You are on page 1of 184

International Symposium on Accelerating Innovation in Developing Countries KL Convention Centre, November 3, 2012 Session 3: Measuring innovation and its

socio-economic and environmental impacts

Revisiting Malaysia's technology and R&D-related policy studies and findings from 1990-2012 - review of effectiveness towards the technological capabilities of companies and industrial development
by Dr Norlela Ariffin norlela.ariffin@gmail.com , hp +6012 200 2871
Senior VP, Excellent Spring Sdn Bhd Director, Penang Women Development Centre (PWDC)

Revisiting Malaysia's technology and R&D-related policy studies and findings from 1990-2012 - review of effectiveness towards the technological capabilities of companies and industrial development This paper revisits my research on Malaysias technological and R&D status since 1990 till 2012:

Intensification of Research Areas in Priority Areas (IRPA) project: An Evaluation of R&D Programs under the IRPA Mechanism Financed in the Fifth Malaysia Plan - UUM Survey (1992). IRPA program on the Development of Advanced Semiconductor Package (2006-2007)
Re-activation role as new industry partner; full-time on-site research on 3D Quad Flat No-Lead Semiconductor Package for 1 year at AIC semiconductor plant commenced in December 2006.

- Program members: AIC Semiconductor Sdn Bhd (new industry partner), University Kebangsaan Malaysia (new program leader), University Malaya and AMREC (Advanced Material Research Centre, SIRIM). The World Bank-Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment Review of the National Technology Development Policy, Malaysia: Output 5 - A Demand-Driven Perspective on Industrial Technology Policy in Malaysia (1995). - As Consultant, East Asia & Pacific Country Department I (EA1), World Bank. UNDP program: Technology transfer to Malaysia: A study of electronics and electrical firms and the supporting industries in Klang Valley (1995/1996)

Corporate Sector Survey on Productivity and Investment Climate Study: Innovation Capability Audit Survey (2003). Report by MIGHT for the Economic Planning Unit, Prime Ministers Department, Malaysia. - As lead consultant and collaborated with Prof Micheal Hobday (SPRU-CENTRIM) who benchmarked leading companies in Korea and Thailand.
Norlela Ariffin (2003). Initial policy prescription proposal for E&E industry: Spearheading the growth of analog design capabilities in Malaysia : EPU Innovation Audit - Policy Paper submitted to Dato Halipah Esa, Deputy Director General (Macro), Economic Planning Unit, 26 March.

: Learning Processes and Technological Capability-Accumulation Paths: Firms in the Electronics Industry in the Industrial District of Manaus, Brazil. National Technology Mapping Programme II: Wood, Machinery and Food (2002). Report by PRIMA for the Economic Planning Unit, Malaysia.
As project managing consultant Study involves competency audit survey of companies, formulating technology roadmaps and conducting international benchmarking.

Norlela Ariffin (2011), Innovating up to speed, Penang Economic Monthly, May, Issue 05.11, pp. 8-17.

Norlela Ariffin currently promotes social innovation that will increase the income of single mothers and women in rural and urban poor areas at the Single Mothers and Women Cooperative in mainland Penang and the Women Development Corporation (PWDC) by commercialising innovative university research in Penang and promoting biomass utilisation into productive economic generation.

Corporate Sector Survey on Productivity and Investment Climate Study: Innovation Capability Audit Survey (2003). Report by MIGHT for the Economic Planning Unit, Prime Ministers Department, Malaysia. - As lead consultant and collaborated with Prof Micheal Hobday (SPRU-CENTRIM) who benchmarked leading companies in Korea and Thailand. Initiated and collaborated with the Selangor Human Resources Development Centre (SHRDC) to secure special funding for AIC Semiconductor Sdn Bhd for the QFN semiconductor packaging Pilot Line under the Graduate Re-skilling Training for the Masters by Apprenticeship degree program, 2005.

MECD Study on Entrepreneur Development at the Corridor Development, 28th December 07 till March 31 2008 As Project and Research Advisor to Innovation Associates (iA Group), 49th floor, Petronas Tower 2, KLCC, 50088 Kuala Lumpur

Ariffin, Norlela (2010) Internationalisation of technological innovative capabilities: levels, types and speed (learning rat es) in the electronics industry in Malaysia, Int. J. Technological Learning, Innovation and Development , Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.347391.

Full-time member of the Sustainable Urban Development (i.e. Waste Management) City & Corridor PEMANDU Lab Northern Corridor, Sept 2nd Nov 4th 2011. Consultant to Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT) to develop for the Malaysia Biomass Action Plan that would focus on sustainable production and SMEs, 2012.

The question of how Malaysia can move to the next high stage of development and innovation-driven economy is:

To increase factors that contributes to the increase of global competitiveness.

The other approach, which can be implemented simultaneously, is to look at Malaysias existing strengths and to focus efforts on strengthening them.
A third approach is to focus on the current realities of where companies and industries are and where they will be on their next thresholds.

Tech Policy Impact to GDP after Financial Crisis


1200

GDP (USD Billions)


Malaysia

1000

Korea
800

Singapore Taiwan

Law promotion of HighTech StartUps (Venture Business) (1998)

Law promotion of SME Innovation (2001): 14,626 Korean SMEs have received Innobiz certification (as of end 2008) 1. Manufacturing 2. Services/Non-Mfg 3. Agriculture 4. Construction 5. Environment 6. Biotech 7. Software 8. Design

600

400

200

0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source : IMF, April 2009

In order for Malaysia as a whole to achieve high-income status, it is useful to examine factors which contributed to the global competitiveness of 144 countries over time, as ranked in the World Economic Forums Global Competitive Ranking.
Rank INDICATORS CURRENT WEIGHTAGE OF MALAYSIA FUTURE / TARGET WEIGHTAGE OF MALAYSIA Sub Indicators Beta

R Squared 0.848

1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 Social Infrastructure
and Political Institutions (SIPI)

Factor (Input) Conditions

Communications Infrastructure

Telephone Lines per 100 population Regulatory Quality

0.036

Context for Strategy Context for and Rivalry Strategy and Rivalry Factor (Input) Communications Conditions Infrastructure Microeconomic Competitiveness (MICRO)
Innovation Infrastructure Company Operations and Strategy (COS) Factor (Input) Conditions Strategy and Operational Effectiveness Communications Infrastructure Logistical Infrastructure Rule of Law

0.851

0.841

0.35

0.48

Mobile Telephone Subscribers per 100 population Utility Patents per Million Population
Production Process Sophistication Internet Access in schools

0.023

0.833

0.256

0.825

0.615

0.817

0.471

0.816

Quality of Electricity Supply

0.463

0.812

Rule of Law (WB)******

0.678

0.811

9
0.42 0.36
Human Capacity Human Capacity

Control of Corruption (WB)***** Life Expectancy

0.612

0.798

10

0.068

0.793

Increasing factors that contribute to the increase of global competitiveness - based on data from 144 countries over time
It is significant to note that factors ranked highly as contributing to global competitiveness are a combination of infrastructure (Telephone Lines ranked at #1 and Internet Access in Schools at #6 this bodes well for Penang through the free WIFI provided by the state government), Utility Patents are ranked highly at #4. A utility innovation is an exclusive right granted for a "minor" invention which is not required to satisfy the test of inventiveness which is required of a patent (a patent is protected for 20 years from the date of filing while a utility innovation is protected 10 + 5 + 5 years from the date of filing subject to use).

Production Process Sophistication ranked at #5 in which Greater Penang and Klang Valley are famed for having the fastest production ramp-up times in the world. That is why when new production plants were being set up in China in the early 2000s, Malaysians were transferred from MNC corporate offices to fill key managerial positions.

Table 3: FDI and Technology Transfer is among Least Significant Factor to Global Competitiveness

On the other hand, Technology Transfer and FDI is ranked at the fourth lowest factor at #119 out of a total of 122 factors examined.
This may prove to be significant in the future as the industrial growth of Greater Penang, Klang Valley and the rest of Malaysias industrial growth have been primarily driven by FDI.

Source: Analysis based on the World Economic Forum (2008-2009).

Of other greater significance are Good Governance Factors such as Rule of Law and Control of Corruption, ranked #8 and #9, respectively.

Problematic factors for doing business are shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1: Problematic Factors for Doing Business in Malaysia

Source: Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009, World Economic Forum

Reinforcing Malaysias Existing Strengths


Moving Malaysia to the next stage of development is also about looking at Malaysias existing strengths and to focus efforts on boosting these, as well as focusing on the current realities of where companies and industries are and where they will be on their next thresholds. In 2010, Penang received the highest level of foreign direct investment in Malaysia with Selangor bringing in the second highest amount. Penang and Klang Valley have the highest concentration of employment and the most established electronics industry in Malaysia. Currently, Malaysia is among the worlds five largest exporters of semiconductor devices, and 96.3% of semiconductor companies are foreign-owned or MNC subsidiaries.

1st Dimension of Technological Development

Build Up Routine Production Capability To Produce More Complex, Higher Value-Added Products
2 Production Capability Level More complex, higher value-added products : digital, DVD, flatscreen CTV, CDMA LP-link MP-link LP-link MP-link Office & computer equipment LP-link MP-link
1

LP-link MP-link Starts with a few relatively simple discrete components, analogue products, parts assembly, SKD, 1980 1970

Consumer Electronics (Analogue) Parts to Full Assembly

1990

2000

Time

Outsourced Chip Manufacturer Wafer foundry: TSMC UMC CSM Tower Local: Silterra 1st Silicon On semiconductors MIMOS Components Assembly & test: Amkor, ASE SPIL STAT-ChipPAC Local: Carsem Unisem Globetronics AIC Semicon
Assembly & Test
Smartcard modules

Semiconductors & Components

Consumer & Industrial Electronics Electronics Sub-Assembly & Contract Manufacturer


Consumer Electronics
Capital Goods
Wearable 3D displays

Chip/Component Manufacturer

Infineon Philips Lucent ST Micro Motorola Intel SIS Sony Liteon Asus Sampo Compal

42 & 50 Plasma TV

Electronic Components

Semiconductor

Contract or Sub-Assembly Manufacturer Solectron Flextronics Celestics SCI Sanmina Plexus Jabil ACT Local:
UNICO, BCM,

OEM Sony Cisco Nokia Philips Sharp Dell Panasonic HP/Compaq IBM

Local: LKT Cosmo Greatech Pentamaster Eng Technology Numac Machine Tool Prodelcon

End User

& Semiconductor

Local: Pensonic iBhd Khind AIC Display

AIS, AIC Inspirasi

Source: adapted from 12 Oracle, Asia Pacific, 2002

Current and future industrial products progression?


Use our own indigenous resources as a competitive advantage such as Biomass to Malaysia as a small tropical developing country like Costa Rica grow rich (increase GDP and become developed nation), distribute wealth (social) and keep our Environmental commitment (40% reduction in CO2 emission)?

