From the University Community:
Dr. Jim Barby, University of Waterloo (Chair)
Dr. Paul Chow, University of Toronto
Dr. Ted Hubbard, Dalhousie University
Dr. Bozena Kaminska, Simon Fraser University
Dr. Sophie LaRochelle, Université Laval
Dr. Cyrus Shafai, University of Manitoba
From Industry:
Mr. David Danovitch, IBM
Mr. Sean Lord
Dr. Mary Ann Maher, SoftMEMS
Mr. Simon Wingar, Canada Photonics Fabrication Centre
From CMC Microsystems:
Mr. Dan Gale, CMC Microsystems (Vice-Chair)
Dr. Ian L. McWalter, CMC Microsystems (ex-officio)
Other:
Dr. Denis Godin, Observer for NSERC
These conditions form a backdrop for each TAC session, where the business at hand is to guide CMC in selecting specific technologies from among many choices or to suggest a direction when the way forward has many branches. One session included a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis of a strategy that involved shifting to an embedded microsystems technology roadmap, and by implication, adjusting CMC’s operations. The benefit of the advice was not through a single conclusion, but through the resulting statements about important trade-offs that continue to guide decisions today—decisions that include collaborating with many experts to set platform dimensional constraints, suggestions about finding suppliers versus undertaking internal technology development, and ways to simplify technology deployment that makes it attractive for use by researchers not familiar with the technologies or techniques. Professor Jim Barby, who chaired the committee observed, this is not an easy issue—when we were trying to determine whether to add emphasis to the materials area of technology or the systems aspect of the technology chain, we pushed more towards systems and while this continues to be important, there are opportunities to increase the relevance of the infrastructure for other researchers who gain advantage from novel material properties.
A focal topic for many TAC deliberations was defining tools that support integration of devices—it’s much easier to select technologies that support research leading to monolithic components than it is to find tools that support integration, which is often a strong dose of art mixed with engineering discipline. Sensor networks, configurations of microelectromechanical systems connected with field programmable gate arrays, microfluidic prototyping services and platforms, materials research laboratories…in some manner, all of these topics featured in TAC business. The conduct of business was often in a workshop style—members of the committee worked together with guests who were invited to participate because of their expertise in relation to specific topics, for example in wireless technologies, microsystem architecture, the business model of university-based microscale-nanoscale technology laboratories, photonics research in Canada, biomedical applications of microsystems, and platforms that demonstrate device performance in a system configuration that incorporates embedded software. The continuity of perspectives coming from the committee blended with input from guest experts was very influential in helping us resolve which direction to take on a variety of these matters [Dan Gale, CMC’s CTO and TAC Vice-Chair]
The environment faced by CMC and users of it services has become increasingly complex, a situation shared in many other regions around the world where effort and investments are directed at integrating even more functionality per unit volume. This puts considerable stress on know-how and the need to provide a scientific explanation for the underlying phenomena that are encountered when working at finer dimensions and interfacing dissimilar technologies. As discussed by the TAC, these conditions present a rich source of research problems expected to enable advances in communications, health care, management of the environment (terrestrial and extraterrestrial), energy, security…wherever instrumentation and signal processing provide advantages through interactions that occur on the scale of tens of nanometers. The TAC positions were often stated as a technological response to enhance the training experience of postgraduate students and to strengthen industrial capability. CMC, in partnership with its suppliers, delivers tools to university-based researchers—often TAC guidance was not just about the tools but also about the benefit of the tools and related skills to industrial interests—companies, the indirect beneficiaries, gain advantage most often by hiring well-trained people or by collaborating in research projects that depend on CMC services.
TAC advice shaped the technology portfolio managed by CMC, helping to position services where they provide most advantage for research on devices with finer dimensions or on assemblies of greater component density.