CICC --> 2001 --> Conference --> Technical Program   Search...
     
   

CICC 2001 Technical Program: Tuesday, May 8 - Evening

Sessions List

Monday Morning

Monday Afternoon

Tuesday Morning

Tuesday Afternoon

Tuesday Evening

Wednesday Morning

Wednesday Afternoon

 


(Back to Sessions List)

Session 17 - Can One Process Do It All?

8:00pm

Moderator: Kris Iniewski, PMC-Sierra

Panelists:
Bill Cochran, Director of Technology Development Sys., Lucent, Agere
Saverio D'Agostino, Principal Electronic Packaging Engineer, Jet Propulsion Labs
Paul Kempf, Executive Director of Device Technology, Conexant Sys.
Bill Stanchina, Manager, HRL Labs
Seshadri Subbana Sr Engineering Manager, IBM. Microelectronics
Sorin Voinigescu, Chief Technical Officer, Quake Technologies
Dr. John Martin, Chief Technology Officer, Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing

Increased costs of advanced manufacturing force many companies to standardize on CMOS technology. Many built-in features like triple well, dual oxide, copper interconnect and on wafer flip chip bumping are used to accommodate varied product requirements. At the same time as CMOS flourishes, SiGe, SOI, BiCMOS and InP processes are attacking it on all fronts. This panel brings together representatives from semiconductor foundries, integrated device manufacturers and design companies to elaborate on different points of view on this CMOS vs. the rest debate.


(Back to Sessions List)

Session 18 - Stock Options: Are They a Management Nightmare and an Employee Nirvana or is it the Other Way Around?

8:00pm

Moderator: Rakesh Kumar, Consultant

Panelists:
Raul Camposano, Sr. Vice President and CTO, Synopsys Inc.
Brian Fitzgerald, CEO, ChipWrights Inc.
Gary Foster, Intrinsix Inc.
Jeffery Grammer, Techfarm

Stock options have long been a method of recruiting top engineering talent to small start-up and small privately held companies. The allure of a potential big pay out upon an acquisition or IPO is a strong force in attracting and keeping key talent.

However, they have their dark side.

Many times the options turn out to be worthless and sometimes actually become a financial liability. Large companies that offer options, most times cannot offer the perceived financial upside that a start-up can offer. They may loose key people to smaller companies just due to the options. On the academic side, universities have no way to compete for key talent at all against stock options. Basic industry research goes undone.

Then how about those options? Are they ISOs, NQs, restricted stock, phantom stock, sleeves out of somebody's vest, etc.? How much are they really worth anyway and what is the percentage ownership should an engineer expect? And how about that little nasty 'D' word (dilution)?

Should the management just stop offering options, and offer a simpler and more straightforward compensation package instead? Wouldn't that be better and fairer to our industry? Why do engineers let management 'fool them so' with options? Why do engineers want them so badly? Have they really paid off for them as a profession, or have they made engineers work long hours at reduced pay for small companies that mostly go under anyway?

What's the opinion of the panel members? What's your opinion?


Back to Sessions List

   


©2001 Custom Integrated Circuits Conference. All rights reserved. Contact cicc@his.com. This page was most recently changed on May 28, 2001, 06:16:57 PM, and has been accessed times.