Kranen HVC Keynote 2011

Transcription

Pioneering the Future of Verification
A Spiral of Technological and Business Innovation
Kathryn Kranen
President & CEO, Jasper Design Automation
Haifa Verification Conference – December 6, 2011
Kathryn Kranen’s Bio
  Electrical engineer, ancient ASIC designer
• 
Early user of gate-level simulation 
  20+ years in the Electronic Design Automation industry
• 
Vice-chairperson of EDA Consortium board of directors
• 
2005 recipient of the prestigious “Marie R. Pistilli Women in
Electronic Design Automation Achievement Award”
• 
2009 “EE Times’ Top 10 Women in Microelectronics”
  Multiple patents filed/pending in formal verification domain
Page 2 | © 2011, Jasper Design Automation | Confidential
Serial Entrepreneur in Verification Domain
  Formerly Vice President NA Sales - Quickturn Systems
• 
Pioneered the hardware emulation market
  Formerly President & CEO - Verisity Design, Inc.
• 
Pioneered constrained-random simulation / testbench
automation market
  Currently President & CEO - Jasper Design Automation
• 
Profitable, private EDA company leading the formal property
verification domain
Agenda
  Perspectives on the EDA industry
  An attempt to demystify the question:
Why do some EDA innovations achieve mainstream
adoption, while other worthy technologies fizzle?
  Ideas on future design/verification innovations
Perspectives on the EDA Industry
  Rewards:
• 
Huge impact on the world, by enabling all electronic devices
• 
Extremely tight collaboration with semiconductor companies
• 
Wide variety of deep technology challenges
• 
Intelligent global workforce with a strong sense of community
  Challenges:
• 
Small (<$5B), slow-growing industry
• 
Many complicated pieces to the value chain
• 
Historic EDA business models discourage innovation
• 
Not too popular with venture capitalists
Success Rate of EDA Startups is Low
  It is estimated that only 1 out of 30 to 40 EDA startups
achieves a desirable liquidity event – meaning an IPO
or high-value acquisition (i.e. employees make money)
  How can we predict which ones will succeed?
Successful Execution Requires a Spiral of
Technological and Business Innovation
Technological innovations must move in
lockstep with business innovations for
successful market adoption
Each “step” of industrial usage generates
revenue - and real-world feedback - to
fuel the next set of innovations
By mastering this execution model,
organizations can bring about market
revolutions – incrementally!
Technological/Business Innovation Spiral
Practical Considerations:
  Setting the right goals (and adjusting them)
  Conquering market adoption hurdles
  Tuning the business model to fit the technology
A company’s execution model evolves as it matures.
Context for this presentation is early years (pre-profit).
Setting The Right Goals
And Continuously Refining Them
Classical Business Plan – EDA Style
  The Idea . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Evolutionary? Complementary? Disruptive?
My favorite: first complement, then disrupt.
  Value Propositions . . . . .
How valuable will version 1.0 be?
Will anyone be willing to use it?... Pay for it?
  Market Size. . . . . . . . . . .
Potential market is huge, but do you have the
skills to penetrate and grow that market?
  Technology Feasibility . .
And what flow integration will be required
before a real customer will use the solution?
  Barriers to Competition. .
Which of these are also barriers to YOU?
Have you considered adoption barriers?
  Funding Needs. . . . . . . .
You will probably need more than you think.
Plan on several iterations of “market learning”.
Be Realistic About Best Case Outcome
  FEATURE ? . . . . . . . . . .
Would this capability be more effective if
it were embedded in an existing product?
  PRODUCT ? . . . . . . . . . .
Does it solve a big enough problem to justify
a separate buying decision by customers?
Are boundaries well-defined?
  COMPANY ? . . . . . . . . . .
Can you potentially generate $50M to
