Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/asianometry-intels-reign-of-terror.21796/page-2
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Asianometry: Intel's Reign of Terror

XYang2023 said:
My understanding of DEI is that the system enforces artificial quotas. I mentioned Intel should instead promote meritocracy and fairness. If Taiwanese managers can better manage fabs, then I think Intel should consider Taiwanese managers alongside all other candidates for their fabs. They should be judged on an individual basis rather than through a quota system. The objective should be to compete effectively in the marketplace at the lowest cost.
Click to expand...

Meritocracy is fine until it breed entitlement!

Come to Singapore the poster child of "meritocracy" , its the land of entitlement.
The Govt is trying to put the genie back in the bottle but they have no chance.
Whatever meritocracy they had here has been subverted by money and cronyism.
The Govt have even stopped talking about a meritocracy coz they know that ship has sailed.

Meritocracy and Fairness are on opposite ends of the current system
 
I don't believe the issue it the talent pool at Intel. The issue is what they are being asked to spend their time doing (you can argue DEI is one of the things they are wasting time and resources on). Time and time again I see reports of how bureaucratic Intel is. Bureaucracies are intended to ensure procedural correctness without consideration of the circumstances or goals. The procedure must be followed! It is my opinion that it is this bureaucratic strait-jacket that is Intel's biggest impediment. Just as an Intel employee how hard it is to make meaningful change, even if the reward is clearly demonstrated.

According to Reuters Lip Bu Tan seemed to view this as one of the issues that lead to him leaving the company. "The board asked Tan to oversee the company’s manufacturing operations in October 2023 but reportedly Tan grew increasingly frustrated with the bureaucratic culture, large workforce and approach to contract manufacturing."
 
Artificer60 said:
I don't believe the issue it the talent pool at Intel. The issue is what they are being asked to spend their time doing (you can argue DEI is one of the things they are wasting time and resources on). Time and time again I see reports of how bureaucratic Intel is. Bureaucracies are intended to ensure procedural correctness without consideration of the circumstances or goals. The procedure must be followed! It is my opinion that it is this bureaucratic strait-jacket that is Intel's biggest impediment. Just as an Intel employee how hard it is to make meaningful change, even if the reward is clearly demonstrated.

According to Reuters Lip Bu Tan seemed to view this as one of the issues that lead to him leaving the company. "The board asked Tan to oversee the company’s manufacturing operations in October 2023 but reportedly Tan grew increasingly frustrated with the bureaucratic culture, large workforce and approach to contract manufacturing."
Click to expand...
I also mentioned that Intel should eliminate redundancies in middle management.
 
XYang2023 said:
I also mentioned that Intel should eliminate redundancies in middle management.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that will help in and of itself. If you remove a layer of management, but still insist on maintaining the bureaucracy, you will just have a higher percentage of the employees working to support the bureaucracy. The middle managers are the symptom, not the disease.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. Thoreau
 
They need to take this step to increase efficiency. Recently, Google announced trimming management roles:
nypost.com

Google CEO Sundar Pichai says search giant has slashed manager roles by 10% in efficiency drive

Google CEO Sundar Pichai reportedly said he has slashed 10% of its managerial roles since last year as part of the Big Tech giant’s efforts to become more efficient.
nypost.com nypost.com

Additionally, Nvidia operates with a flat organizational structure.

For Intel to become more agile, I believe it needs to adopt similar measures to keep up with its competitors.

On the layoff website, people frequently brought up the topics that Intel should look at reducing unnecessary middle management roles.
 
Artificer60 said:
Assuming they choose an outside candidate, Intel's new CEO could go a long way to change that part of the culture. Someone with some sort of experience in both manufacturing and manufacturing customer designs would be optimal in my mind. With a stand alone CEO Intel products should be able to regulate themselves. The CEO could focus on fixing the foundry business.
Click to expand...

IMO, Intel is too complicated and has too many internal conflicts that won't be resolved as current form. No matter how many good persons who become Intel's CEOs, this problem will not go away. The whole semiconductor industry has moved away from the IDM model that Intel insists to hold on to. Why do we believe Intel is so different that they can go alone against the whole industry trend?
 
hist78 said:
IMO, Intel is too complicated and has too many internal conflicts that won't be resolved as current form. No matter how many good persons who become Intel's CEOs, this problem will not go away. The whole semiconductor industry has moved away from the IDM model that Intel insists to hold on to. Why do we believe Intel is so different that they can go alone against the whole industry trend?
Click to expand...
There is nothing to the model in the end it's in the hand of people to drive efficiency TI is still a IDM
 
Brady said:
No good DEI system does this.

A good DEI system says “we acknowledge that we have systemically overlooked certain groups of people. This is artificially reducing our talent pool”.

Of course, the ever-insightful reactionaries always scream “quotas! White replacement!”, and poorly implemented DEI initiatives reinforcement this sentiment.

It’s truly sad that a good thing is twisted. But then, the scourge of identity politics has done this as a whole.
Click to expand...
Anybody who still argues in favor of DEI today are either young and Woke, or older folks who still have an image of Liberalism from the 60's civil rights movement.

That brand of Liberalism is long dead, and what is parading as Liberalism today is the antithesis to Liberal values. What we have today is a mix of Postmodernist brain rot and Marcusian authoritarianism.
 
Lorien said:
Anybody who still argues in favor of DEI today are either young and Woke, or older folks who still have an image of Liberalism from the 60's civil rights movement.