Strengths - Our untapped Biomass feedstock

Green Waste in urban areas (housing , highways e.g. Penang has 500 tons per day with the growing of more trees (5,000 trees) in urban areas, there will be more green waste. Though officially closed in 2002, the Jelutong landfill continues to receive 1,350 tons of C&D and green waste daily. The waste is not buried but left in the open. Leachate in landfill can be used immediately as feedstock for biogas Agro-farming waste rural areas bananas, pineapples, etc. Food waste Greater KL and Penang each produce 1000 tons of food waste per day Palm oil waste from private mills Sewage sludge (toxic copper and lead) - currently dumped into the landfill and sea. In Penang island, 50 tons per day. Singapore and China use sewage sludge to make cement for their buildings, and for energy generation. Opportunities: Food Waste into Green Chemistry and bio-solvents Green waste into Eco-pulp and paper products Waste into Bio-ethanol and bio-fuel Leachate in landfill into biogas Our biomass SMEs to expand overseas where biomass feedstock for energy is plentiful (sawdust as energy feedstock Canada, US, Sweden, Brazil, China) Partnering with cost-effective and commercial bio-refinery companies that turn waste into bio-solvents, pulp and paper, green chemical, bio-

SWOT Analysis

Weakness Sustainable high-volume long-term contract of palm oil-based feedstock is controlled by big palm oil plantations

Threats Most European and US international bio-fuel and bio-ethanol companies are only interested in cheapest sugar (not biomass) feedstock 20 cents/kilo. Large Taiwan industrial flour companies are only interested in cheapest crude

So much ends up in waste

What do we do with our waste?

Malaysia 95% landfill,


5% recycled (JSPN).. but industry says recycle is 15% (Pemandu, 4/12) 45% is food waste

What a waste!!

25,000 tons/day of waste is generated in Peninsular Malaysia in 2012 based on projections in the National Strategic Plan. 45% if food waste

Food Waste - we need to encourage the usage of this chemically-rich resource & source of functionalised carbon
25,000 tons/day of waste is generated in Peninsular Malaysia in 2012 based on projections in the National Strategic Plan. (Pemandu-JSPN Waste Management Lab Report, April 2012). Malaysia generates 21,000 tons per day of which 17,000 tons are collected by local authorities (Final PEMANDU NCER C&C Lab Report, March 2012) 45-50% comprised of food waste that is dumped into the landfill (Pemandu GKL Lab Report, 2011, C&C NCER Lab Report, March 2012) in the UK, over 90% of the 5.7 Mt of commercial and industrial Food Waste is discarded to landfill. 90 Mt of food waste generated every year in the EU incl. industrial and household food waste, or 179kg per capita

Thus, there is available source of functionalised carbon. Most is landfilled, and it if isnt landfilled, it is used for 1st generation, lower-value applications such as compost, anaerobic digestion or animal feed.

Electricity - 670 kwh of energy is produced per ton of organic waste

Cost of Waste in Malaysia


(source: Waste Mgnt Lab, April 2012 from JSPN)

Source: PEMANDU Solid Waste Management Lab (April 2012) Business-as-usual is not sustainable
Current state of affairs
Increasing amount of solid waste - 25,000 tons/day waste generated in Peninsular Malaysia in 2012 based on projections in the National Strategic Plan. - Only an estimated of 5% recycled. Source separation scheme ongoing but still at early stage. Landfills are the only disposal means in Malaysia - 95% waste land-filled. Around 300 sites but only 60% in operations. - Not more than 10 sanitary landfills have been built (vs 22 specified in NSP).

Urgency to move away from landfills lack of areas for new landfills especially within major conurbation and corridors landfills increase Methane and GhG emissions causing climate change

negative public perception on landfills

Current treatment and disposal methods are not environmental friendly


- Dependence on landfills will increase CO2 emission by 50% in Peninsular Malaysia by 2020 - Incinerators releases toxic gases like dioxins

New sustainable SWM technologies are required to address environmental issues. Emerging technologies are available and looks promising but viability needs to be verified.

Source: JPSPN

Malaysia is currently dependent on landfills with 95% of waste collected ending up in landfills
State Johor Kedah Kelantan Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Perak Perlis Pulau Pinang Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu WP Kuala Lumpur WP Labuan Landfills in operation 14 8 13 2 7 16 17 1 2 19 49 8 8 0 1 Landfills Not in operation 23 7 6 5 11 16 12 1 1 2 14 14 12 7 0 Total 37 15 19 7 18 32 29 2 3 21 63 22 20 7 1

Total

165

131

296

Source: JPSPN, 2012

A world of possibilities
Agro-residues 46 Mt/y
Spent coffee grounds 3 Mt/y 1 Mt/y of food waste

Unripe coconut husks 5 Mt/y Orange peels 12 Mt/y

Palm oil waste 15.8 Mt/y 30 Mt/y of Agro-residues 382 t/y coffee husks Cassava starch 228 Mt/y

Chemicals from food waste


bio-adhesives sugars phenols starch pectin collagen cellulose chitosan hemicellulose lignin waxes natural dyes films hydrophobes Liquid fuels solid fuels

nanocomposites
bio-surfactants

Food supply chain residues

natural chelants
PVC replacements hydrogels chemical monomers

cosmetic waxes

bio-solvents

James Clark, 2011,York Univ

PepsiCo looks to reuse plant waste Mar 14, 2011 6:10pm EDT CHICAGO (Reuters) - PepsiCo Inc (PEP.N) is working on ways to reuse waste like oat husks and orange peels, to save money in its supply chain, in areas such as packaging.

Bio-refinery
Fuels

Solvent

Plastics

Biomass
Not from Food Quality feedstock, instead use Food Waste

Bulk chemicals

Fine chemicals

Fibres

Oils

Biomass
including food and wastes
CHEMICAL POTENTIAL

agro-

ADDING VALUE

Extractables
(secondary metabolites from straw)

Bulk Chemicals Materials


(primary metabolites starch, cellulose) Selective Fermentation Controlled Pyrolysis Extraction Technology (Bio)platform molecules Expansion Methods Green Chemical Modification Green Chemistry/technology ((Bio)chemical processing of bulk materials/residues)

Benign Extraction Methods Separation/Purification

TECHNOLOGIES

Green Chemical Transformation

Composites

The The

Chemical industry is too dependent on traditional virgin sources of raw materials. So instead, use food waste as the raw material

Pressures on the Chemical Industry Across the Lifecycle

Methodology - Indicators

EPI Rank
EPI Rank EPI Score Country EPI circa 2000 76.2 63.8 68.1 EPI, Most Recent Year Available (2010) 76.7 70.4 69.9 69.2 69 69 68.9 68.9 68.8 68.8 Percentage Change EPI Pilot Trend Rank 89 1 84 106 113 19 71 12 20 63 EPI Pilot Trend Score 2.42 18 2.95 0.26 -0.52 11.02 4.38 11.31 11.01 5.44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 76.69 70.37 69.92 69.2 69.03 69 68.92 68.9 68.82 68.82 Switzerland Latvia Norway 0.51 7.35 1.91 0.4 3.35 7.62 1.11 6.37 8.73 2.68

Luxembourg 68.8 Costa Rica France Austria Italy United Kingdom Sweden 66 62.3 67.9 63.2 61.2 66.4

How A Tiny Central American Country Is Getting Richer And Saving The Environment
Uses 99.2% renewable energy

GDP growing for decades


Started with the disband of its military in 1948, resulting in military funds channelled instead on investment into social and environmental programs Transformed itself from one of the most deforested nations (29%) in the Western hemisphere to one with Forest cover 52% its area Costa Rica has accomplished in the past 30 years to save the environment and prosper

Malaysia EPI Rank: 25 Pilot Trend EPI Rank: 33


Population: 28,401,017, Land Area (sq. km.): 331,235 GDP Per Capita: $13,186 Costa Rica: EPI Rank: 5, Pilot Trend EPI Rank: 113 Population: 4,658,887, Land Area (sq. km.): 51,452, GDP Per Capita: $10,258

Countries with similar levels of performance: New Zealand Ecuador Germany Portugal Australia

Countries with similar trend performance, 2000-2010: Indonesia Trinidad and Tobago Viet Nam Chile Namibia Source: http://epi.yale.edu/dataexplorer/countryprofiles

36

Comparing performance when invested capital is low

37

2ND Dimension of Technological Development

What is Technological Capability?


a) Routine Operating Capability:
Capability to use existing technology

b) Innovative Capability:
Capability to generate & manage change

Adapted from Hobday (1999). Understanding innovation in electronics in Malaysia In Jomo, Felker & Rasiah (eds) Industrial Technology Development in Malaysia: Industry & Firm Studies, Routledge, UK)

Design & Development Activities in the Electronics Industry in Malaysia


Product Design (Concept) Product Design (Mechanical) Application & System Design (Software) Application & System Design (Electronics) Semiconductor IC Design Semiconductor Packaging Design

Market Feasibility Product Definition & Tolerance Level

3D Design, Modeling , and Rendering

Architecture Design Software Coding Test & Debugging

Sub-System Circuit Design & Simulation

Semiconductor Circuit Design


FPGA Programming

Product & Process Requirement

Kinematics Simulation

PCB Layout FPGA Test and Debugging PCB Fabrication ASIC/SoC Fabrication Semiconductor Packaging Pilot Run

Material matrix & stress modeling

Appearance & Component Specification

FMEA

Design for Mfg. & Assy. Rapid Prototyping Product Testing Prototype Build and Integration Mould & Tooling Design Functional Testing FMEA Reliability Testing Pre-Compliant Testing Product Certification Customized Production Machineries Pilot Run & Mass Production

PCB Assembly Prototyping PCB Design Testing

Design and full characterization Prototype & Full Solution Proposal

Failure Analysis & Reliability Testing

Trial Testing

IC Design Support

Internal Qual (JEDEC) Mix-Signal IC Design Service Design Rule Fix & Doc. Pilot Run

Front-end Design Service

Back-end Design Service

RF IC Design Service

Analog IC Design Service

Digital IC Design Service

Source: authors research update in 2008 and 2010

ROUTINE OPERATING CAPABILITY IN THE ELECTRONICS

INDUSTRY
Types Of Capability Levels Of Capability
ROUTINE OPERATING CAPABILITY: THE CAPABILITY TO USE EXISTING TECHNOLOGY
Engaging prime consultant. Preparation of initial project outline. Construction of basic civil works. Simple plant erection Purchase equipment Recruitment.

Project Management

Equipment, Tool & die, metal stamping, plastic moulding

Process and Production Organisation

Product- centred

BASIC OPERATION Level 1

Basic maintenance but equipment suppliers stationed at plant.

SKD (semi-knocked down): parts assembly, only final assembly. Assemble kits: dissamble and re-assemble kits. PPC: production planning and control. Organising basic process flow. Visual testing only.

Routine QC to maintain basic standards: incoming, final product inspection, out-going inspection.

BASIC OPERATION
Level 2

Installation, maintenance, servicing, Simple customising of existing systems. Basic plant erection

Routine maintenance of tools and equipment. Total Preventative Maintenance (TPM). Total Productive Maintenance. Replication of unchanging items of equipment.

Process flow, line balancing. Assemble separate parts into complete assembly CKD (complete knocked down): complete assembly: PCBA and product assembly. Efficiency improvement from experience in existing tasks. Routine testing.

Replication of fixed specification Routine QC to maintain existing standards: inline QC Minor clean-up of design to suit production or market.

TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITY: THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY


TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITY IN THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY Types And Levels Of Capability Project Management Equipment Tool & Die, Metal Stamping, Plastic Moulding Routine maintenance of tools and equipment. TPM. Replication of unchanging items of equipment. Repair & troubleshoot equip problems Copying and simple adaptation of existing designs/ specifications. Set-up Equipment Design, Tool, Die & Mould Development. Engineering/fairly Process And Production Organisation Process flow, line balancing. CKD Efficiency improvement from experience in existing tasks. Routine manual testing. Set-up of Process, Production or Industrial Engineering Dept/s. Improved layout & debugging to optimise production. ISO9002, SPC, QCC, TQM, Do in-circuit ProductCentred Replication of fixed specifications Routine QC to maintain existing standards. Minor clean-up of design to suit production or market. Set-up of Product Engineering, Product Design dept/s. Product design for manufacture (DFM), Costeffective, incremental product development for local or different

Installation, Routine maintenance, Production servicing. capability Simple customising of Level 2 existing systems. Basic plant erection. Systems integration. Basic Provide project innovative management capability services to customers. Level 3 Providing customised software solutions

INNOVATIVE CAPABILITY: THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY IN MALAYSIA


Types And Levels Of Capability Project Management Equipment Tool & Die, Metal Stamping, Plastic Moulding Process And Production Organisation Product- Centred

Intermediat innovative capability Level 4

Software Develop automated equipment. development. Equipment Design Centre Project upgraded to separate firm. management of Mould & die design. large-scale High precision tooling, investment projects, progressive metal stamping, international plastic injection moulding. investments.

Automation of processes Flexible & multi-skilled production. Business process re-engineering. Dev new process specifications. Able to transfer to production directly from R&D design or drawing.

Design Centre upgraded to separate firm. Own product design for local or regional markets. Electrical, PCB Chassis, Chip-on-board, Platform designs. Design for testability and debugDFT/DFD ISO9001 Software development Systems engineering.

Advanced innovative capability Level 5

Projects management on a global scale. Full turnkey solution. Recognised training & service centres to TNC Group, customers or suppliers.

R&D for specifications and designs of new high precision tools, complex automated equipment or production systems. Patents. Set-up of recognised training institutes in precision tool & die, or precision plastic moulding with universities.

Radical innovation in Rapid prototyping, VLSI design. organisation. Package electrical design. Own-developed CIM with Substrate and piece parts design. customers, vendors or Group. Materials and surface analysis. In-depth Failure Analysis. Upgraded to regional or worldwide Developing manufacturing, FA and Design Centres or world product TestCAD software tools, Patents. mandates. Providing design services to TNC Group or customers.

RESEARCH-BASED CAPABILITY: THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY

Types And Levels Of Capability

Project Management

Equipment Tool & Die, Metal Stamping, Plastic Moulding

Process And Production Organisation

Product- Centred

Research based innovative capability Level 6

Fast time-to-design cuttingProcess and software Is a leading regional or edge and hi-prec equipment development to produce & international R&D, to produce latest or cuttingtest high yield, product development, edge products and miniaturised and higher ASICs or software design components performance HDD centre/s. Is among regional or global products and chips. R&D into new product leader of CNC complex Time-to-volume generations using equipment, high precision production. leading-edge technology, tooling, stamping, die & Research into advanced larger wafers, higher mould, prototype models. material and new performance HDD & specifications to produce chips. future or cutting-edge R&D into more uniform products. crystal growth, improved magnetic orientation, advanced materials.

Source: Norlela Ariffin (2000). Internationalisation of Innovative Capabilities: The Malaysian Electronics Industry. PhD Dissertation, SPRU, University of Sussex. Framework is based on actual activities of firms in the Malaysian electronics industry, and adapted from Bell and Pavitt (1995).

Greater Penang (Penang, Kedah, Perak) and Klang Valley


The selection of the two most established locations has allowed for testing of the importance of location and industrial clustering. Penang has the highest regional distribution index for the electronics industry, an index that measures the concentration of industries based on sectoral employment, employment concentration ratio and value-added per worker. Almost one-third of the whole industrys employment is in Penang (other concentrations of the electronics industry are in the Klang Valley and Johor). It would be expected that firms operating in the Greater Penang area would have higher technological capability levels due to greater clustering and networking effects than firms in the Klang Valley.

The statistical results do show that there is a significant difference in technological capability levels between the two regions. Penang firms overall, have higher technological capability levels than those in the Klang Valley. However the differences between MNC subsidiaries in the two locations, as well as between local suppliers linked to MNC subsidiaries, and between local independent firms are not significant.

Table 4 Statistical Results Of Factors Influencing Technological Capability Levels Sampled Firms All Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 sampled TNC Local Local firms subsidiaries suppliers independent Factors linked to firms n=53 n=26 TNC n=13 subsidiaries n=14 1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 TNC parent origin TNC-led local origin Product type Final goods or supplier OEM-ODMOBM Exportorientation Market orientation Local decisionmaking Automation level Region Employee size Sales Group size Num engineer % engineer Sales/ Employee Profit
Local firms Rho=.066 Chi-sq = 14.021 Rho = .198 Rho = -.1 Rho = .267** Rho = .28** Chi-sq = 8.021 Rho = .117 Rho = .559*** Rho = .393*** Rho =.084 Rho =.141 Rho=.134 Rho = .388** Rho = .455*** Rho = .117 Rho = .450** Chi-sq = 9.084 Chi-sq = 12.2 Rho = -.105 Rho = -.247 Rho = .504*** Rho = .058 Chi-sq = 3.369 Rho = -.201 Rho = .614*** Rho =.339* Chi-sq = 2.28 Rho = .192 Rho = .192 Rho = .343 Rho = .405 Rho = .568** Rho = .288 n.a

Rho=.282 Chi-sq = 8.56 Rho = .073 All are suppliers Rho = .728*** Rho = .546** Chi-sq = 4.472, Rho = .546** Rho = .8*** Rho = .24 Chi-sq = 5.1* Rho = .213 Rho = .039 Rho = .308 Rho = .535 Rho = .559* Rho = -.411 Rho= .296

Rho=-.139 Chi-sq = 11.51 Rho = .598** Rho = .228 Rho = -.073 Rho = .398 Chi-sq = 5.146, Rho = .494* Rho = .428 Rho = .649** Chi-sq = 5.4* Rho = -.407 Rho =.31 Rho = .236 Rho = .733** Rho = .221 Rho = -.413 Rho = .54

Significance level: * between .05 and .1, ** between .01 and .05, *** less than .01 Based on Table 4 and data drawn from 53 firms in Greater Penang and Klang Valley interviewed.

Penang and Klang Valley


Pearson Deviance Link function: Logit.

Goodness-of-Fit Chi-Square 23.982 28.411 df 9 9 Sig. .004 .001

MNCs versus Local Firms

MNC subsidiaries and local suppliers linked to MNC subsidiaries in Greater Penang have higher average numbers of R&D staff (85 and 25 staff, respectively) than those in the Klang Valley. But local independent firms in the Klang Valley have a higher average (43 staff) than those in Penang. These differences may be due to the types of product manufactured, length of operation or other factors. Even though the numbers of people are less than those in developed countries, these numbers are gradually increasing - some firms that started with three personnel in the 1970s had as many as 200 R&D staff by the late 1990s; in 2008, Intel in Penang had 1,200 staff in the Intel Design Centre.
Table 5 Average Number of R&D Staff In Firms Interviewed Group Group 1 TNC Subsidiaries Group 2 Local suppliers linked to TNC subsidiaries KV Penang 481 25 11 Group 3 Independent firms Total Local Firms Total

KV Penang Region Mean Employee 2634 4088 93.3 R&D staff 60 72 85 4

KV 2315 43

Penang 1003 10 38

KV 1760 33

Penang 630 18 30

KV 2215 47

Penang 2295 71 56

Design & Development Activities in the Electronics Industry in Greater Penang & Klang Valley
Product Design (Concept) Product Design (Mechanical) Application & System Design (Software) Application & System Design (Electronics) Semiconductor IC Design Semiconductor Packaging Design

Market Feasibility Product Definition & Tolerance Level

3D Design, Modeling , and Rendering

Architecture Design Software Coding Test & Debugging

Sub-System Circuit Design & Simulation

Semiconductor Circuit Design


FPGA Programming

Product & Process Requirement

Kinematics Simulation

PCB Layout FPGA Test and Debugging PCB Fabrication ASIC/SoC Fabrication Semiconductor Packaging Pilot Run

Material matrix & stress modeling

Appearance & Component Specification

FMEA

Design for Mfg. & Assy. Rapid Prototyping Product Testing Prototype Build and Integration Mould & Tooling Design Functional Testing FMEA Reliability Testing Pre-Compliant Testing Product Certification Customized Production Machineries Pilot Run & Mass Production

PCB Assembly Prototyping PCB Design Testing

Design and full characterization Prototype & Full Solution Proposal

Failure Analysis & Reliability Testing

Trial Testing

IC Design Support

Internal Qual (JEDEC) Mix-Signal IC Design Service Design Rule Fix & Doc. Pilot Run

Front-end Design Service

Back-end Design Service

RF IC Design Service

Analog IC Design Service

Digital IC Design Service

Source: authors research update in 2008 and 2010

Figure 4 Research update in October to November 2008: innovation audit of front-end semiconductor and electronic design centres/firms

Value Chain Positions of Companies Surveyed


12 30% 35% 30% 25% 18% 15% 12% 3% 0% 0% 3% 18% 20% 15%
% of Companies

10
No. of Companies

8 6 4 2 0

10%
5% 0%

Source: authors research update with Robert Tai based on MIGHT Innovation Audit in Sept-Oct 2008

The recruitment forecast conducted in 2008 for Design and Development staff over the next five years (2009-2014) is expected to increase. However, year 2009 was expected to experience a slight dip in recruitment, partly due to the not so favourable sales forecast due to the global financial crisis in 2008. The expected year-on-year growth is about 6%.
Figure 2: Research Update in October 2008

The types of new recruits are centred on IC design and application software and hardware engineers. There is also a strong emphasis on non-technical related recruits as well

How long did firms take to build up technological capability in Penang and Klang Valley?
Figure 8. Mean speed (in years) to move through various technological capability levels
11.1 4.4
0

Project Management

Equipment, tooling, mo ulding

5.1

4.5

0 0 0
0

Product-centred Process and production organisation fastest speed

4.5

4.3

5.4

4.7

4.4

4.3

3.4

3.4
5 10

4.5
15

4.5
20 25 30

years

master operation
advanced innovation
Source: Derived from the research.

basic innovation
research-based innovation

intermediate innovation

Types of capability Levels of capability Start operation to entry into electronics industry speed Entry into electronics industry to master routine production speed

