Publications

Disruptive technologies are scientific discoveries that break through the usual product technology capabilities and provide a basis for a new competitive paradigm as described by Anderson and Tushman [1990], Tushman and Rosenkopf [1992], and Bower and Christensen [1995]. Discontinuous innovations are products/processes/services that provide exponential improvements in the value received by the customer much in the same vein as Walsh [1996], Lynn, Morone and Paulson [1996], and Veryzer [1998]. For more on definitions of disruptive technologies and discontinuous innovations, see Walsh and Linton [1999] who provide a number of definitions for disruptive technologies and discontinuous innovations. Disruptive technologies and discontinuous innovations present a unique challenge and opportunity for R and D organizations seeking to build their commercialization efforts and to reinvent the corporation. These technologies do not have a proven path from scientific discovery to mass production and therefore require novel approaches. These critically important technologies are the wellspring of wealth creation and new competency generation but are not readily accepted by the corporate community. They are alternatively embraced and eschewed by the commercial community. They are finally accepted when the technology has already affected the industry or when the technological horse has already flown out of the hanger. Many firms, especially larger firms, seem reluctant to familiarize themselves with these technologies quickly. The trend seems to be that these firms prefer to react to a proven disruptive technology that has changed the product market paradigm. If true, then there is cause for concern. This paper will review the literature on disruptive technologies presenting a model of the progression from scientific idea to mass production for disruptive technologies contrasted to the more copious incremental technologies. The paper will then describe Sandia National Laboratories' involvement in one of the disruptive technology areas, namely micro-electromechanical systems (sometimes referred to as Microsystems or MEMS) and will survey a number of companies that have investigated Sandia's technological discoveries for potential use in an industrial capacity. The survey will focus on the movement of the research findings from the laboratory into the marketplace and all of the problem areas that disruptive technologies face in this arena. The paper will then state several hypotheses that will be tested. The data will be described with results and conclusions reported.

Intelligent, integrated microsystems combine some or all of the functions of sensing, processing information, actuation, and communication within a single integrated package, and preferably upon a single silicon chip. As the elements of these highly integrated solutions interact strongly with each other, the microsystems can be neither designed nor fabricated piecemeal, in contrast to the more familiar assembled products. Driven by technological imperatives, microsystems will best be developed by multi-disciplinary teams, most likely within flatter, less hierarchical organizations. Standardization of design and process tools around a single, dominant technology will expedite economically viable operation under a common production infrastructure. The production base for intelligent, integrated microsystems has elements in common with the mathematical theory of chaos. Similar to chaos theory, the development of microsystems technology will be strongly dependent on, and optimized to, the initial product requirements that will drive standardization-thereby further rewarding early entrants to integrated microsystems technology.

Paul McWhorter, Deputy Director for of the Microsystems Center at Sandia National Laboratories, discusses the potential of surface micromachining. A vision of the possibilities of intelligent Microsystems for the future is presented along with descriptions of several possible applications. Applications that are just around the corner and some that maybe quite a ways down the road but have a clear development path to their realization. Microsystems will drive the next silicon revolution.

The committee regards Sandia's Microelectronics and Photonics Program as a vital and strategic resource for the nation. The Microsystems (MEMS) and Chem Lab programs were assessed as unique and best-in-class for the development of significant application areas. They contribute directly to the Sandia mission and impact the development of new commercial areas. The continued development and integration of Radiation hard silicon integrated circuits, micromechanical systems, sensors, and optical communications is essential to the national security mission. The quality of the programs is excellent to outstanding overall. MEMS and Chem Lab activities are examples of outstanding programs. The committee was pleased to see the relationship of the microelectronics development programs to applications in the mission. In a future review the committee would like to see Sandia's research programs and a vision for connectivity to potential national security needs. (This review may be based on analysis and assumptions about the strategic needs of the nation.) In summary, the Microelectronics and Photonics capability affords Sandia the opportunity to deliver exceptional service in the national interest across broad technology areas. The presentations were excellent and well integrated. We received ample pre-reading materials, expectations were well set and the documents were high quality. The committee was provided an agenda with sufficient time among us and some selected one-on-one time with the researchers. The composition of the committee held representation from industry, universities and government. Committee contributions were well balanced and worked as a team. However, the committee was disappointed that no member of Sandia executive management was able to be present for the readout and final debriefing. (A late, higher priority conflict developed.) The members of the EST Program and the committee put substantial effort into the review but a written report like this one is not a substitute for direct feedback in helping SNL leadership assess the value of these programs.

Short communication