$100M from this technology?
  ENTIRE DOMAIN? . . . .
Does the core technology have many
product-worthy (adjacent) applications?
. Can the domain support multiple companies?
Business strategies differ dramatically
by target outcome
Example: Early Jasper
Formal Property Verifica1on   Protocol cer)fica)on   End-‐to-‐end packet integrity   Asynchronous clocking effects   Asser)on-‐based verifica)on Page 12 | © 2011, Jasper Design Automation | Confidential
Started
Here
Jasper Today: Solutions to an Array of
System-on-chip Development Challenges
Property Synthesis   Automated asser)on genera)on   Iden)fica)on of coverage holes   Inference and synthesis of func)onal proper)es from RTL and simula)on waveforms Verifica1on IP   Cer)fica)on of AMBA 4/ACE checkers   Popular standard protocols   Configurable, illustra)ve, op)mized for formal Architecture Valida1on   Executable spec   Absence of deadlock   Cache coherency Higher Capacity Verify complex 100M gate designs Formal Property Verifica1on   Protocol cer)fica)on   End-‐to-‐end packet integrity   Asynchronous clocking effects   Asser)on-‐based verifica)on RTL Development   Designer-‐based verifica)on w/o testbench   Design trade-‐off analysis   X-‐propaga)on detec)on and debug   Power management verifica)on Post-‐Silicon Debug   Failure signature matching   Root cause isola)on   Candidate cause elimina)on   Valida)on of fixes before re-‐spin Interac1ve Debug Modify/create proper)es on the fly to explore design behavior Page 13 | © 2011, Jasper Design Automation | Confidential
Started
Here
Increased Throughput U)lize mul)ple proof engines on parallel compute resources SoC Integra1on   Automated register verifica)on   Glitch detec)on   Mul)-‐cycle path verifica)on   Chip-‐level connec)vity Wider Deployment Proliferate across engineering teams with unique adop)on model Find the Right Place in the Value Chain
  Aim your product at a “Modular Decoupling Point” in
the EDA value chain
• 
Too low: product won’t integrate into customer environment
• 
Too high: customers won’t pay for excess value
• 
Source:
Christensen, et. al: "Maximizing Returns from Research”
Value vs. Effort – Pick the Right Strategy
The ultimate solution will take some time. What will be your go-to-market strategy?
•  More likely relevant
•  Get paid for value
•  Gain experience
The basis of most
Business Plans ;)
High Value / Low Effort
High Value / High Effort
Value
Nobody wants to be here!
Low Value / Low Effort
Low Value / High Effort
Effort
Bull’s Eye Strategy
Aim at bigger problems than current
standalone tools can address
Exposure to real-world
challenges yields methods
to overcome them
Service methods, once
documented, become
methodology steps
Predictable methodology steps
are eventually implemented as
tool features
Services
Unsolved Problems
Methodology
Tool
Tool Evolution Brings Scalability
And bigger unsolved problems!
Services
Methodology
Unsolved Problems
Tool
Setting the Price for Early Solutions
Considerations:
  Early adopters debug and work around product issues
  If you get in the door, you can grow the business later
  A lower price means more potential customers
  Top semiconductor “logos” help attract VCs, others
Early On, Hold Out for Maximum Dollars
  Generates income to (partially) fund operations while you
are dedicating your precious resources to that customer
  Brings accountability by testing your value propositions
  Prevents “false validation” associated with cheap logos
  Avoids having to raise the price later (very difficult)
  You need the customer to have lots of skin in the game
• 
The road to success will be hard, and you don’t want it to be easy
for your customer to abandon the effort
Then do whatever it takes to make
early customers successful
Target the Right Level of Automation
  EDA innovators often aim at “push-button” automation
  When full automation falls short, there’s no backup plan
• 
Customers deem the solution too risky for production projects
• 
Solution are relegated to less complex but much less valuable