Fastest Speed To Move Through Technological Capability Levels, Regardless of Type Mean= 2.7, n=53 Median = 0, Mode = 0, SD = 9.1, Min=0, max= 57 Mean= 3.4, n=51 Median = 3, Mode = 7, SD = 9.7, Min=0, max= 61 Mean = 3.2, n=51 Med = 2.8, mode = 4, SD=3.4,min=-2, max=13.3 Mean = 7.6, n=43 Med = 5.7, mode = 14, SD=5.2, min=-.8,max=18.4 Mean = 11.9, n=19 Med = 12, mode = -.8, SD=6.5, min=-.8,max=23.2 Mean = 22.1, n=2 SD=2.6, min=20.2,max=24 Mean = 4.5, n=44 Med = 3.6, mode = 0, SD=3.4, min=0, max=14.4 Mean = 9, n=19 Med = 8.2, mode = 7, SD=4.5, min=.5, max=19.2 Mean = 19.7, n=2 SD=5.4, min=16,max=23.5 Mean = 4.5, n=19 Med = 4.4, mode = 0, SD=2.7, min=0, max=10 Mean = 16.9, n=2 SD=4.4, min=13.8,max=20 Mean = 9.1, n=2 SD=1.3, min=8.2,max=10

Process and production organisation

Product-centred

Equipment tool & die, stamping, moulding

Project management

Master basic operation to start of basic innovation speed

Master basic operation to start of intermediate innovation speed

Master basic operation to start of advanced innovation speed Master basic operation to start of research-based innovation speed Start basic innovation after starting intermediate innovation speed

Start basic innovation after starting advanced innovation speed

Mean = 4.7 Med = 3, Mode = 0, SD = 4.6, min = -.5, max = 15.6, n=34 Mean = 8.9 Med = 8, Mode = 8, SD = 5.6, min = 0, max = 19, n=25 Mean = 14.7 Med = 16.5, Mode = 7, SD = 5.9, min = 7, max = 23.2, n=11 N=1, Speed = 20.2 Mean = 4.4 Med = 3.7, Mode = 2, SD = 3.4, min = .5, max = 14.4, n=22 Mean = 10.1 Med = 7.1, Mode = 5.2, SD = 5.2, min = 5.2, max = 19.2, n=9

Mean = 4.5 Med = 3, Mode = 1.1, SD = 4.5, min = -2.1, max = 18, n=36 Mean = 7.7 Med = 5.8, Mode = -.5, SD = 5.4, min = -.5, max = 17.3, n=25 Mean = 13 Med = 12, Mode = 12, SD = 7.3, min =4.3, max=24, n=12 n=1, Speed = 23.9 Mean = 4.3 Med = 4.4, Mode = 6, SD = 2.3, min = 0, max = 8, n=23 Mean = 10 Med = 10.1, Mode = 1.3, SD = 5.1, min = 1.3, max = 15.4, n=8 n=1, Speed = 21.9 Mean = 5.4 Med = 6, Mode = 6, SD = 3.8, min =.5, max = 13.6, n=9 n=1 Speed = 20.5 n=1 Speed = 6.9

Mean = 5.1 Med = 4.2, Mode = 4, SD = 4.5, min = -1, max = 16.4, n=28 Mean = 9.1 Med = 8.8, Mode = 8, SD = 4.6, min = -.3, max = 18.4, n=20 Mean = 13.7 Med = 13.7, Mode = 8.8, SD = 3.4, min = 8.8, max = 19, n=6

Mean = 11.1 Med = 11.4, Mode = 1.1, SD = 6, min = 1.1, max = 19, n=14 Mean = 13 Med = 12, Mode = 12, SD = 7.3, min = 4.3, max = 24, n=12 Mean = 17.8 Med = 17.8, SD = 1.9, min = 16.4, max = 19.2, n=2

Mean = 4.5 Med = 3.8, Mode = 4, SD = 2.9, min = .8, max = 10, n=18 Mean = 8.9 Med = 7.8, Mode = 6.6, SD = 3.1, min = 6.6, max = 15, n=6

Mean = 6 Med=6.1, Mode = 1.17, SD = 3.4, min = 1.2, max = 9, n=4

Start basic innovation after starting research-based innovation speed Start intermediate innovation after starting advanced innovation speed

Start intermediate innovation after starting research-based innovation speed Start advanced innovation after starting research-based innovation speed

N=1, Speed = 11.2 Mean = 4.3 Med = 3.9, Mode = 2, SD = 2.4, min = 2, max = 10, n=9 N=1 Speed = 9.2 N=1 Speed = 5.3

Mean = 5.7 Med = 5.3, Mode = .2, SD = 3.6, min = .2, max = 11, n=6

n=1, Speed = 4.4

Fifthly, an examination of the length of time at which firms remain at their maximum innovative capability level shows that, on the average, this rate decreases as firms reach higher maximum levels see Figure 9. At the research-based innovative level, this is not surprising as only two firms have reached this level since late 1998. The number and proportion of firms that have remained at their maximum levels for different time length intervals, rather than average time length, are given in Table 6. This table shows that, at the lower innovative capability levels, there is a higher proportion of firms that have remained there longer than the proportion of firms at the higher levels. From Table 6, 10 of 35 firms (29%) that are stuck at the basic and intermediate levels have remained there for six to 13 years.
Figure 9.
7

Average rates (in years) that firms remain stuck at the maximum technological capability level reached

Number of years

basic Intermediate Advanced innovation innovation innovation Maximum Technological Capability Reached

Researchbased innovation

Table 6. Number of firms that remain at different maximum technological capability levels by length of time spent at that level
< 2 years 2-3 years 4-5 years 6-7 years 8-13 years Num of Firms at Maximum Capability Level Basic innovative level 1 0 4 2 1 (12%) 8 (15%) Intermediate innovative level 6 3 8 4 3 (11%) 27 (50%) Advanced innovative level 8 1 6 1 0 (0%) 16 (30%) Research-based innovation 2 0 0 0 0 (0%) 2 (4%)

Sources: Drawn from timeline data of 53 firms interviewed

Implications for policy planning


The data collected here covers a span of 40 years in the development of the Malaysian electronics industry. So far, significant MNC-linked technological learning has occurred during this period. But it does not imply that this process will continue through subsequent phases of the industrys development. It may do so. But, it may be that there are limits to the learning role played by MNCs, and that other types of firms and other types of learning mechanisms will have to play key roles in the future. The plan to tranform the Malaysian economy into an innovation-led, high-income economy should not only focus on efforts to bring in new MNCs, but also to promote and support the innovative technological development of existing MNC subsidiaries and MNC design centres. Serious attention should also be given to foster a larger pool of indigenous innovative capabilities as in the cases of Taiwan and Korea. The same attention that has been given to attracting and sustaining foreign MNCs over the last 38 years should also be given to promoting local innovative firms. Local innovative firms should be recognised and given tangible support to facilitate their growth into global firms. Efforts to promote local innovative firms have started with the SME Innovation Award which gives a RM1 million cash prize to the most innovative SME and the introduction of 1-innoCERT innovation certification. In Korea, the equivalent of the 1-innoCERT innovation certification - INNOBIZ - provides technology funding to certified Korean SMEs, comprising a government guarantee (about 85%), a 75% refund of product development expenses (to a maximum value of USD500,000), longer loan periods and lower interest rates. Seven percent of Korean government procurement is also sourced from certified innovative companies. It is also important to distinguish between two fundamentally different dimensions of technological development: movement through increasingly advanced and complex products and processes on the one hand and, on the other, movement through increasingly creative roles in connection with those product/process technologies e.g., from their basic operation and use through various kinds of design and engineering to differing depths of R&D. Progress along these two dimensions involves the creation of very different kinds of resources and the use of different learning mechanisms. So, while the Penang state government may have interests in accelerating both types of progress, different measures will be required in each case. A good move would be to invite established IC design apprenticeship training centres to open in Penang, i.e. a collaboration with SHRDC on their IC design tools and training facilities at MIMs and ICmics Academy.

1. Inter-Firm Knowledge Flows & Learning Links:

---- EXPORT MARKET ---- DOMESTIC MARKET---


Global Electronics Industry
Foreign TNC parents Foreign subsidiaries Group 1

Malaysian Electronics Industry

Local linkage firms Group 2

Other Firms Foreign Foreign Firms

Local independent firms Group 3

Key: The arrows represent linkages between the groups of firms Source: derived from the research

Typology of Inter-Firm Knowledge Flows


LINKS CENTRED ON MARKET TRANSACTIONS IN GOODS AND SERVICES CAPABILITY MP-Links - USING LINKS KNOWLEDGE LINKS Existing Technology (Routine Production) Innovation Links

I-Link

Marketing/ Production links,


interactions between firms is a purely marketing relationship involving the sale of goods and services from the use of existing production capabilities,

Innovation links,
interaction is the source of innovation. Here firms already have innovative technological capabilities, and they collaborate in using those to execute

CAPABILITY -BUILDING LINKS (LEARNING LINKS)

LP-Link

LI-Link

Learning for Production links


are used by firms to create or enhance basic production capability. and/or to master specific managerial and organisational practices.

Learning for Innovation links,


firms build up new basic and intermediate level innovative capabilities.

Measure of Inter-Firm Knowledge Flows


Linkage Rank 2 3

MP-links: Links centred on market transactions LP-links: Links centred on Knowledge flows to learn existing technology LI-links: Links centred on Knowledge flows to learn to innovate I-links: Knowledge links in collaborations in innovation

4 5

2003/2005 MIGHT Innovation Audit Linkages given highest weightage to Innovation (6 weight)
1) Awareness
OVERALL SCATTER PLOT FOR ALL 81 LEADING FIRMS SURVEYED

2) Search
Degree of Awareness of Technology

3) Building Core Competencies


4) Technology Strategy 5) Assessing & Selecting Technology
Creative

Innovation must become a way of life, a norm. Only then 6) Acquiring Technology will countries be able to compete against the best in the 7) Implementing Technology world.
8) YABLearning Dato Seri Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi
Prime Minister of Malaysia Patron of MIGHT 9) Linking to External Sources
Passive

Strategic

Reactive

Degree of Effectiveness in Practice

Source: 2003/2005 IMIGHT Innovation Capability Survey for EPU


MIGHT 2008 Proprietary & Confidential

63

Innovation Capability Along 9 Dimensions

Malaysia Institute Of Microsystems (MIMs) Programs


Analog
Short Courses Graduate Enhancement Program

Digital

Short Courses Graduate Enhancement Program Application Software Embedded Software

Software Engineer
Short Courses

RF

EDA labs

Mixed Signal SOC


Short Courses

Graduate Enhancement Program Embedded System Development lab


Design

Semiconductor Packaging

Packaging Prototyping Centre Process Innovation Graduate Enhanmentment Program Testing Centre Short Courses Graduate Enhancement Program

Testing

Prototype

IC Chip

MOCCIS, MIMOS

Packaging & Testing

Low Speed PCB Design Multi Layered High Speed

PCB Protototyping Centre

PCB

Graduate Enhancement Program

Testing

Short Courses

Malaysia Institute Of Microsystems (MIMs) Model


Competencies & capabilities R&D directory Supply chain Funding & incentives Technologies guide Benchmarking database Graduate Enhancing Program Continous Professional Education (CPE)

SHRDC

Government & agencies directory

IPs Database Access


Competencies & Capabilities Development

Short courses
Education & Training

SHRDC

Voice of Industry

Knowledge Library
Information Dissemination Increase Awareness

Seminar/Symposiums (working population) Schools Technology awareness Competition

EDA tools Prototype facilities link (e.g: Fabs, Packaging & PCB)

