Good afternoon. I am Yongjun Sun, James J. Saurberg, head and Rensberg professor of the School of Industrial Engineering. I would like to welcome you to Purdue Engineering Frontiers lecture series co-hosted by College of Engineering and School of Industrial Engineering. So now I'm going to invite Dr. Mark Lundstrom, everyone knows Dr. Lundstrom, who is the chief semiconductor officer of Purdue University, and Don Carroll Cipher's distinguished professor of ECE and a former internship dean of College of Engineering, whom I worked very closely several, last several months, and I want to invite Dr. Lundstrom to the podium so that he can introduce today's distinguished seminar speaker. Mark? So thank you, Sun, and good afternoon, everyone. You know, we're really fortunate today to have one of the nation's leaders in semiconductor manufacturing here to talk to us about perhaps the most important, certainly the most important immediate challenge that the nation faces. You know, I've worked on semiconductor technology development and manufacturing and research for my entire career, but most of my friends and my family had no idea what a semiconductor was or why chips were so important. All that has changed, and now we all understand how critical this technology is to our nation's defense and to our economic future. Companies like Intel will play a critical role in addressing this challenge, and I sleep a lot better knowing that Intel has leaders like our speaker, K-Bahn Esfajarni, a Purdue Engineering Industrial Engineering alumnus. So K-Bahn is executive vice president and chief global operations officer and general manager of manufacturing, supply chain, and operations at Intel Corporation. He's responsible for the company's worldwide manufacturing operations as well as for corporate quality insurance, corporate services, and supply chain. Before his current position, K-Bahn led Intel's non-volatile memory worldwide manufacturing. His tenure at Intel began in 1996 as an industrial engineer after working in the automobile industry for four years. Since that time, he's held a wide variety of leadership roles in process engineering, yield in manufacturing, and also in enabling technology startups. And K-Bahn earned his bachelor's and master's degrees right here at Purdue in industrial engineering. So it's a real treat to hear from someone on the front lines of what people are referring to as the chipboard. Please join me in welcoming K-Bahn Esfajarni. Hey folks, first of all, it's such an honor pleasure to be back at home, I should say.  But to really describe what I do at Intel, I'm basically in charge of, you know, making sure that, hey, the company provides the leading edge, you know, the process technologies, the chips that you all sort of know as Intel inside, and you put that into your laptops, data centers. And with that comes all the responsibility of running the factories, running the supply chain, operations, construction, and all of this. However, and it's a little over 55,000, 60,000 people that basically are in my team that they do this. But today, I don't want to talk about Intel. Today I want to talk about this tremendous and amazing sort of journey ahead of us, which I really call out. And that's why, you know, put the title of the talk as we are in the trillion era. So what does that mean trillion era? And part of that, it is becoming so critical that, you know, if there's one thing that we learned during the COVID was how important it is that the technologies like semiconductors, that is so critical to everybody, to all of our lives is so critical to make sure that we have that balance of that supply chain all around the world. Intel has been into this for the last, you know, 50 plus years. In fact, the semiconductors were pioneered, you know, here in the United States. So I want to give you a little bit of perspective of where is the state of the industry? Where is the state of the technology? And what we are doing about it? And what really the key priorities are. So I'm going to try to spend less time giving you foils and presentation. But the part that I love about these kind of engagements is questions. You know, your sort of what's in your mind, so that I will do my best to try to answer them.  And I had a little bit of a stint about two, three years. I was working actually in a town very close by here, Logan Sports, Indiana, until Intel called me. And I was actually doing my PhD here. And at the time, you know, Intel said, Okay, why don't you come here for a couple of years.  I said, No, no, no, I am going back. Okay, just just I'm telling you. And it's 27 years now. And my roles has been mostly in technology development, manufacturing, and the way Intel operates is you develop the process technology, right?  Okay, that that's sort of the business model. And you keep doing that every two years, right? So I'll give you a little bit of a context of that. But let me sort of start with why should we care, right? Now, many of you are too young to know that, Hey, it's not even too long ago that, you know, those those things we call them, I wish I could walk around. Can you can you hear me? Can you hear me? It's a small area so everybody can't hear. You guys can hear. Okay, good. You know, these, these these things called typewriter when I was applying to to colleges, you know, I had to type my my paper. Now, most of you know, there's a lot of young folks in the audience. You don't even have that concept.  You know, digital cameras, right? You used to put them in Kodachrome films, you take them to the, you know, a store and they basically develop the films for you, right? I mean, every every picture you were taking, you had to worry about how much is going to cost me to develop that thing, right?  And I'm sure you all have many, many examples of how technology is disrupting the old business models, right? No, it's just unthinkable.  