That brand of Liberalism is long dead, and what is parading as Liberalism today is the antithesis to Liberal values. What we have today is a mix of Postmodernist brain rot and Marcusian authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
Like I said, companies who artificially limit their talent pool because they have a culture which does not include others will be the ones failing to compete. Conversely, those who force themselves with DEI quotas will too fail.
 
siliconbruh999 said:
There is nothing to the model in the end it's in the hand of people to drive efficiency TI is still a IDM
Click to expand...

Yes, on the surface, TI and Intel are both IDMs. However, TI's IDM model is different from Intel's. TI's design and product divisions do not need to compete with external parties for its manufacturing resources and capacity. Instead, TI’s manufacturing division prioritizes TI's own design and product divisions, ensuring they are not required to engage in bidding wars against external foundries for production needs. TI's model is a straightforward IDM approach, and it works effectively. In contrast, Intel's IDM model, or so-called IDM 2.0, is a business model fraught with contradictions and conflicts.

One of the strengths of the IDM model is the quick and tight collaboration between the design/product division and the manufacturing division. This synergy allows the company to maximize overall profit and revenue. Costs or expenses can be shifted between these two divisions to ensure the long-term prosperity of the corporation as a whole.

Now, let's consider Intel's IDM 2.0. I would describe it as a half-hearted IDM combined with the illusion of a half-hearted foundry business. Why on earth should Intel’s design/product division have to wait in line for Intel's own manufacturing resources, capacity, or delivery dates? It seems absurd that most of the funding for Intel Foundry comes from Intel’s design/product division itself.

For Intel's manufacturing division, IDM 2.0 arrangement makes little sense either. As an integral part of the IDM model, they dedicate most resources exclusively to supporting their counterparts in Intel’s design/product division. Yet, they end up being treated as an external contractor, much like TSMC.

Furthermore, a real IDM model can generate significantly higher corporate revenue and profit through the tight and quick integration of design and manufacturing, far surpassing what a pure foundry can achieve. This model justifies and allows for higher manufacturing costs. Unfortunately, Intel has forfeited this competitive advantage by adopting the IDM 2.0 concept.

IDM 2.0 dilutes the core essence of the IDM model while simultaneously weakening Intel’s manufacturing edge under the real IDM model.
 
Last edited:
hist78 said:
IDM 2.0 dilutes the core essence of the IDM model while simultaneously weakening Intel’s manufacturing edge under the real IDM model.
Click to expand...
My take is a little different - a true embrace of full-on foundry principles would enable Intel to leverage the whole leading edge design ecosystem (manufacturing tools, IP, EDA), instead of their limited world. Based on my experience, foundry DTCO moves faster than IDM DTCO and offers greater long term value, because foundries focus on simplification, while IDMs believe their differentiation lies in complexity. TI succeeded as an IDM by retreating into their own smaller, differentiated and complex world of analog, which is OK for profitability, but not where the big money is for building next generation fabs (RFAB2 and LFAB stop at 45nm ?). The other foundry principle is long-term use of depreciated fabs. TSMC is able to fill their old fabs and get a much longer term ROI out of them. Intel's current product mix requires continual focus on the mostly the leading edge, without many profitable ways to deal with fabs that are past their prime.
 
Last edited:
www.theguardian.com

How could Trump’s second term affect DEI initiatives in the US?

The president-elect has disparaged DEI. As Meta and Walmart drop diversity goals, here’s how others may follow
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I believe companies might scale back their DEI programs. If they don’t, they could face the risk of potential unfavorable legal actions during Trump’s second term. As a precautionary measure, I think many will choose to scale back.

I think this should be net positive to Intel's turnaround efforts.
 
hist78 said:
Why on earth should Intel’s design/product division have to wait in line for Intel's own manufacturing resources, capacity, or delivery dates? It seems absurd that most of the funding for Intel Foundry comes from Intel’s design/product division itself.
Click to expand...
One possible solution here is to consider the TSMC/Apple partnership. I imagine Apple doesn't have to wait with TSMC, especially as they (seem to) always get first access to the latest and greatest node. A node for a single customer would have dedicated support..

I may be wrong of course, but I'd wager Apple gets the same priority at TSMC as Intel does with it's own fabs.
 
KevinK said:
My take is a little different - a true embrace of full-on foundry principles would enable Intel to leverage the whole leading edge design ecosystem (manufacturing tools, IP, EDA), instead of their limited world. Based on my experience, foundry DTCO moves faster than IDM DTCO and offers greater long term value, because foundries focus on simplification, while IDMs believe their differentiation lies in complexity. TI succeeded as an IDM by retreating into their own smaller, differentiated and complex world of analog, which is OK for profitability, but not where the big money is for building next generation fabs (RFAB2 and LFAB stop at 45nm ?). The other foundry principle is long-term use of depreciated fabs. TSMC is able to fill their old fabs and get a much longer term ROI out of them. Intel's current product mix requires continual focus on the mostly the leading edge, without many profitable ways to deal with fabs that are past their prime.
Click to expand...
I believe that "a true embrace of full-on foundry principles" was the plan for Intel Foundry. The drive is supposed to be towards cost-competitive processes with industry compatible PDK's. Additionally, vendors seem to indicate that Intel is engaging more closely with them which should enable them to move more quickly. In short, I believe that Intel is addressing these issues. That said, there is a lot of work ahead of Intel to reach that state and I expect it to take several years.

As Xebec mentioned above the partnership with Intel Products is intended to provide Intel Foundry with the large, early customer that Apple gives TSMC.

My big question is will the new CEO share this vision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top