are half-nodes, lets call them 2, 20A is out since it never saw the light of day, and 18A could count,

That was my point, though. What goals Intel wants to set are arbitrary. Let's say, hypothetically, that back in 2012 Intel said their goal for Intel 10nm was to go into HVM before 2020. Because Intel launching ICL in Sept 2019, 10nm would have been perfectly on time. Now, anyone hearing that goal in 2012 would think that was a sad and pathetic goal. But as long as it was met, Intel by definition didn't underdeliver. So if Intel's roadmap had 3 derivatives on it, that is their business so long as they deliver on it. Rightfully, nobody would say that TSMC had undelivered on N2 because the PPA uplift versus N3P is minor or because the BEOL process is mostly reused with N3. Assuming all continues to go well, TSMC will have delivered what they said they would.

but others including @Daniel Nenni say it doesn't count until HVM

That is just universally true. Until commercially available products are available, everything is academic.

(times up on July 26, 2025),

Yes. But that is clearly not going to happen since it is outside the laptop refresh windows and when Intel normally launches new client products. By the letter of the law 5N4Y was not delivered since no 20A and 18A not delivered by July 26th. You won't hear me argue with anyone on that point, as it is objectively true. But what is also objectively true, is that if we want to go down that rabbit hole, we are being pedantic. To say that Ann's plan to pull ahead of TSMC (which was later given the 5N4Y moniker) was a flop is a disingenuous strawman. The point of 5N4Y wasn't a goal in of itself. It was never about putting checkmarks next to a pretty powerpoint slide and saying "Yay team. We did it!". The point was achieving Intel's aspiration of regaining technology leadership. All that really matters long term is the end goal of tech leadership in 2025. Intel 7, 4/3, or 20A are not Intel's future, nor were they ever going to make Intel's external foundry business a $15B per year company by 2030. Those hopes and dreams mostly come down to 18A and its successors.

so at best 3N4Y, if half-nodes and non-HVM are out, then 1N4Y.

By that metric, TSMC also only did 1N4Yc.

So you object to the marketing. Fine.

Remind me how far behind in PPA Intel was 4 years ago and where they are now? I don't care what you call it from a marketing perspective, Intel has gone from dead in the water at 10nm to at least having something worth looking at in 4 years. That is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. If Intel caught up to TSMC in a single node in 4 years, who cares. They are back in the race and have the next node (14A) in the works.

This is my point. The arbitrary milestones taken to get to the goal are arbitrary. As long as the final destination is reached, that is what really matters (for Intel's business anyway).