And by the time you get there, the movie cannot be around. Look what's happening with the progression of moving away from fossil fuel cars to the electronic, you know, you know, vehicles, EVs, right? So the foundation of all this is the world is becoming more digital, right? That is what's happening. If you don't believe that, then, then, you know, look around you, right? How many of you use Uber or Lyft, right? Right? Yes, everybody. What happened to those taxis? Again, their business model got disrupted. And this is going to keep happening over and over and over again, right? So the thing to realize that because the world is going digital, what's foundation in all of that? It's semiconductors, right? Semiconductors is what powers the world of digital. It's those tiny little chips, right? And those tiny little chips, right? Is something that requires technology and innovation in order to keep providing these enabling capabilities. So I want to talk to you a little bit about, you know, and provide you the context of that, right? And at least it is our view, like Intel's view, is we are going to this trillion era. And digitization, it is moving very, very fast. How big is the, you know, the overall total available market for semiconductors today? But I don't expect you all to know. But if you do, that's great.  It's about, yeah, 600 billion. See, Dr. Lanzron, by the way, he's one of the leaders, you know, to help us and partner with us to move this. Now in 2030 or so, that's going to be a trillion, right? So it took us 50 plus years to get to 500, 600 billion. And it's going to take us in another decade to pretty much close to double that. So you see that the move to this trend is unstoppable, right? And what is really driving that? And this is what we call the superpowers, right? Of course, compute, right? All the applications, right? All those examples I mentioned, you know, digital cameras, you know, cloud and, you know, using those e-commerce and Uber's, they need compute, right? The other one is just locally having the compute is one thing. Connectivity is critically important, right?  IoT devices talking to each other, right? And then also really moving the data center all the way to the edge where you're actually taking those applications all the way from cloud to the actual end use cases, right? And then sensors are going to be everywhere, right? And whether it's in the manufacturing lines, whether it's in your, you know, cars, whether it's in the refrigerator, whether it's in your, you know, heart monitoring machine, its sensors is explosion of growth. The problem today is, yes, sensors are available. And there is enormous amount of data that gets generated. But guess what? We don't even use 0.2% of that data that gets generated. There's globs of data. This is where AI, this is where some of those, you know, predictive analytical approach that comes in that uses that data to really make use of them, filtering noise from signal, right? And then lastly, you know, the explosion, the whole industry, the world is going to change around AI. What do they all need as you're moving into this sort of digital world? They need semiconductors. Thank you. He's listening. Thank you. So we are having an absolutely critical juncture. So and this industry has been thriving on a simple concept, which was invented by Gordon Moore. Have you heard about Moore's law? Yes, most of you, right? So Gordon Moore, who was one of the founders of Intel, he predicted that in every two years, the number of transistors on a chip is going to double, right? And most of the engineering team right here, that's a, that's a logarithmic scale, a straight line of logarithmic scale. And this is these dots on this picture here shows the actual number of transistors basically per package. And package could be a chip, right? Basically a chip or it could be, you know, as we move forward, we're going to have number of packages come together. But why is this important? Is it just, hey, it's just an ego, let's just do fun science projects. Why do we care about the number of transistors on a chip? Keep increasing. Why do we care about what's called transistor density? Is it just for the fun of it? You get speed, right? It's the performance. What else? Cost, economics, right? It's like, think about a very expensive real estate that that chip that silicon is very, very expensive. The more transistors you can put into it, right? What happens? Your dollar per transistor keeps going down pretty rapidly. What else? I think you mentioned power with with with more transistor density, you need less power. You can use those those that you care about your battery life on your phone. Yes, you do, right? And of course, your aerial density. So this is not just a, hey, let's, it's a nice to have. It's economics, right? And 30 years ago, there were, let's say, 20, 30 semiconductor companies, right? Today, it's much more consolidated. Why? For those that are in the leading edge, right, which I said the Moore's law, which you have to keep shrinking the transistors, right? If you're not on this sort of curve, by the way, getting to those transistor densities means you need to do technology development, you need to do innovation, right? What if you get it wrong? But if you don't get to in two years, you're going to be doubling the number of transistors. What happens? All those things we just talked about, you won't have, you don't have power, you don't have performance, you don't have aerial density, you don't have economic goodness. Then what happens? You get what you deserve, you're out. You're out of the business. Done. Today, who are the companies that are in the leading edge semiconductor design, development, manufacturing? Intel? Very good. What else? TSMC, we're manufacturing. There's a lot of people that do Fabless. So AMD is Fabless, they don't manufacture. Micron is making memory. We're talking about processors, microprocessors, right? Apple doesn't produce the chips, they have somebody else produce them. And video is Fabless. You see, these are all great suggestions. But remember, you hear all these names, but none of them produce these chips themselves. They have somebody else make it for them. This is an important concept for this industry as we're moving forward. They're really, yes, they're three companies, right? Samsung, Korea, TSMC, Taiwan, and