applications (refer to Value/Effort slide)
  An interactive solution is often a better alternative
• 
Can potentially solve bigger problems sooner (with user’s help)
• 
The user’s participation mitigates risk
• 
Empowered users become fanatics who champion your cause!
  Usability ≠ GUI … often involves very deep technology
OVERCOMING MARKET ADOPTION HURDLES
Typical Market Adoption Hurdles
  Resistance to change
  Flow integration issues
  Risk of inserting the new solution
  Concerns over startup’s staying power
  Poor availability of user resources
Try to think from the potential
customer’s perspective
Find a Compelling Cause for Change
Most engineers
have resigned
themselves
to the box
they’re
living in.
Organizational vs. Personal ROI
  Organizational ROI benefits a company/project team
• 
Justifies the purchase price
• 
Value must be visible to the executive holding the budget
–  Think: “Observability at the outputs”
  Personal ROI benefits the individual user
• 
Adoption is much easier when ultra-busy potential users actually
WANT to use the solution
• 
Top-down mandates are very risky
  Find a way to address both types of ROI
Identify All Essential Ingredients
  Understand downstream factors that could prohibit use
• 
Language, models, interfaces, user availability, training
  Make a plan up front to address them
• 
Parallel process to minimize time-to-market
• 
Partner with others if necessary
  Even one critical missing piece can render
a breakthrough “core technology” useless
Verisity Example (1996-1999)
  Context: Unprofitable Israeli startup selling a testbench
automation tool based on a propriety new language, ‘e’
  Hurdles We Overcame:
• 
The language barrier, obviously
• 
Blank Page Syndrome (ramp-up problem)
• 
Single Copy Monster (business model issue)
• 
Lack of object-oriented programmers on RTL teams
• 
Availability of models for standard protocols
• 
Shortage of skilled users
Find the Right Early Subset of the Market
  Tendency is to strike out developing a general-purpose
solution, to address a huge market opportunity
• 
Getting the universal solution right can take too long, delay
market learning cycles, burn funds, and increase risk of failure
  A better approach:
• 
Don’t worry about market size while severely channel-limited
• 
Find a segment you can address with early product
• 
Sharpen your value propositions for that set of customers
• 
Generate revenue to fund the next phase of innovations
• 
Iterate the technological/business spiral with new segments until
the universal solution is realized!
Quickturn Example: Early 1990s
  Context: Business plan called for an ASIC Emulator
capable of emulating any arbitrary design.
• 
FPGA place & route issues caused race conditions in designs
with more than 2 clocks
• 
End result: our ASIC Emulator couldn’t handle any ASICs!
  Redirected the team to go after x86 processors (single
clock designs at the time)
• 
Closed a ~$5M partnership deal with Intel
• 
Built a multi-box system to handle capacity
• 
Grew the processor emulation segment to $100M in 3 years!
• 
Delivered the universal solution for ASIC Emulation, years later
Fine-tuning the Business
Model
Sales Channel Synergy
  A product must “fit” its sales and support team and be
scalable to the target market
  Two kinds of EDA products: High Reach and High Touch
High Reach Product
High Touch Product
Sales channel
No special skills, maybe
sold over the internet
Consultative sale,
requiring special skills
Support required
Little
Customer-specific
methodology
Capability
Lower
Higher
Price
Lower
Higher
Mixed into FAM deal OK
Not a good fit
Creating a Repeatable Sales Process
  Requires lots of experimentation to “crack the code”
  Sales processes vary dramatically – even among
functional verification solutions
  Example questions:
• 
Are evaluations needed? What evaluation scope?
• 
When should you quote price – early or late?
• 
Top-down or bottom-up sale?
• 
Price agreement before evaluation or after?
• 
Sell through central CAD or through individual projects?