MIMs
Innovation & Creativity

Resources

Test facilities

SHRDC

Access through SMIDEC grant Tools & Technology

Start up OJT Centre Start up OJT

Research & Development

SHRDC Incubation centres


International networking & market access

Industry research/academic collaboration


Innovation development Universities Design houses

Participating companies in education and training


AIC Semiconductor Sdn. Bhd. * Alps Electric (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd AMD Spansion Penang * Metronic Sdn Bhd Test Tooling Solutions * Motorola Technology Sdn Bhd

Carsem Industries (M) Sdn Bhd *


Fairchild Semiconductor (M) Sdn Bhd * Flextronics (M) Sdn Bhd * Pullstreme Design Systems Sdn Bhd * Freescale Semiconductor (M) Sdn Bhd * Intel Microelectronics (M) Sdn Bhd * IRIS Technologies Sdn Bhd Jaalaa Malaysia Sdn Bhd* My MS* Avago * Transdist* Keyasic* Agilent* Infineon *

National Semiconductor Sdn Bhd *


Onsemiconductor (M) Sdn Bhd * Pioneer Technology (M) Sdn.Bhd Renesas (Semiconductor) Malaysia Sdn Bhd * Sires Labs Sdn Bhd*,

Sony EMCS (M) Sdn Bhd


Spansion (M) Sdn Bhd * Symmid Corporation Sdn Bhd * Texas Intruments (M) Sdn Bhd * Toshiba Electronic Malaysia

Altera*
MIMOS* Uchi Opto* And many more

New MIMs Program: Enhanced INSEP (~14 months)

Industry certification is provided:


: Analog Chip Design Certification from Toppan Moore Japan : Piping System Design (Oil & Gas) Society of Piping Engineers and Designers (SPED USA) : PCB Design Certified Interconnect Designer (IPC USA) : Industrial Automation Certified Automation Professional (Instrumentation Systems and Automation (ISA) USA) Pending

IRPA-PR0075 The Development and Production of Advance Semiconductor Packaging On-Site Research work conducted at AIC Semiconductor (www.aicsemicon.com) beginning Dec 2006 for 1 year.

Advanced 3-D Package


Proposed Qual Vehicle Definition * TBD based on AICS popular customer request

To develop most popular QFN (*TBD) body size lead frame (0.5mm pitch, 0.2mm lead frame thickness).
Using existing AICS lead frame outline that is compatible with existing platform setup Small top die, no spacer & 2 die stack. Target Applications

Applicable for products such as cell phones, PDAs, digital cameras and audio players with smaller and thinner overall system technologies.

Illustration of Potential Package Configuration


70

Benchmark shows that for QFN packages smaller than 3 mm x 3 mm, Saw singulation is used more widely and the package height is in the range of 0.85 mm to 1.00 mm. There are 50% companies engaged in these QFN packages smaller than 3 mm x 3 mm from the benchmark.
Smaller than 3x3 capability Punch Singulation Saw Package height Singulation (mm) 0.90 0.75 / 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.60 0.80 0.55 / 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.80 / 0.90 71 -

Name Amkor ASAT ASE Chung Li ASE Kaohsiung ASE Korea ASE Malaysia Carsem Cypress Fairchild Semi Infineon Intersil Maxim National Semiconductor NEC ON Semiconductor Philips Semiconductor Renesas ROHM STMicroelectronics Texas Instruments

* ASEToshiba is one company even though the benchmark shows four.

Stack Die QFN (based on AICS standard QFN flow

Wafer Backgrind

Wafer Mount

Wafer Saw

2nd Optical QA Gate

LF Bar Coding 1st Die Attach

FRONT OF LINE
BTM DIE TOP DIE BTM DIE TOP DIE BTM DIE

3rd Optical Reject Mapping


3rd Optical QA Gate

Wire Bonding

2nd Curing

2nd Die Attach


TOP DIE BTM DIE

1st Curing

TOP DIE BTM DIE

TOP DIE BTM DIE

Molding

Detaping

Laser Marking

Post Mold Cure Plating (optional)

C-SAM Monitor

4th Optical QA Gate

Pick & Place

Package Saw

Strip Mount

END OF LINE
72

Advanced 3-D Package Minimum Product Requirement


Proposed Internal Qual Reliability Test Plan
Following Stress Temp Cycle Condition B (-55 ~125C) Sample Size (Lots/ Parts) 3/77 Procedure MSL L3 per J-STD-020B Precon per JESD22-A113 Temp cycle per JESD22 -A104B, Soak Mode 1 MSL L3 per J-STD-020B Precon per JESD22-A113 Temp cycle per JESD22 -A104B, Soak Mode 1 MSL L3 per J-STD-020B Precon per JESD22-A113 Biased HAST per JESD22-A101-B MSL L3 per J-STD-020B Precon per JESD22-A113 Readouts 1)%weight gain Post Soak 2) Post 3X reflow 3) 500, 1000 cyc 1)%weight gain Post Soak 2) Post 3X reflow 3) 500, 1000 cyc 1)%weight gain Post Soak 2) Post 3X reflow 3) 96, 168 hrs 1)%weight gain Post Soak 2) Post 3X reflow 3) 96, 168 hrs 1)%weight gain Post Soak 2) Post 3X reflow 3) 500, 1000 hrs 1)%weight gain Post Soak 2) Post 3X reflow 3) 500, 1000 cyc Pass/ Fail Criteria No fails at O/S test @ 25C No delam at SAT inspect (transducer freq >50MHz) No fails at O/S test @ 25C No delam at SAT inspect (transducer freq >50MHz) No fails at O/S test @ 25C No delam at SAT inspect (transducer freq >50MHz) No fails at O/S test @ 25C No delam at SAT inspect (transducer freq >50MHz) No fails at O/S test @ 25C No delam at SAT inspect (transducer freq >50MHz) No fails at O/S test @ 25C No delam at SAT inspect 73 (transducer freq >50MHz) Precondition Stress 1 Precondition MSL L3 192hr @ 30C/60%RH, 255+5/-0 C Reflow 3X, 2 Precondition MSL L3 192hr @ 30C/60%RH, 255+5/-0 C Reflow 3X, 3 Precondition MSL L3 192hr @ 30C/60%RH, 255+5/-0 C Reflow 3X, 4 Precondition MSL L3 192hr @ 30C/60%RH, 255+5/-0 C Reflow 3X, 5 Precondition MSL L3 192hr @ 30C/60%RH, 255+5/-0 C Reflow 3X, 6 Precondition MSL L3 192hr @ 30C/60%RH, 255+5/-0 C Reflow 3X,

Temp Cycle Condition C (-65 ~150C)

3/77

Biased HAST/ 5v 130C/85%RH, 33.3psia, 96 Hours Biased PCT/ 5v 121C/100%RH, 33.3psia, 96 Hours Biased 85C/85%RH 1000 hours

3/77

3/77

3/77

MSL L3 per J-STD-020B Precon per JESD22-A113

HTST 150C 1000 hours

3/77

MSL L3 per J-STD-020B Precon per JESD22-A113

Spin out from AIC Semiconductor :


Device Semiconductor (won Green Technology SME Innovation Award in 2010) used semiconductor process manufacturing technology to develop low-cost LED array to design costeffective LED lighting

PRODUCTS ARE DRIVEN BY WHATS INSIDE

Technology Movement

Market Requirement

ELECTRONICS

SOFTWARE

MECHANICAL

Developing in-house Video & Tuner Board


Unique image solution using OPLUS processor Development for mechanical chassis, mounting and assembly

Firmware design for display features & OSD control support

75

A) Hardware Design 1. Image Processor & ADC 2. Inverter Design 3. PCB design & layout 4. Power Supply Design 5. 6. Digital Tuning Receiver System (ATSC, DVB-T) IR Transmitter Design

B) Software Development 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Image Processing OSD Control for user interface Memory Management Communication Management Power Management

6.

Remote Control development

C) Mechanical Design 1. 2. Industrial Design Conceptual Design

D) Safety Approvals, Testing & Failure Analysis


1. 2. Safety approval on worldwide requirement TCO 03 (Environment Management System)

3.
4. 5. 6.

Mechanical Design Construction & Evaluation


Mechanical hazard testing Ergonomic Design and Testing Graphic Design

3.
4. 5.

Beta test/ Field Test


Reliability Test Failure Mode Analysis
76

*Activities by D&D (AICM) in Yellow boxes, In blue box, by Production

Product Development Flow


Safety Certification To meet worldwide requirements: UL, CSA, CE, FCC, VCCI, MIC, SIRIM

Test Equipment Design Functional Jigs

System Integration

Product Evaluation & Testing

Product Assembly & Testing


PCB Design PCB Fabrication

Prototype Industrial Design With Sales & ID firms in Export Markets


ID by DMEC (Korea)

by local supplier APC

Conceptual design

PCB Assembly

Material & Parts selection & approval


Gerber file design for PCB
Handmade prototypes by local suppliers: APM, CTM, Formosa

by local supplier Asteria

Mechanical Design Electronics/ Hardware Design

Tooling Design 3D For Metal & Plastic Parts Metal Stamping & Injection Molding
by Local Suppliers CTM & Jotech
77

Design & Development Process Flow


Create Specification Resourcesallocation: Manpower, Budget

Project Planning Item:A,B,C

Product design (Benchmark) Prototype building Design review Test and evaluation

Item:D Product Safety Certification/ Type Approval

Safety Certification for World-Wide market Reliability and Beta Test

Product Design and Development Item:D


Production Pilot Run 1

Verification and validation

Internal Verification And Validation

Item:A,B,C
Marketing Approval QA approval Manufacturing review

Production Pilot Run 2

Material Procurement Line Setup Production pilot run Pilot run review Related Testing

Product Review
R&D sign-off and hand-over to Production Department

BOM IQC/OQC check Production Training Approved Parts Specs Approved Vendor List

R&D Signs Off Production Documentation

78

79

42 & 50 AD & TV Board (Plasma)


Intel Digital TV Platform/ Oplus IC

19 AD Board (Monitor)

19 TV Board (Monitor)
80

System solution design Engineering design Tools & mould fabrication Plastic injection molding and finishing PCB Assembly and testing Contract manufacturing Surface mount facilities access

81

ANALYSIS FROM 1ST BATCH OF INNOVATIVE SMES 2010 SME INNOVATION AWARD

INNOBIZ-certification in Korea
15,063 14,626

3,500

2008 2/09

Source: Innobiz, Korea (2009)

-Briefing by MIGHT for 25th November 2010 on 1innoCERT

Koreas Strategy : Recognise (Certify) & Foster Innovative SMEs into Global Blue-Chip Companies
Technology Fund : 85-95% government guarantee, lower interest rate, longer loan period

Tax Deduction for R&D manpower salary, utilities & equipment


84

Public procurement for SME Innovative products , etc.