Intel, United States. Three companies in leading edge of the technology, developing what I just said, right? Performance, power, aerial density. And what are those applications for? For artificial intelligence, for high performance computing, for taking globs of data and processing them. For all these things, those are the three companies that do that. Now, let's take a step back. Is this thing important? Absolutely. Now, what if one company controls the world on this whole area? Not a good thing. What if this whole thing is moved away from, let's say, one region of the world to another region of the world? Not a good thing. So that's why you hear about this. And one of the things I also want to highlight is, when I said you get what you deserve, is this is a race, right? Because, you know, Intel, we have had our own issues, right? We have had a situation where we did not stay on the, you know, we sort of tried. It's all about being at the leading edge of pushing limits of science and technology. We're talking about atomic level sort of transistors, right? The equipments you use, the material you use, right? If you don't get it right, if you're late, what happens? The other guy gets ahead of you. And now, we had this issue four or five years ago. Now, you're coming back out of it, right? So if you look at, if you hear, when you hear from companies like Intel or others, they are basically going to be on the different nodes, right? For Intel, Intel 7, you see a bunch of products that we make on the PCs as well as data center, Intel 4, Intel 3, 20, 18, this is progression of moving to these new nodes, right? And with that, you're producing products, right? So how does this, how does this machine operate? You develop technology, process technology, you start with design and process technology, you develop the product, you transfer that technology to mass volume production, and then you do it again in two years, right? This is the business model, right? And it's very, very intensive. And I'll talk a little bit about that. Now, let's go back to, okay, where are these things produced? And this is where the call to action comes in. And if you look at the left side of this graph, right? It shows you back in the days, let's say in the 90s, right? This shows you the share of the production of the semiconductors. They were largely in US and Europe. Now, what happened? Do you see how US and Europe have shrunk and Asia have significantly increased? Do you think this is okay? As a global sort of, you know, presence, those three companies making this stuff for global presence of customers, you have a COVID happens, or you have some disruption, right? Geopolitics, right? Is this okay? It's not okay. It's totally not okay. It even goes beyond Intel. It goes to national security issues. It comes down to if you cannot have access to what basically is a part of our everyday life, whether you're in the hospital using that heart monitor, or you're in the MRI machine, or the cars, or TV you're buying, et cetera, et cetera. Would it be a good world to say, hey, you know what? Sorry, I'm going to allocate you what I think you need for your chips. I'm going to keep the rest for myself. That is not okay. So this is where the call to action is. This is why you keep hearing the chips acts. This is why you hear the bipartisan support of basically the administration, of Republicans, them or everybody else rallying around, the importance of why this is such a critical issue. And why? Because we just got the wake-up call during the COVID. Many of you went to, I don't know, your car dealership. What did the dealer say? Sorry, I cannot give you the car until six months from now. Why? Because we don't have these tiny chips. A $10 part was holding up the line. So it is call to action, and we're actually extremely encouraged by the everybody, especially in U.S. as well as Europe, really coming to realization that, hey, there needs to be a public and private partnership to really solve this problem, right? Because building these chips is not just, hey, it's not just a cave-on. Hey, cave-on, go build more chips. No. The infrastructure you need for this requires support beyond what Intel can do. So I just mentioned this whole industry thrives on what? On technology. Technology just doesn't happen by wish and hope, right? Who does technology? It's the people, right? It's the talent. It's all of you here who are going to be graduating with your baseline technical degrees, and you're going to go into companies like Intel or other leading-edge companies, and you're going to solve technical problems. So the partnership between universities, academia, government, infrastructure, all these things is critically important to change that trajectory around. And we know exactly the playbook. Why did these countries have the share of semiconductors? It's because they had policies, they had incentives, they had favorable environments, right? Where semiconductor manufacturing could basically operate and be very, very productive and profitable. That's going to change, right? I'm extremely encouraged by certainly President Mengcheng's, you know, vision of this whole industry. He's been absolutely putting his foot forward, probably the most famous university president in Washington D.C., if I can imagine. You know, he was directly reaching out to R.C.O. Pat Gildinger and me and just say, okay, let's sit around the table. This is so, so important. It's not just words, actions. And I'm extremely encouraged that, you know, Purdue lead the way for semiconductor degree program to really help to address this issue. And, you know, my friend Dr. Lonstrom here is leading this initiative and he's not just on Purdue, it's all of us as an industry. We have to come together. So hopefully you understand that why this is important.  