• 
Sell early or late in customer’s project cycle?
• 
What style of salesperson is best?
Monetization of Resources
  A company has limited resources available to generate
as much revenue as possible
  Only a few ways to increase software revenue:
• 
Increase the license consumption per user (or batch process)
• 
Increase the number of users per project
• 
Increase the number of projects per company
• 
Increase the number of companies
• 
Charge more for the licenses you are selling
  For each employee, ask:
• 
Which revenue parameter is their work impacting?
• 
Is there something better they could be doing?
!"#$%&'())*#+%',)-.+/0'++)123'&)-,'#456,2.76)
!  96:2;$
Example: Jasper
Business Model Innovation
!  961<853-$=->-3?-$@=6.AB$C'"D$1-=$;-2=$
!  C*(D$=-3-.28$=2A-E$&%D$233?28$-01234563$1-=$F?4A6G-=$
!  H=6IA2J8-$&$F634-F?K>-$L?2=A-=4$
!  M24A$-L?5A;$I323F53@$53$!"")$
  Great business today
• 
>60% annual revenue growth
• 
97% renewal rate
• 
>50% average expansion per customer
• 
Profitable and self-sustaining
Changed Business
Model in 2008
,-.$
/01234563$
7-3-.28$
!""#$ !""%$ !""&$ !""'$ !""($ !"")$ !""*$ !"+"$ !"++$
  But that wasn’t always the case
• 
Had to learn how to compete with almost-free big vendor tools
• 
Found a way to reliably sell high-value, methodology-intensive solutions
–  Leveraging our agility to rapidly evolve the software
• 
Key business innovation was “Applications Engineer-based Margin Model”
AE Margin-Based Business Model
Priorities
1. Identify Customer’s Top Problems; Set Deployment Goals (Applications and Sites)
2. Assess AE & License Requirements
3.  Size Deal Using AE Margin Calculation (# AE-Mos. * Revenue/AE-mo.)
4.
$
Deliver as Time-Based Software Licenses Plus Allocated Methodology Support
Resource Investment Fits Market Opportunity
High level of R&D investment
enables continuous delivery of
breakthrough solutions
AE activities must generate
sufficient revenue to fund the
company’s operations
R&D
AE
Sales
Marketing
G&A
Sales, marketing, and
administrative headcount is
kept to a minimum
Future Design/Verification
Opportunities
A Few Examples That Require
Technological/Business Innovation Spiral
Design and Debug Breakthroughs
  Design Verifiability Advisor
• 
Flags hard-to-verify design characteristics as the RTL/HLM is
coded, and suggests alternatives or accommodations
  “Google-desktop” for RTL/HLM design
• 
Pre–caching and indexing information from simulation and/or
static analysis to allow "searchable" on-the-fly scenarios
• 
Challenge: Automatic and compact indexing of “pivot” data
Simulation Breakthroughs
  “Self-aware” simulation
• 
Profiles tests and eliminates wasted cycles
• 
Reduces the number of simulator licenses, but justifies 2x-3x
price through savings on machines, power, and data centers
  Direct controllability on top of existing simulation runs,
for “what-if” analysis and coverage
  High scale symbolic execution using existing simulation
and testbench collateral
System-Level Modeling and Verification
  System = more HW plus SW plus integration
• 
H/W: more integrated content, greater diversity
–  analog + RF + logic + uP + DSP + memory
• 
S/W: embedded, OS, drivers, libraries, and applications
  SW/HW Constraints for Concurrent Development
• 
• 
Software level: adherence to specified hardware constraints
Hardware design: adherence to legacy software constraints
  SW and HW security verification
  Power event modeling, measurement and verification in the
context of hardware plus software
Thank You

Kranen HVC Keynote 2011

Transcription

Similar documents

Case Study

Reimagining Automation - ignio™ Dr. Harrick Vin

Case study

Volvo Cars/Danlaw Automation and Optimization of System

Implementation of effective e-government applications: Challenges

Results - ValueMomentum

Silego Technology - Globalpress Electronics Summit

The Color of Jasper Highlands... In Case You

Jasper brochure - Seasoned Solutions

Flotronics Automation is pleased to announce the recent expansion