The New Economics of Semiconductor Manufacturing Continued
By Clayton M. Christensen, Steven King, Matt Verlinden, and Woodward Yang
First Published May 2008
Image: Stuart Bradford
|
The new
economics of semiconductor manufacturing now
makes it possible to produce chips profitably in much
smaller volumes. This effect may not be very important
for the fabs that make huge numbers of high-performance
chips, but then again, that segment will take up a
declining share of the total market. This isn't because
demand for those chips will shrink. Rather, demand will
grow even faster for products that require chips with
rapid time-to-market and lower costs, such as consumer electronics.
Competition is shifting toward a new playing field.
Now what matters is making a large variety of products,
each product in small volumes and each perhaps for only
a short time. Examples of these growing markets include
cellphones and MP3 players, which are subject to trends
in fashion. Then there are the thousands of chips that
are increasingly finding their way into our homes,
offices, automobiles—and into every nook and cranny of
our lives.
You often
hear executives in the semiconductor industry
sighing for the next great vehicle for industry growth,
like the PC in the 1990s and the minicomputer before
that. Well, perhaps the next killer application won't be
one thing but rather scores or hundreds of things, none
of which require the raw performance that only the
biggest, most technically advanced fabs can provide.
Perhaps what the next wave of killer apps requires is a
new business model, made possible by such things as TPS.
Throughout history, business models that reduced the
minimum effective size of factories have transformed
entire industries. Steelmaking was transformed by the
minimill's ability to efficiently produce small batches
of steel, business computing by a succession of
ever-smaller machines starting from mainframes for
payrolls and ultimately leading to the personal
computer, and photographic film processing by fully
automated one-hour film-processing machines, which were
then replaced by digital photography. Because these
transformations offered customers entirely new ways of
doing things—rather than simply making the existing
model work a bit better—we call them disruptions. The
agents of disruption are invariably business models
(although these models often come with a new technology
wrapped inside).
Toyota's system has transformed the automobile
industry. Fifty years ago, the industry offered far
fewer car models because its scale curve was high—you
had to sell a lot of units of a given model to be
cost-effective. For example, in the 1950s, Chevrolet
sold 1.5 million Impalas per year, a number that was
considered high but not extraordinary. Now the industry
regards 250 000 units per year as high, and many models
sell at only a fifth to a tenth of that rate.
This change came about because of the decline in the
minimum economic scale of a car factory. Some companies
have handled the transition better than others. GM, once
the paragon of massive mass production, posted a record
$39 billion loss for 2007, providing yet more evidence
of how hard it can be to emulate Toyota.
But there's more. To gain full benefit from the
advances made on the manufacturing side, you may also
need to restructure product development and design,
purchasing, marketing, service, and other aspects of
your company. That is, you must create a new business
model.
Consider how the emergence of standardized modular
components has made it possible for a technically
untrained person to select among them and order a
precisely configured computer, which a company can
assemble and deliver in three days. This business model,
made famous by Dell, has created new markets,
industries, and subindustries.
Now imagine this modular design idea being extended to
semiconductor devices. If that happened, even MBAs might
be capable of specifying the components of their very
own chips to be delivered to their doorsteps. Well,
maybe not MBAs, but you get the picture.
About the Author
CLAYTON M. CHRISTENSEN is part of the
multidisciplinary team that wrote this month's
feature on applying Toyota's production methods to
semiconductor manufacturing. Christensen is a
bestselling author and a professor at Harvard
Business School. Semiconductor consultant STEVEN
KING holds a bachelor's in engineering from
Worcester Polytechnic Institute. MATT VERLINDEN,
also a consultant, is a graduate of the MIT Sloan
School of Management. WOODWARD YANG is a professor
of electrical engineering and computer science at Harvard.
To Probe Further
To learn more about factory management science, see
Operations,
Strategy, and Technology: Pursuing the Competitive
Edge, by Robert H. Hayes, Gary P. Pisano,
David M. Upton, and Steven C. Wheelwright, Wiley 2004.
For a detailed description of the method of continuous
improvement described in this article, see “Decoding the
DNA of the Toyota Production System,” by Steven Spear
and H. Kent Bowen, Harvard Business Review, 1999.
The concept of a disruptive technology and how it
affects entire industries is laid out in The Innovator's
Dilemma, by Clayton M. Christensen, Harper
Business Essentials, 2003.