You see the CHIPS Act is about a 52 billion dollar type of an incentive support. Why? Because for someone like, you know, Intel or others who are going to produce these, these, these factories, you need to get the incentives that's going to be required to, to really get, get over the hump. Otherwise, it's a, it becomes very, very, you know, non-economical. And there's structural cost gaps between the United States versus places like Taiwan or Korea or China. And this is where this policy is going to help to level, help to level the playing field. So very, very encouraging. Now, I also want to give you a little bit of a feel for what are we talking about? Why is it such a problem? Just, just go, just go build this stuff. Right? So semiconductor manufacturing is not like any other manufacturing. We're talking about angstrom scale, right? Most people here are engineers, right? What's angstrom? 10 to the minus 10 or, or 0.1 billionth, right? That's, that's the kind of transistor dimensions we're talking about. That's, that's, that's Moore's law over 50 years on logarithmic scale. That's what happens when you just keep staying on that, right? It also requires extremely precise equipment to be producing this stuff, right? To be at that level of angstrom level for the kind of, you know, dimensions we're talking about, each of our equipment. For example, in lithography, there's a company called ASML that makes these equipment. How much you think is one of their equipment? One equipment, 100 million? Since you're recording me, I say it's too expensive, but it's about two, three hundred million dollars, right? So, yeah. So it's, it's just one equipment. And, and of course, what do they do? They are thriving on innovation too. Similarly, you need the position of gases, all these things that you put on those wafers, you need to etch the wafers, right?  You take this, you know, you do all the design, all the patterning, all the process and mechanical and chemical activities on the, on the wafer. You take it, once it's done through the fabrication process on the wafer, you take it to what we call the back end of the process and you dice it up into individual chips and then you package them, right? That's essentially how you produce these chips. And in order to produce them, right, you need humongous infrastructure, you have utilities, you have to have a lot of, you know, what matters in producing, you know, you're making that wafer, you have individual chips. How many good chips I get on out of that wafer? Do you think that matters? Hugely matters. That's yield. Do you think I want to know about how much dye fallout, each one of those chips fall out? Do I want to know at the end of the line or do I want to know it right when it happens? When it happens, because I don't want to throw too much money at it and then know about it when I'm done, right? So how would I know about it when it happens? That's when software, automation, analytical tools comes in, right? And by the way, making this stuff takes all kinds of minerals and chemicals, so supply chain is critically important. If something gets stuck in one part of the world, right? Then what?  I don't think so.  It's just not acceptable. You lose hundreds of millions of dollars.  Now, to build these things, right? Even though it's tiny chips, it takes huge infrastructure, like I was mentioning. Today, how much does a leading semiconductor fabrication facility cost? Just one. 20 billion. Actually, it's closer to 25. That's what my boss would say, K-1. You got to get it down to 20. But that's what it is. And you need to build these like cookie cutters, right? In order to upkeep to the trillion era, you need a lot of cash flow to do this. And to build it, you can sort of see the structural steels you need. You need all kinds of, you know, it's a humongous infrastructure. And you see that there's a, you know, as you see there, we have construction in Intel. We have these very similar of these 20 billion dollar type of things. We have them going in Ireland. We have them in Israel. We have them in Arizona. We have them in Ohio. Soon we're going to have them in Germany, right? And we also have them in Israel. So balancing supply chain is not just a talk. We are all in. We are all in, right? And in order to be all in, you also have to be leadership in technology. You have to deliver products that many of those companies that you said who don't make this stuff, right? They can basically count on you to deliver them the leadership performance that they are looking for. But it's not just, hey, let's just go build these things. Let's go, you know, pour huge amount of concrete and structure steel and all this stuff. You have to do it sustainably. This is why environment is hugely important in this process, right? And it starts with the value that you stand behind as a company, right? This is not something just, we're just thinking about. It's been decades that Intel has been sort of focused on, hey, sustainability. In fact, producing these chips requires a lot of water, you know, who wants to waste a lot of water, right? Nobody. So you have to have innovation where you're recycling. You're reducing your water consumption, right? Also, you make waste, right? Once you polish things or once you do all kinds of processes in your manufacturing, right? How do you dump that stuff? You don't want to dump them into landfills or ocean, right? You want to reduce the waste. And lastly, this is a grandiose mission. This is the big, hairy, audacious goal of being net zero. What does that mean? That means from all these operations that I said, all around the globe, right? We want to have zero carbon emission. But it's easy to say, but how do you get there? You have to innovate. You have to invest. You have to come up with alternative materials and processes, right? So this is why this is such an exciting journey ahead, right? Yes, the world is moving to digital era. Yes, it's going to be unstoppable trend, trend, but it takes innovation to get there, right? And that innovation never stops. So what are the kind of, your modern, what kind of people are you looking for? Well, it's not just one discipline, right? What it takes to win in this trillion era, right? It takes all the disciplines, right?  