Source : KIBO Annual Report 2009

IMPACT of Innovative SMEs vs Conventional SMEs (based on Korean experience)


Higher Added Value (4.9 times) Higher Growth

More Jobs Creation


( 2.9 times) Higher R&D Investment (3.5 times)

(6.9 times)

Higher Operating Margin ( 4.9 times)

1st Batch (June 2010) in Malaysia: 1-innoCERT certified companies = 65 -Brief by MIGHT for 25th November 2010

Impact to GDP after Financial Crisis 46% of Koreas GDP is contributed by SMEs
1200

GDP (USD Billions)


Malaysia

1000

Korea
800

Singapore Taiwan

Law promotion of HighTech StartUps (Venture Business) (1998)

Law promotion of SME Innovation (2001): 14,626 Korean SMEs have received Innobiz certification (as of end 2008) 1. Manufacturing 2. Services/Non-Mfg 3. Agriculture 4. Construction 5. Environment 6. Biotech 7. Software 8. Design

600

400

200

0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source : IMF, April 2009

2010 SME Innovation Award 1st Batch (1st June 2010)

66 5

1-innoCert www.1-innocert.my Online Registration Status By Sector (1st Batch: Feb 25 March 30 2010)

How Close is Online Self-Assessment Scores vs On-Site Audited Scores?

1-INNOCERT WITH TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION RATING For Each Certified Company (Valid For 2 Years) AUDITED SCORES TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION RATING 1-innoCERT CERTIFIED Over 900-1,000 Over 800-900 AAA AA 71 companies audited for 2010 SME Innovation Award 66 5 34

700-800
<700 Over 600-699 Over 500-600 Over 400-500 Over 300-400 Over 200-300

A
NOT CERTIFIED BBB BB B CCC CC

27
5 4 0 0 1 0

Over 100-200
0-100

C
D

0
0

Survey Sector & SME Innovation Award Category


Certified Audited Survey Sectors: 5 6 Environment Renewable Energy Green 5 3 6 26 11 9 1 66 6 3 8 27 11 9 1 71 Professional Design Agriculture Biotech Manufacturing Non-Manufacturing Software Construction 71 66 Award Categories: Green Tech & Energy Efficiency Halal Packaging & Design Technology (Agriculture & Biotech Sector) Technology (Manufacturing Sector) Technology (Services Sector) Audited Certified 11 9

4 5 4

3 4 4

24 23

23 23

2010 SME Innovation Award: 1st batch 1-innoCERT Audit Result from 71 audited companies (70 SMEs, 1 LLC), Average Score = 803.93 / 1000

Histogram of Innovation A, Commercializ, Management o, Outcome & Re


Normal
Innovation Ability 16 12 8 4 0 16 12 8 4 0 Commercialization Ability Innovation Ability Mean 220.0 StDev 44.42 N 71 Commercialization Ability Mean 241.0 StDev 37.24 N 71
120 160 200 240 280 320

20 15 10 5

Frequency

100

150

200

250

300

Management of Innovation 20 15 10 5 0

Outcome & Result of Innovation

Management of Innovation Mean 201.9 StDev 43.34 N 71 Outcome & Result of Innovation Mean 141.8 StDev 30.06 N 71

120

160

200

240

280

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

2010 SME Innovation Award : 1st Batch 1-innoCERT Onsite Audit Results from 71 audited companies by Survey Sector Manufacturing has highest AA and A

2010 SME Innovation Award 1st Batch 1-innoCERT Onsite Audit Results

Chi-Square Tests 38.559, p=0.092 (significant)

2010 SME Innovation Award: 1st Batch 1-innoCERT Onsite Audit Results from 71 audited companies by Award Category Manufacturing Award Category has highest AA and A

2010 SME Innovation Award: 1st Batch 1-innoCERT Onsite Audit Results

Impact Analysis
Appraisal of Innovation Policy Measures to Foster Innovative SMEs
(Based on Korean & Malaysian experiences)

99

R&D Budget to Promote Innovative SMEs

Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Measures for SMEs

101

Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Measures for SMEs

102

Impact of Innovative SMEs: Added Value


An Innovative SME has 5 times the value add of a conventional SME; And 6.9 times the growth rate!

Source: Economic Impacts of Innovative SMEs and Effective Promotion Strategies, 2009

103

Impact of Innovative SMEs: Added Value, Ratio to GDP & Employment

Source: Economic Impacts of Innovative SMEs and Effective Promotion Strategies, 2009
104

Performance of Innovative SMEs


Innovative SMEs yields 3-4 times better performance in Job Creation, Revenues and R&D investments.

Source: Economic Impacts of Innovative SMEs and Effective Promotion Strategies


105

Performance of Innovative SMEs

Source: Economic Impacts of Innovative SMEs and Effective Promotion Strategies, 2009
106

Using the OECD Oslo Manual (Innovation Assessment)


to develop and operationalise
Innovation Scoring & Rating System for Enterprises
www.1-innocert.my
By Dr Norlela Ariffin norlela.ariffin@gmail.com norlela_ariffin@yahoo.com
Senior Vice President Excellent Spring Sdn Bhd

The Innovation Scoring & Rating System


Criteria & Certification Process

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

108

METHODOLOGY Background
1nnoCERT adapts Koreas Innobizs Technology Innovation Evaluation System to Recognise, Certify & Foster Technologically Innovative SMEs (however, 1-innoCERT is open to all companies incorporated in Malaysia)
Singapore (i-SPRING) has similar Innovation Certification i-Class (Innovation-Class)

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

109

Definition of SMEs in Korea

110

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Definition of SMEs in Malaysia:


99.2% of registered companies are SMEs, 78.4% of SMEs are Micro-Enterprises

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION SCORING & RATING SYSTEM

TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION EVALUATION SYSTEM: - based on OECD (2005) OSLO Manual V3 which accommodates service industries & non-technological innovation:
1. 2. 3. Product innovation (goods and services) Process innovation (in making or supplying goods and services) Marketing innovation (first use of methods to influence demand)

4.

Organisational innovation ( in specific domains of business)

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Definitions of Innovation

An innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations.

Degrees of Novelty
new to the firm. new to the market (firm and competitors) new to the world (optional for surveys) radical or disruptive innovation (optional but impractical)

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Innovation Activities
All scientific, technological, organisational, financial and commercial steps which actually, or are intended to, lead to the implementation of innovations. Some innovation activities are themselves innovative, others are not novel activities but are necessary for the implementation of innovations. Innovation activities also include R&D that is not directly related to the development of a specific innovation.
Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Experience in Korea: INNOBIZ-certification


15,063 14,626

3,500

2008 2/09

Source: Innobiz, Korea (2009)

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Koreas Strategy : Recognise (Certify) & Foster Innovative SMEs into Global Blue-Chip Companies
Technology Fund : 85-95% government guarantee, lower interest rate, longer loan period

Tax Deduction for R&D manpower salary, utilities & equipment


117

Public procurement for SME Innovative products , etc.

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Source : KIBO Annual Report 2009

IMPACT of Innovative SMEs vs Conventional SMEs (based on Korean experience)


Higher Added Value (4.9 times) Higher Growth

More Jobs Creation


( 2.9 times) Higher R&D Investment (3.5 times)

(6.9 times)

Higher Operating Margin ( 4.9 times)

1st Batch (June 2010) in Malaysia: 1-innoCERT certified companies = 65 Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Impact to GDP after Financial Crisis 46% of Koreas GDP is contributed by SMEs
1200

GDP (USD Billions)


Malaysia

1000

Korea
800

Singapore Taiwan

Law promotion of HighTech StartUps (Venture Business) (1998)

Law promotion of SME Innovation (2001): 14,626 Korean SMEs have received Innobiz certification (as of end 2008) 1. Manufacturing 2. Services/Non-Mfg 3. Agriculture 4. Construction 5. Environment 6. Biotech 7. Software 8. Design

600

400

200

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source : IMF, April 2009

Malaysias Experience Using the Innovation Scoring and Rating System

1-Innovation Certification for Enterprise Rating & Transformation

www.1-innocert.my

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

The Objective in Malaysia


Fast Track or Green Lane Policy Privileges

Global Company

3rd Step (Optional): Pre-Certification Coaching for those who does not meet minimum requirement

1)

2011: RM 1m Cash Prize to Most Innovative SME + RM200,000 per sector :

PENDING OPERATIONALISATION OF Green Lane Policy :


2) Fiscal incentive: Lower Income Tax for founders & knowledge workers Preferential access to Soft Loans, Credit Guarantees, Grants Preferential access to Government procurement Innovation Coaching

2nd Step: Onsite Audit by registered Innovation Auditors comprising of Innovation Experts & Domain Experts

1-innoCERT

3)

4)
5)

1st Step:
Online Innovation Self-Assessment

11/7/2012

Min =700/1000 Min = A/AAA

Online Innovation Score Onsite Audit Innovation Rating Index

122

Benchmarking Audit & Certification Fees (for 2nd Batch Applicants in September 2010)
No Item Innobiz Korea 360,000 won (RM 9K) 600,000 won 1,200.000 won (18K36K) MIGHT SIRIM Jab 1-innoCERT Standard Online RM 500 -1000 registration = FREE Audit Fees ISO 9001:2008 3500 RM 3k Assessment till Audit about RM24-35K Awareness Program RM 10 -12K Documentation RM 15-25K Internal Audit RM 10 15K Audit Fees Request for ReCertification Fees for Re-Audit or Additional Audit n/a n/a n/a n/a 600 100 Organisation I-Class Innovation Class Singapore 2nd Batch proposal Online registration = FREE Onsite Audit Fees RM5k

Registration

Fees

The application fee for both single and integrated assessments is $2000. The application fee covers one day of site visit. The fee may vary with the number of extra site visit days. The fee chargeable for each extra day of site visit is $1,000 per day For new applicants of SQC who achieved the certification, an additional certification fee of $3,000 is chargeable after certification. This does not apply to SQC renewal applicants.

