How do you balance the trade-offs between cost, quality, and time in mixed signal circuit design?

With 14 years in the industry, I've seen how cost has reshaped the field globally, from fabless startup acquisitions to major conglomerate mergers. Mixed-signal design involves Data Converters, Signal Processing, and Communication Interfaces, reliant on efficient power management. Costs in these areas are driven by CMOS advancements, packaging innovations, and testing/validation expenses. Significant expenses also arise from EDA, IP licensing, and design verification. Over-balancing these can result in missed opportunities due to long TtM. Disruptive technologies like Silicon-on-Wafer, 3D packaging are pushing Moore's Law's limits, yet the high costs limit widespread adoption, often leading to a choice between innovation and imitation.

This is one of the major challenges faced by semiconductor industry. You can't compromise on quality - one bug miss can cause your entire design to fail & it may lead to a huge loss to organization's prestige & trust. Cost: The problem here is if you increase cost & your competitors are able to provide a similar product at low cost you may lose out on your potential customers. Time: Time-to-market is a window wherein you are supposed to launch your product in order to capture a good % in market. Can't miss this. Only way is to: - employ highly efficient & experienced people to do the job - use efficient techniques like scripts to perform monotonous manual tasks. automate as much as possible. - use best industry standard tools

Balancing Act: Efficient mixed-signal circuits are crucial in today’s market, requiring a mix of engineering and business skills. Engineers create durable, low-power circuits that meet manufacturing and testing standards. Business expertise involves understanding markets, cost optimization, and value engineering while managing projects. The balance between cost, quality, and time-to-market is key. High-volume applications focus on cost-effectiveness through DFM and value engineering, while high-performance, low-volume applications prioritize quality and functionality. Pre-designed blocks or model-based design can expedite time-sensitive projects. Effective collaboration ensures market competitiveness and project success.

Clearly define what drives your product Is it cost effectiveness, rapid delivery or high performance? Understanding your priorities helps guide decision making Develop a comprehensive list of specifications for performance, tolerances & environmental conditions Choose components that meet the necessary quality standards without overspending. Sometimes mid-tier components offer the best balance between performance & cost Employ simulation & modeling tools within the design workflow to avoid physical prototyping & save development time/cost Have close collaboration with analog & digital designers early during design Have pre-qualified & reliable suppliers for better negotiations Anticipate potential risks during early design cycle

As a mixed-signal designer, I've seen past technologies struggle with noise and interference, impacting signal quality. The past decade has brought significant advances in CMOS and design techniques, propelling us from 1Gbps to 100Gbps in serial interfaces and beyond 200Gbps with PAM4-ADC-DSP. System integration improvements, through TSV and chiplets, have boosted signal quality at the system level. Wafer-Scale Integration has minimized losses for short-range communication, whereas Silicon Photonics is transforming long-distance transmission. Customized designs, particularly in 3D hybrid packages, enhance both performance and efficiency, marking a substantial advancement in mixed-signal design and paving the way for future breakthroughs.

The impact of time on a mixed-signal design team can vary significantly compared to an IP team or an in-house team designing a specific product. For a mixed-signal IP team, time is a luxury, with the primary goal being the best PPA, quality as the fundamental expectation, and innovation as a bonus. Employing a streamlined methodology, following checklists, and prioritizing the verification cycle can significantly reduce the time spent on post-silicon debugging and addressing interoperability gaps at the product level. Given this, it's crucial for mixed-signal designers, as in any other field, to recognize that adhering to timelines and quality checklists has never been the ultimate objective; rather, achieving clarity is.

The difference between cost, quality, and time becomes blur, with quality and time directly influencing the opportunity cost of a product. While one might attempt to sharpen these distinctions through design and other trade-offs, ultimately, the core considerations boil down to three fundamental questions: What, Why, and How. Often, we hastily move to execution once the top-level requirement is published and then struggle down the line while system requirements, spice model maturity, deadline grin at us together. Gaining a thorough understanding of system requirements, challenging the status quo with advanced methodologies, and thoroughly debating, discussing, and deciding on potential trade-offs can lead to ultimate satisfaction.

The most critical yet daunting aspect of mixed-signal design is the design tools and their licensing. These tools evolve and expand their capabilities more rapidly than CMOS technology itself. Mastery of design now requires circuit design expertise and proficiency in using these tools to validate designs. Designers must collaborate closely with EDA experts to achieve faster optimal performance. PostLayout & reliability checks are crucial across digital, analog, and interface levels. With the advent of non-planar FETs, colored metal, and on-chip inductors, the latest tools and features are imperative. Inadequate tools delay design and verification, whereas insufficient tool knowledge leads to flawed designs and costly post-silicon debugging.

Design skills could be the key to balancing cost, time, and quality in a sustainable yet influential way. A collaborative ecosystem already exists where schools, businesses, and experts come together to develop new talent, establishing a worldwide, self-reliant chain of skilled circuit designers. In this disruptive era, aiming for optimal PPA and rapid TtM, teamwork and collaboration are vital. Success depends on enhancing group capabilities, not just individual efforts. This network of skilled designers is key to strategically balancing innovation and imitation. And, my experience has taught me, quality is not the goal but the journey itself, innovation is not the requirement but the reward.

I have a great appreciation and respect for mixed signal design and its complexities. I think the author does a good job providing a good balance and overall view. The only real thing I could add here is that often there could be a larger schedule if say the mixed signal IP is being integrated into a larger system. that could play a larger determination and priority. Is there a market window where it may be better to trade performance for schedule. Establishing a minimal viable product is critical and to keep this at the forefront and be measuring progress along the way.

Decades ago the mantra was "cost, performance, schedule -- pick two, settle for one". Not sure that's changed much over the years. In an era where SOCs and high integration at the IC, package, and board level is common knowing the tools and how they can help seems critical. There are a lot of features in simulation and layout tools to help find problems like crosstalk, power supply coupling, clock routing, and so forth. A (one) problem is finding the time to learn the tools; IME too many companies expect engineers to learn on their own whereas a focused week (or whatever) of training up front could shave weeks off the schedule later without costing performance. Hard to see the forest when you're cutting trees as fast as possible.