So in my team, all of these elements are there. If one of them is missing, you know, the bus doesn't have a wheel, right? So and every one of these areas have to keep reinventing, have to keep raising the bar. And Intel and Purdue have a tremendous partnership. In fact, even even since, you know, President, you know, Chen and as well as Dr. Launstrom, you know, we're even up leveling that, right? You can sort of see on the research, you know, one and a half million of Intel funded investments with the university, you know, we have all kind of activities with SRC, $5 million there, you know, we, you know, rising star, I mean, number of these programs, lots of focus. My personal passion is also about talent development, right? And that's about, hey, some of the programs for the summer, you know, semi-one-on-one, semi-degree programming, these things are like role model for the entire nation, right? And then of course, many of the talent developments as well. So this is a journey. And as I mentioned, this is something that we as, you know, one of the leaders in the industry look upon ourselves to make sure that we are preparing the future generations to come. And I always say, with leadership comes responsibility. And Purdue is a leader in engineering, right? Everybody thinks of Purdue, they think of engineering, right? And with that comes responsibility. This is not just, hey, let's just listen to him and let's go away. No, what I want all of you to think about is what does this mean to me, right? Now, if you care about this topic and if you know, there is a role for you to play. I assure you because the future is critically important to transition into this digital era and it's going to require innovation. And that's where you're all sitting here today for. So with that, let me turn it over to you for any questions and you have. So I don't know how am I doing time wise? Okay, good, good. I held my promise. So I love to see any questions you have, anything that you want to ask me about, I'm going to be very transparent with you. As long as it's not about the stock price, as long as it's not about, you know, we are in a quiet period, so I cannot talk about market stuff. But rather than that, anything I talked about, I'm happy to answer. Hi, so my name is Francis Stollers. I'm an industrial engineer. On behalf of all I ease, it is a pleasure and a huge inspiration to see a fellow Purdue industrial engineer up on the stage. My question is about the crisis, semiconductor crisis after COVID. And besides international dependencies, what is the most important lessons to be learned from this crisis? You mean crisis? What are the crisis? Well, I think the first thing first is, it's just the human nature that you don't want to, you know, accept the reality. You know that, hey, this graph was, we were looking at this, everybody was looking at it. Hey, you're so dependent on Asia. You know, what if Shanghai Airport closes down? What if, you know, Swiss Callen closes down? But you're like, well, that means I got to go invest. I got to go put in hundreds of millions of dollars of this, I have to do this or that. So the human nature is like, well, that's never going to happen. You know, oh, I have all these other problems. Let me not worry about that. But when COVID happens, you realize, holy moly, this is important. Now, the good news for us in Intel was that we already had a very good resiliency across the world. You know, I mentioned we have operations all around the world because we thought about these things, right? But many of our suppliers didn't, right? So this is where, you know, when COVID happened, right? Many of you started learning from home. You started working from home.  You cannot work from home. You cannot learn from home because you cannot, you know, many of you and your family members, you had to buy laptops, right? All these things, right? Imagine you didn't do that. That's supply chain resiliency, right? We were able to sort of predict ahead. But we were so short. We were so short of supply because our suppliers, they did not, they were not able to accommodate, you know, the raw material. So we had enough inventory so we could, we could sort of respond to this crisis. So the lessons learned is you need to sort of not just think about what you need. You need to think about what your supplier needs. And you think about what their sub-suppliers need.  This is where you have to use decision support tools. You have to use analytical models in order to help you understand where those vulnerabilities are, right? I call it that $100 million equipment. They cannot ship it to me. Why? I'm waiting for cable.  Oh, it's in this little city in China.  What were you thinking? I didn't even know I have that cable coming from there. These were the tough discussions. But, but moving forward, we have learned our lessons. And this is why programs like Chips Act is trying to address, mitigate some of those risks. It's a good question. Other questions? Thank you so much for a great presentation. One of the charts you showed, you mentioned there's imbalance now versus balance 20 or 30 years ago. The way I looked at the chart, it seemed like there are five pieces of 20% each, roughly 50-50 Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere manufacturing. Do you see a future where that is seen as a balance perhaps with Intel having fabs all around the world or many corporations from around the world having fabs that are distributed where the customer is? It's a good question. Our view is, by the way, the manufacturing of semiconductors are not all created equal. There are mature notes that are still using 65 nanometer, 100 micron. These things are okay to be, and they're products that you have abundant availability. Where it becomes rather critically important is places where you are depending on these key products for future advancement of, let's say, military applications, surveillance, intelligence. If you're blocked from having access to those things, then people's lives are going to change. Now, is it a 20% or 30%? What is more critical is you have access to that capability, and it's not just manufacturing. It's the R&D. Remember, it's the foundational capabilities of those technologies is what you don't want to lose. Because manufacturing going elsewhere, it's okay. If