Onsite Audit Fees RM5k

n/a

n/a

600 RM3k within 6 month

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

INNOVATION SCORING & RATING PROCESS

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Online Self Assessment Score Cards Overview


Common Innovation Score Card (Total of 1,000 Marks)

E.g., Biotech Questionnaires (Total of 56 Questions)

E.g., Biotech Sectoral Score Card 1 of 4


4 2 3 34 2 1 3 4 2 1

Software
1

Manufacturing

Biotech

Total of 8 Sectors

126

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Common Innovation Score Card


Common Score Distribution Table for the Technology Innovation System Assessment Index
No. of Questions R&D Activity Index 2 Technology Innovation System 6 Technology Innovation Administration 2 Technology Innovation Ability Technology Accumulation System 5 Technology Analysis Ability 4 Total 19 Ability to develop products using 5 technologies Ability to manufacture using technologies 7 Technology Commercialization Ability Marketing abilities 9 Total 21 Management's ability to innovate 5 Ability to respond to changes in 4 Technology Innovation Management Ability circumstances CEO's sense of value 2 Total 11 Outcome of the technology competitiveness 2 progress Outcome of technology management 9 Technology Innovation Results Outcome of technology achievement 5 (estimates) Total 16 Grand Total : 67 Assessor's Opinion : Category Details
127

Score
50 69 31 94 56 300 111 81 108 300 90 75

Evaluation Results

Remarks

35 200
50 110 40 200 1000

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

1st 4 Sectors Score Weightages


Biotech Category R&D Activity Index Technology Innovation System Technology Innovation Ability Technology Innovation Administration Details
Scores Applicable Sections

Software
Scores Applicable Sections

Environment
Scores Applicable Sections

Manufacturing
Scores Applicable Sections

50 69 31

50 85 30

42 46 42

50 85 -

Technology Accumulation System


Technology Analysis Ability Total

94
56 300

89
46 300

76
44 250

105
60 300

Ability to develop products using technologies


Technology Commercialization Ability to manufacture using technologies Ability Marketing abilities

111
81 108

128
22 150

87
120 93

90
130 80

Total
Management's ability to innovate Technology Innovation Management Ability Ability to respond to changes in circumstances CEO's sense of value Total Outcome of the technology competitiveness progress Technology Innovation Results Outcome of technology management Outcome of technology achievement (estimates) Total

300
90 75 35 200 50 110 40 200

300
91 74 35 200 56 88 56 200 1000

300
110 100 40 250 50 110 40 200 1000

300
91 74 35 200 50 110 40 200 1000

Grand Total : 1000

128

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

2nd 4 Sectors Score Weightages


Agriculture Category R&D Activity Index Details
Scores Applicable Sections

Construction
Scores Applicable Sections

NonManufacturing
Scores Applicable Sections

Professional Design
Scores Applicable Sections

40

42

32

50

Technology Innovation System


Technology Innovation Ability Technology Innovation Administration Technology Accumulation System Technology Analysis Ability Total Ability to develop products using technologies

66
84 60 250 52

66
82 60 250

53
67 48 200

82
104 64 300

81

77

67

Ability to manufacture using technologies Technology Commercialization Ability Marketing abilities


Total Management's ability to innovate Technology Innovation Management Ability Ability to respond to changes in circumstances CEO's sense of value Total Outcome of the technology competitiveness progress

45
103 200 136 111 53 300 63 152 35 Total 250

113
106 300

44
129 250

17
166 250

112 93 45 250

136 111 53 300

113 93 44 250

61 99 40 200 1000

61 143 46 250 1000

50 110 40 200 1000

Technology Innovation Results

Outcome of technology management Outcome of technology achievement (estimates)

Grand Total : 1000

129

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

CATERGORY I : TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CAPABILIY (BIOTECH) Detailed Item Calculation Table


Medium Category Small Category 1.1 Investment Status 1.2 Technology Development Manpower

E.g. of a Sectoral Score Card For Biotech


Judgement Investment Ratio Ratio of Technology Development Manpower 2 Items

Mark Allotment
30 20 50 17 13 11 9 11 6 Items 8 69 16 15 6 Items 31 15 18 13 34 14 94 14 14 14 14 4 Items 9 items 56 300

Evaluation Results Marks 5 4 3 2 1 Conversion* ABCDE

1. R&D Activity Index

Sub-Total 2.1 R&D Organization management and control Is there an exclusive R&D organization Standard of creative development environment

2. System of Technology Innovation

Control of R&D personnel Record of conducting Government research projects 2.2 Collaborative relationships with external technology institutions Collaborative research with Research Institutes

3. Management of Technology 3.2 Capability to supplement their technology Technology development manpower education system Innovation Sub-Total 4.1 Can they get research equipments easily if not easily attainable, can they fabricate themselves. 4.2 Quality of manpower 4. Technology Accumulation System Capability of R&D personnel based on their personal history Capability of R&D personnel based on their research records 4.3 Actual record of technology development and commercialization 4.4 Technology retention and application system Sub-Total 5.1 External environment analysis 5.2 Medium and long term strategy setup 5. Technology Analysis Capability 5.3 Analysis of internal resources Sub-Total Grand Total : Actual record of technology development and commercialization Technology retention and application system

What is the form of collaboration Sub-Total 3.1 Technology Innovation Performance Capability Technology Innovation Performance Capability

5 Items External environment analysis Medium to long term development strategy for technology development analyse internal resources Analyse marketability of the technologies possessed

130

* Conversion Formula = Mark Allotment X (Eval. Results / 5 Marks)

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Conceptual Overview
(4 Criteria / Index)

131

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

1st Criteria/Index: Technological Innovation Ability


Conceptual View of Assessment Items R&D Activity Index
R&D Investment status R&D Human Resources .

Technology Innovation Systems

Technology Innovation Administration

Technology Accumulation System

Technology Analysis Capability

R&D organization Management Cooperative Relationship with external technology institutions

Ability to conduct Technology Innovation Ability to supplement technology

Ability to secure research equipment Quality of Human resources Records of Technology Development and Commercilazation Technology accumulation & utilization System

External Environment Analysis Medium-long term strategy setup Analysis of internal resources

1st Criteria (Technology Innovation Ability)


I. TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ABILITY R&D Activity Indices 1 1.1.1 R&D Investment Ratio (if the enterprise is younger than 2 years, use last year's record) 2 1.2.1 What is the yearly average R&D Manpower Ratio against the total employee for the last 2 years? Technology Innovation System 3 2.1.1 Is there an organization (department) in charge of the major role of R&D in the operation? (i.e., Does the R&D department drives the technology development in the enterprise?) 4 2.1.2 What is the Level of creative environment being setup at the R&D organization 5 2.1.3 Check the items below with regards to Technical staff management system. 6 2.1.4 How many projects have been completed with the support from the Government for R&D funding for the last 3 years? 7 2.2.1 How may projects have been completed for the last 2 years in joint/contract/cooperate research or advisory work with outside research institutions or university related to commercialization of technology? 8 2.2.2 What are the forms of R&D being carried out in collaboration with external institution or university? Technology Innovation Administration 9 3.1.1 The ability to conduct technology innovation (either in-house or externally) in order to gain new businesses successfully? 10 3.2.1 How many actual training hours was conducted for the last two years, per ONE(1) R&D staff internally/externally. Technology Accumulation System 11 4.1.1 Is there a system to secure the technical equipment established, and are they in working order? 12 4.2.1 What is the career history of existing R&D staffs, in relation to the fields of R&D currently being conducted at the organization? 13 4.2.2 How many thesis have the R&D personnel published in well known overseas scientific magazines, patent filed, and products developed for last two(2) years? Yearly average per current R&D staff. (Note : Contribution of the staff on patents hold by previous employers is not clear, and needs to clarify with INNOBIZ) 14 4.3.1 Determine the success of commercialization according to records of R&D conducted, technologies commercialized, awards received and certification granted. Judgement is made by calculating the weighted scores against the number of patents filed, awards received and etc. 15 4.4.1 Do they have a system in place that effectively Store, Control, and Utilize the technologies developed? Technology Analysis Ability 16 5.1.1 Do they have analysis system for external environment related to technology development? 17 5.2.1 What is the coverage of their medium and long term strategy for technology development in the future? 18 5.3.1 What is the type of resource analysis conducted to determine the technology development target and strategy? (how do they set the development target and technology) 19 5.3.2 Are they currently practicing marketing activities to find customers needs on product development? 133 Source: Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT)

2nd Criteria/Index: Commercialisation of Innovation Ability


Conceptual View of Assessment Items

Ability to commercialize the Technology

Ability to Develop New Product Through Technologies

Ability to manufacture using the technology

Marketing Ability

Capacity to Plan for New Product New Product development Capacity Core Technology Supplement

Product Manufacturing Capability Quality Control Manufacturing Process Innovation Procurement and outsourcing control

Ability to set up and carry out marketing strategy Competitiveness Analysis Management commercialization of technology

2nd Criteria: Commercialisation Ability


II. TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION ABILITY Ability to develop products using technologies 1 1.1.1 Does the CEO have a product development plan, and is the process of product development standardized. 2 1.1.2 To what level do they analyse on how the consumers uses their products, so that the developed products meets the consumers needs. 3 1.1.3 Do they have a plan to commercialize their products, and are they executing as per the plans 4 1.2.1 What is the current level of analysis on the functions and features of the products to determine the specification of the product. 5 1.3.1 What is the level of core technology supplement to make the product? Ability to manufacture using technologies 6 2.1.1 Do they have a systematic operating system of production technologies to satisfy the quality requirements? 7 2.1.2 Are the production facilities maintained well, and how is the condition? 8 2.2.1 Are test equipments well maintained, and have they attempted to maintain the quality of these equipment (calibration etc.) 9 2.2.2 Are those QC activities being implemented adequate in ensuring the quality? 10 2.3.1 Is the production plan established rationally, and are the production records being maintained and utilized sufficiently for each year? 11 2.3.2 Is the Manufacturing process being implemented properly? 12 2.3.3 Do they have standard operating procedures for each workers, and are they checking the workers skill level? Marketing ability 13 3.1.1 Do they have marketing strategy such as price determination, sales forecast, and analysis of the target market? 14 3.1.2 Are they able to classify the marketing channel for new businesses, the ability to determine the advantages and disadvantages of the different marketing channels, and are they able to support the marketing channels 15 3.1.3 How do they analyse the target market? 16 3.2.1 Are they analyzing and responding to the life-cycle of new products? 17 3.2.2 Did they analyse and responded positively to the technical competitiveness of new products? 18 3.3.1 How well are they managing their internally developed intellectual properties; Did they perform patent search beforehand, and did they file their IPs with the Patent Office? 19 3.3.2 How well do they build and utilize external network regarding commercialization of their technology. 20 3.3.3 Do they have the capability to conduct information collection for policies and regulatory standards? 21 3.4.1 What is the expertise and qualification level of the persons in charge of marketing new products, and how focus is his area of responsibility. 135 Source: Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT)

3rd Criteria: Ability to Manage Technology Innovation


Ability to innovate Management CEOs talent and level of experiences Organizational Management

Ability to respond to changes

CEOs Sense of Value

Ability to respond to new technology development trends Ability to respond to the trends of new business & new technology by competitors Medium & long term new business & technology development plan Ability to respond to the changes of market/policy environment

CEOs trustworthiness CEOs transparency

4th Criteria: Results (Outcome) of Technology Innovation


Conceptual View of Assessment Items
Result of Technology Competitiveness Improvement

Improvement Ratio of Technology


Competitiveness locally/internationally

Market Competitiveness Improvement


through Technology Innovation

Result of Technology Management

Technical Result (forecast)

Liquidity of Funds Management Performance Indexes

Acquisition of IP right and influential effect Forecast Technology Transfer Sale Effect of utilization of technology accumulation

