Successful standards are a reflection of changing business trends. For example, the success of OpenAccess was mainly due to growth in custom semiconductor design and data complexities when building flows to support custom design. As power, thermal, and battery life issues became the bottleneck in many consumer-era IC designs, the LPC and CPF/UPF standards emerged. The industry’s latest renewed focus on analog design automation in the inter-dependent fabless-foundry model drove the OpenPDK Coalition. Of course, I could also cite dozens of other examples all across the design flow – from Verilog to UVM – all reflecting needs and priorities of the times.

It’s not just standards that shift – even the basic business models have shifted dramatically. When the OpenAccess Coalition was formed 8 years ago, traditional IDMs drove the requirements and supplied the initial resources. Cadence soon joined in with an unprecedented resource commitment, but only because these IDMs set the vision and drove the agenda first. OpenAccess would not exist today were it not for the leadership and ongoing resource investment of these IDMs – even though in current times every part of the supply chain now benefits from OpenAccess, and it has enabled a wave of innovation on top of it that creates more opportunity for our industry’s success ahead.

This begs an important question: Who should be involved in developing standards? Eight years ago, the leading IDMs came together and “encouraged” their suppliers to engage with them, making OpenAccess possible. Today, however, many of those IDMs have gone fabless, and/or have shrunk in market clout to other fabless companies. These fabless design houses, along with their foundry and EDA partners, have quickly overtaken many traditional IDMs as the new market revenue leaders. Most of these newer fabless companies achieved their initial edge with a next-product “laser focus” that used available standards, but often minimized any investment in their creation or support. The problem is that the children have now become the parents, so to speak. Whose job is it now to invest in the future efficiency of our industry? Some industry observers claim that those who lead the industry in market revenues should also recognize that it is in their own best interest to take up the mantle and be leaders in standards development to enable a more efficient industry ahead.

Our industry has thrived through many dynamic transitions, and numerous significant EDA standards have been a key enabler for the industry’s success. Going forward, the new market leaders must continue to invest in those standards upon which we economically and strategically depend for our business, including those emerging areas where effective standards can enable healthy growth for our industry and competitive advantage for those who recognize that vision.