you can make products and it's more efficient, let's say in one part of the world versus other part of the world, you get what you deserve. That's good for them. But if you lose the foundational technology capability, that is not okay. So I would not read too much into the percentages. What I would read more about is, do you have the foundational capability and access to those capabilities? The moment you lose that, game is over. Good question. Other questions? Yes? Yes, we have about two dozen folks online. So I have a few questions there. First one is, have you read the book, Chippor? And if so, what are your thoughts on it? Yes, I've not only read it, I've met Chris Miller, who's the author. He's actually, those of you who haven't, I would strongly recommend you to read it. I think he is totally echoing exactly what I just talked about. But he looks at it from a historical perspective. Why was semiconductors invented? It started with critical government requirements. It was about national security. It talks about how the market evolved. What happened with many of these companies that basically either did not innovate, either they kept their eyes off the ball. And lastly, it also talks about why the public and private partnership is critically important and talks about the overall infrastructure that's needed there. He's quite a thought leader. He teaches at Tufts University and be absolutely support and encourage. His thesis is very much aligned to what Intel is trying to do. He writes the book, we commit and put our neck on the line with hundreds of billions of dollars. So that's the name of the game. Other questions? Hi, my name is Steve. I'm doing my master's in engineering management. First of all, thank you for your talk. So my question is you mentioned how, you know, when COVID happened, you had to change how you think about things. And you also mentioned how you have a particular way, your business model is a certain way. When this change happened suddenly and you realized, sure you had it in the back of your mind, but you realized you have to change a lot of things now that things are starting to accelerate. How did you go about integrating that into your business model? How do you go about changing something that has been robust, but you need to change it fast without breaking other things in the network effects? Yeah, it starts with the expectation setting, right? It starts with, you know, for operation like the one I run, I have about 16,000 plus suppliers, right?    Now, it's not an overnight kind of a thing, right? The way you approach these problems is one way is just duplicate, you know, hey, if everything is somewhere else, let's just duplicate the thing. Well, that can be very expensive, some of these products, you don't have enough margins to just, let's just go build a new factory, right? You lose money, who would want to do this and lose money? So places where you can, you duplicate. There are places where you establish alliances, right? That's where the role of the governments come into play, right?  You can do regulatory measures, right? Where you say, you know what, certain things cannot be shipped from one country to the next, right? These are actions that when you hear the news, these are all surrounded around, hey, how do we create a more balanced supply chain, right? Good question. Other, why don't, why don't we go here? First of all, thank you for your wonderful talk. I'm just one, and my question is probably going to take you back to your time here at Purdue. I'm doing my masters in industrial engineering here, and I read in the speaker notes that you fondly recall your simulation course here by Professor Schmeiser. And I'm currently taking that course with Professor Hunter, who's in the same academy as you. And I was wondering, were your early years in Intel as an industrial engineer related to simulation work? If yes, then how? And if not, then maybe you could shed some light about how simulation is used in Intel. Any interesting? Yeah, good question. Yeah, so even to the state folks, you know, even though you hear me big responsibility, but I still have my college books, you know, in my office once in a while, I even opened them. Because in the real world, things don't happen exactly as you think, right? You, you know, I plan billions of dollars of capital, right? If everything went exactly as I thought, it would be amazing. Everything works the way. The world works on a basis of, it's very stochastic, right?  It's like, hey, you use some baseline of data, you model the probability of certain events happening, right?  In our world, in this, in highly capital intensive business, deploying your capital and how you use that, that capital asset utilization is a huge, huge deal, right? And this is where modeling like simulation is very helpful to really understand, hey, you don't want to plan for over capacity. So, so you want to be always planning for all these unexpected because when you plan for over capacity, what happens? You buy too much capital.  It could be a yield problem. It could be supply chain problem. It could be a, you know, some defect that's in the water line, right? These things, if it creates a shock into the system, you want to be able to plan for them. So, this is just one example of where you can apply simulation in a highly capital intensive business like what we do, and it's critically important. There's, we're talking with Dr. Son about, you know, like digital twin, right? Now, it's easier said than done because, you know, until you really come and work in the environment, you cannot oversimplify, you know, the complexity involved in running these operations, but it's a great start. Those are great concepts to have. Other questions? Yes? Oh, actually, go ahead first and then Dr. Son. All right. And finally, I'm currently a PhD student in industrial engineering, and I'm interested in semiconductor supply chain, especially the 2021 auto chip shortage. We all know it's a consequence from the interaction from different supply chains like the auto industry, like the consumer electronics, and the semiconductor supply chain is at the center of these different supply chains. So, I'm curious about, like, how to, what's the current practice of the semiconductor coordinate between, coordinate among the different supply chains, and maybe designing a new contract to, like, do the signals and improve the social welfare of the different supply chains. I wish I had a simple answer for that. It's a very complicated equation, you know, and if the semiconductor industry has many, many tiers of variability, just like we're talking about the operation, but even in the market, right? There are many, many elements that that affects that, right?  