-Brief by MIGHT for 25th Nov 2010 on 1innoCERT

3rd Criteria/Index: Technology Innovation Management


III. TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION MANAGEMENT ABILITY Management's ability to innovate 1 1.1.1 Does the CEO has the willingness and policies for technology innovation. On that premise, do the operational personnel share the same willingness and perception? 2 1.1.2 Assessment of the CEO in the area of risk management and the ability to carry out technology management. 3 1.1.3 Does the CEO have a career history of servicing in the same industry? 4 1.1.4 Does the CEO have a good understanding of the technology? 5 1.2.1 Does the COE have the ability to management the operation? Ability to respond to changes in circumstances 6 2.1.1 Are they capable of responding to changes in circumstances aggressively and positively? 7 2.2.1 Does the CEO has the system to find new products and new businesses of his competitors, and how prepared is the CEO able to counter the threat? 8 2.3.1 Are the medium to long term plans rationally and realistically established? 9 2.4.1 Are their medium to long term plans able to respond flexibly to the changes in the surrounding business environment. CEOs sense of values 10 3.1.1 What is the trustworthiness of the CEO internally and externally? th 11 3.2.1 How transparent is the CEO in managing the operation? IV. TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION RESULTS Outcome of the technology competitiveness progress 1 1.1.1 What is your view on the improvement of competitiveness as a result of technology innovation? 2 1.2.1 What is your view on the markets competiveness attributed by technology innovation? Outcome of Technology Management 3 2.1.1 What is the ability to generate sufficient funds through newly commercialized product or technologies to finance the operation 4 2.2.1 Financial results indices - Evaluate financial ratios against industrial benchmark indices Outcome of technology achievement (estimates) 5 3.1.1 What is the competitiveness of the IP rights (acquired or pending) as a result of technology innovation? 6 3.1.2 What is the coverage of the IP rights (acquired or pending) as a result of technology innovation? 7 3.2.1 Technology (or IP) sales forecast for the next 2 years (includes deals currently under discussion) 8 3.3.1 How big will an impact on the import substitution for the next 3 years, as a result of commercializing the technology's strongest elements of competitiveness. 9 3.3.2 What will be the impact on employment, 3 years after the technology has been commercialized? (Includes the increase of employment with the company and jobs created externally) 138

4 Criteria/Index: Technology Innovation Results

Source: Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT)

Register & Sign-In at http://www.1-innocert.my

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

You must Register to Receive your Log-In Password which will be emailed to your email address stated within 1 min (check your spam or junk folder in case of delay) Before You Can Take the Online Self-Innovation Assessment

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Company Profile: Important to Select the Correct Award Category, Sector, and Business Category

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Company profile

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Assessment Sectors
(Sector CANNOT be changed once you have chosen in your company profile)
General Sectors:

Manufacturing, Non-Manufacturing and services; and

Specific Sectors:

Biotech, Design, Software/ICT, Agriculture, Environment (sustainable development, renewable energy, etc), and Construction.

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Example of how to answer and prove evidence during Onsite Audit


1.1.1 What is the R&D investment ratio against the sales for the last two years

Answer: A. 20% or more Evidence:

2010

2009

2008

* 751% R&D Investment vs. sales in average for 2009 and 2008

Audited Financial report 2009

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Example of how to answer and prove evidence during Onsite Audit

Dr Norlela Ariffin, ISTIC 2011

Example of how to answer and prove evidence during Onsite Audit

1.2.1 What is the yearly average R&D Manpower Ratio against the total employee for last 2 years?
Answer: B. 10% ~ less than 20% (on-line answer) A. 20% or more (Actual evidence provided) Evidence:

This does not include 3 senior expatriate in-house R&D engineers from partner, FUJIPOLY (Japan)

Contd 1.2.1

Organizational Chart: Product Development

VP of Product Development Scott West

Director Product Development Sundar

Director Business Development Mike Kwon

Principal Engineer CL Loke

Staff Engineer CW Chai

Engineer Logesh

Vacant

Vacant

Continue: Example of how to answer and prove evidence during Onsite Audit

Contd 1.2.1

Organizational Chart: Research and Development, Material Fabrication Division

R&D Manager
Soo Yit Fong

Research & Development Sr. Engineer Steven Chin

Design

Sr. Engineer 1
Soo Sing Goh

Sub Con Development Engineer II (Vacant)

Technician (Vacant)

Draftsman Ching Chin Shun

Continue: Example of how to answer and prove evidence during Onsite Audit

2.2.1 How many projects have been completed for the last 2 years in joint/ contract/ cooperative research or advisory worth with outside research institutions or universities related to commercialization of technologies Answer: A. 3 Projects or more

Evidence:
1. LED Array in collaboration with Bridgelux - DSEMs LED array are High Power Light engines at less than 1/10th of the size of the conventional LED array. With this , we have reduced the Carbon footprint of manufacturing this product.

Contd 2.2.1 2. Solar CPV (Concentrator Photovoltaic) Receiver in collaboration with Solarmation DSEM is the first in Asia to embark on this project. CPVs will reduce the footprint of solar cell plants.

CELL (Solarmation to DVM)

Wire Bonding (DVM) Encapsulation (DVM) Cell Attach (DVM)

Diode (DVM)

Substrate (DST to DVM)

QUESTION NO 8: THE ABILITY TO CONDUCT TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION (EITHER IN-HOUSE OR EXTERNALLY) IN ORDER TO GAIN NEW BUSINESSES SUCCESSFULLY?

Innovation
1 2 3 4 5

Project Name
Sumandak Central Processing Platform (SUPG-B), 1st Platform with 6 legged in Malaysia. Sumandak Central Processing Platform (SUPG-B) is integrated platform Sumandak Central Processing Platform (SUPG-B) having 8 risers Sumandak Tepi Satellite Platform (SUJT-C), 2nd Platform with monopod in Malaysia Sumandak Tepi Satellite Platform (SUJT-C), transportation vertical instead of horizontal

Year
2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

6
7 8

Sumandak Tepi Satellite Platform (SUJT-C), design with no of well is 6 more than normal
Bunga Tulip Platform (BTA), 1st Platform with monopod in Malaysia Bunga Tulip Platform (BTA), transportation vertical instead of horizontal

2007
2005 2005

9
10 11 12 13

Bunga Tulip Platform (BTA), use 2 pieces jacket platform


Bunga Tulip Platform (BTA), design with no of well is 6 more than normal Kinabalu Central Processing Platform (KNPG-B) - One Integrated Platform Kinabalu Central Processing Platform (KNPG-B) - 1st HP/HT field development in Malaysia. Kinabalu Central Processing Platform (KNPG-B) - Design for TAD and Jack-Up Rig

2005
2005 2009 2009 2009

Example of how to answer and prove evidence during Onsite Audit NOTE: Open original file first

Summary of Patents Filed

Example of how to answer and prove evidence during Onsite Audit

Example of how to answer Process Flow and prove evidence during On-Site Audit at the Manufacturing facility

Example of how to answer and prove evidence during Onsite Audit

Climatic Test Chamber ( 2 units, Votsch & ACS ) Temperature Cycling Chamber ( Air to Air ) ( 2 units , Votsch & ACS) Hirayama Hastester Eeprom Burn-In Chamber Heraeus Bake Oven

Climatic ; Working range : Temp = -40C ~ 95C ; Humidity = 10% ~ 98%RH


Hot Chamber : +55C ~220C ; Cold Chamber : -80C ~+70C , Fast Ramping Mode , Ramp Up Rate =2.55C/sec; Ramp Down Rate = 1.53C/sec Temp Range : 105C - 150C , RH Range : 65%100% , Pressure = 1-3 Atm , Continuous Timer = up to 1000hrs PC Controlled ; Operating Temperature 75C ~ 180C ; Read-Write Cycling ; Multiple Information Display. Temp Range = Ambient to 300C , Programmable Temp Profile & Timer.

Convection Reflow FurnacePC Based , 8 Temperature Control Zone , High Capacity

Example of how to answer and prove evidence during Onsite Audit

Non-destructive Analysis

Stereo Microscopy (Low Power) Crack inspection Package defect High Power Microscopy Die defect inspection X-Ray analysis Mold/ Epoxy void Scanning Acoustic Microscopy Die/ Leadframe delamination Curve Trace / Micro Probing Electrical failure validation Scanning Electron Microscopy Die defect inspection Electron Dispersive X-Ray Contamination element analysis

- Contamination inspection - Wirebond/ die attach defect - Contamination inspection - Wirebond defect - Die Crack

- Package inspection
- Element confirmation

Assembly

99.8% & above 99.8% & above 99.8%

Yield

Final Test Tape & Reel

Cycle Time

Assembly Final Test/Tape & Reel

3 5 days 1.5 2 days

Quality (PPM)

Assembly Outgoing Final Test Outgoing

50 10

Contd 2.3.2 Evidence/Explanation: The company are implementing Statistic Process Control method

EXAMPLE: 3.2.1 How big will an impact on the import substitution for the next 3 years, as a result of commercializing the technology's strongest elements of competitiveness? Answer:

Answer: B. Able to substitute more than 20% of current import amount Evidence/Explanation: Companys platform requires many SMEs and new SMEs to support. 70% of outsourcing has been done locally.

-Briefing by MIGHT for 25th Nov 2010 Meeting on 1innoCERT

SME INNOVATION AWARD CATEGORIES


No SECTOR >700 POINTS 28 ON-SITE AUDIT

Manufacturing

23

2
3

Services
Agriculture & Biotech

36
16

21
9

Packaging & Design

Green Tech. & Energy Efficiency

Halal TOTAL

105

71

AWARD WINNERS
Best Innovation Award in Technology (Manufacturing Sector) SUBSEA EXPLORE SERVICES (M) SDN BHD Best Innovation Award in Technology (Agriculture Sector) TT BIOTECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD Best Innovation Award in Green Technology & Energy Efficiency DEVICE SEMICONDUCTOR SDN BHD

Best Innovation Award in Technology (Services Sector)


ROMSTAR SDN BHD Best Innovation Award in Design & Overall Winner IC MICROSYSTEMS SDN BHD Best Innovation Award in Halal NUTRIVENTION SDN BHD

Company

Organization Description

IC Microsystems Sdn. Bhd. (Cyberjaya)


Prestigious Discovery Sdn. Bhd. (Kuala Lumpur) Romstar Sdn. Bhd. (Kuala Lumpur) Riskk.Com Sdn. Bhd. (Kuala Lumpur)

Mixed Signal IC Design Company


Design & Development of Mission Critical SCADA Equipment and System Pipeline Integrity Tooling Services Financial Market Online Real-time Software

RNZ (Kuala Lumpur) Large local company


TTVISION Technologies Sdn. Bhd. (Penang) TT Biotechnologies Sdn. Bhd. (Penang) Acehub Vista Sdn Bhd (Penang) JF Microtechnology Sdn. Bhd. (Petaling Jaya) Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd (Petaling Jaya) N2N Global Solutions Sdn. Bhd. (Kuala Lumpur) Inno Integrasi Sdn. Bhd. (Petaling Jaya) Orchid Life Sdn. Bhd. (Bangi)

Oil & Gas Platform Design Services


Intelligent Machine Vision Systems Bioplastics (Polyactide) Teaching Solutions for Engineering Design & Manufacture Circuits Test Probes (Semiconductor) ROV (Remote Operating Vehicle) and ROV Systems Software Development for Financial Market Water Treatment & Bio-organic Fertilizers Horticulture & Floriculture

MIR Valve Sdn. Bhd. (Shah Alam)


CEMS Engineering Sdn. Bhd. (Petaling Jaya) Hexagon Green Biotech Sdn. Bhd. (Kajang)

Ball & Gate Valves (Oil & Gas)


Energy Management ( Chiller Air- Conditioning Systems) Plant Tissue Culture (Agro-Based)

Dr. Norlela Ariffin


Senior Vice President, Excellent Spring Sdn Bhd

norlela.ariffin@gmail.com; norlela_ariffin@yahoo.com Mobile: 6 012 200 2871