You know, having said that, I think the best you can do is to know what your vulnerabilities are, and you always want to have essentially a contingency plan, right? And, and you also, that contingency plan, that means you have to qualify those capabilities, right? And that goes all the way down to every tier, down to the mineral, right? Even where that tungsten is being produced, right? Where the mine is, right? Those things matter. And you have to use, you know, analytical models in order to achieve that. And there's many tools coming about with the AI and so much data available. This is how you can bring and link these systems together, because you cannot manage this on locally optimizing this, but that from an industry perspective, there are ways that you can approach that. And, you know, we're in a journey. This might take a decade or two to get to the vision. But, but the, you know, anybody who tells you in this industry that what happens six months from now, don't believe them. Okay? That's just here from me. So including myself. Okay. Other questions? Yes. Dr. Langstrom. Yeah. Well, thanks again for a great talk and a good discussion too. So my question sort of gets at Jay's. You know, I'm, I'm old enough to remember Sputnik and the race to the moon. And, you know, there we had a clear objective. And when we landed one of our alumni on the moon, we knew we had succeeded. Now, when we think about the chip war, whatever we call it, is there a clear objective? How will we know when we have succeeded? And the second part of the question is help calibrate us on the magnitude of the challenge. Are we talking about five years of intense effort or will it take longer? I think you would know that, you know, I love to have a simple metric, like you say, like, let's get a man to the moon and bring them back safely. At this stage, right, I would say is you want to get to a point where semiconductors are no longer the constraint, right? Semiconductors are enabling capabilities that creates all these new business model that makes the people's lives better, right? And that, to me, is very simply measured.   What do they need? They need semiconductors. What do you think is the issue? If the whole world wants to go use it, you're back to square zero, you are going to be constrained. So to me, is, you know, you want to get to a point where semiconductors are no longer the constraint, and you're also no longer in a position that one region of the world is controlling this, where the innovation occurs. We need to see that balance, right?  You know, that is, that is, you know, as long as you stay on that, and it may not be the good traditional way of staying on Moore's law. It's not going to be, hey, you just, you know, maybe the new era is going to be in packaging. Maybe that's how you keep staying on the Moore's law. But those are to me simple metrics. Is A, you're not constrained, and B, you just keep staying on the Moore's law. But at least for the next couple of decades, maybe until I retire, right, Moore's law is alive and well, you know, so that is, that is the mission. We have to stay on that. Good question. I think they have something online. Do you want to? Yes. Or let's do it with you first and then let's go online. Okay. Hi, my name is Namisa, and I'm a software industrial engineering, and I'm actually participating in semiconductor research here as well. And I wanted to ask, I know with the CHIPS Act, it's all about how to reduce dependency that we have with other global countries, but how do you know how to draw the boundary between dependency and also global collaboration? Because it's also important to have connections with other countries and moving forward. How is it going to work? I think it's an excellent point, as I made the remark earlier, right? The way you solve this is not just by just let's just keep building factories, right? You solve this by three things, right? Number one is you want to have enough scale and manufacturing presence so that you keep the innovation, you keep the learning, you keep the talent, right? That's one piece. And where it makes sense, you replicate that. Then there's also alliances, right? You hear like a Japan, you know, Netherlands, you hear many of the European, you know, EU, they are all in alliance in order to figure out how do we all rally around the same common goal, right? That's where the alliances comes in. And then there's also regulations, right? That you have to put certain regulations. And regulations can be around how do you use these materials? Certain materials can be not, you know, you can have this humongous growth, but certain materials may actually not be as environmentally friendly. So regulations is also critically important, you know, where the leading edge technology goes, where the heck is that going to be used for, right? Is the leading edge technology going to be used to kill people? That's not okay. So there are regulations for, and I think those three things is how you can approach these problems. And again, it's going to require public and private collaboration to get there. But the goal, the common goal is the same. When you have common goal folks, amazing things happen, right? Even within your own teamwork, right? I always encourage you, before everybody gets together to team up, right? The best teams are which one? Where you have a common goal. You start with, what's the end in mind? Like Dr. Lancer said, what is the goal? Once you establish that, amazing things happen, right? This is no different. I just keep going until you tell me stop, because I don't... Okay, no worries. Actually, this question kind of builds on that. The US does not have a good track record in government backed industrial policy. How do you think we can do things differently this time? Okay. So let me start by saying I'm definitely not in politics. I'm not going to be able to comment on how political issues are going to be solved. So I will start with that. But I would say, certainly from my lens of basically leading a semiconductor operation, I have been very encouraged to see the level of progress in both US and European Union. Basically, we meet very closely, very regularly, with the leaders of both regions. And I would say more than ever, the level of urgency and the level of everybody rallying around this common goal is something that's actually quite refreshing, right? So as you're hearing the news, you saw the President Biden passing of the CHIPS Act. These things are happening, right? Because there's a bit of a forcing function and similarly in Europe as well. Because it's such a critical problem that unless you intervene, the problem is not going to go away, right? Because it's just structural differences between various GEOs are just so vastly different that it's just not going to work, right? So this is why the common goal around this so far is everybody understands. It's basically the graph that I just showed, right? Yes. Hi, everyone. Hey, Vijay. Good to see you. Great talk. Thank you for your leadership of the Intel Purdue partnership. The question I had was, I think there's one school of thought that says that some of the supply chain imbalance has really been driven by a cost issue, right? That supply chains tend to get biased towards regions where cost is lower. And as you just put it, I think, really well, we've kind of imposed a forcing function on that because it is so critical, I guess, from a larger perspective. So in some sense, can that same school of thought say as by if this forcing function succeeds, the cost of semiconductors is perhaps going to go up, right? So my question to you is, do you agree with that school of thought? And B, if so, is this essentially some kind of a national security tax essentially that everybody will have to pay for their semiconductors, which may be a maybe an okay thing? Well, first of all, I don't think it's going to harm the customers. I don't think it's going to create average selling price increases. And remember, why that degradation of the share of the world supply went from US and Europe to other parts of the world? Why do you think that is? Is labor cost? I'm investing $20 billion, $10 billion, let's say five years ago, 10 years ago on a FAP. How much of that do you think is labor cost? Very, very small. Make no mistake, folks. It's not about labor cost. This is when you're talking about $20, $30 billion. What happens? Supply chain, it comes down to favorable policies, right? They voted for it. The United States did not. That is the issue. So what do we mean by that? What is industrial policy? It's taxation, right? Mr. Corporation, come. You operate here. I give you tax incentives. Mr. Corporation, come here. I give you rebate on your capital investment. Mr. Corporation, come here.  You have a free land. I give you free building. And with that, Mr. Corporation, you're going to generate lots of jobs. You're going to generate lots of talent. You're going to bring all that innovation here. That's what's worth to me. So they give you billions in policy incentives and you generate them. More than billions of return. It's not an intel thing. Go read some of the third-party studies, consulting companies. I encourage you. There is 10x, sometimes 15x multiplier in a semiconductor investment. For every dollar you put in, there's 15 times more. Because why do you need supply chain? You need the infrastructure. You need the people that are going to deliver the stuff. You need the warehouse. You need the parts. You need the people running the water plant, right? You need the hotels. You need restaurants, right? Building these factories is like you're building a city, right? So they had a policy that they voted on. We didn't. That's what happened. And the thinking that, well, you're just going somewhere because it's cheap labor, that's fallacy. Good question. I know time is up, but I agreed to take the last question of today. Yes, thank you. My name is Michael. Thank you for your time in the presentation. We talked a lot today about the leading edge of semiconductors. What is the gap between the leading edge of the technology versus what is manufacturable and scalable on a widespread scale to take so many global customers? Yeah. It's an excellent question. It's actually a good place to end. The semiconductor industry has got a wide spectrum of applications, right? I talked about leading edge because that is what enables these high-performance computing, AI, and all these things you hear about. But there's a huge market for lagging what we call mature nodes, right? Mature nodes are your phone. They don't need your high-performance computing, right? They might need a power module IC. That's on older nodes. It might need a radio frequency module. It might need a signal processing. These things, you don't need to be on angstrom type of era, right? Now, these things come together. What controls your USB on your computer is a chip. That comes together with this leading edge. This is where packaging comes in. We used to put all of that because of monolithic integration. We put all of that onto a chip, right? But when you're buying equipments at 200, 300 million, you're building this humongous infrastructure, what do you think you want to do? You don't want to use that real estate for this mature stuff, right? You want to use your leading edge for that real estate is important. Then you bring those mature chips like somebody mentioned about memory, right? DRAM, NAND, high bandwidth memory. These things, you basically bring all those things together and you put them into a package. That package has a huge innovation that's required. This is those of you who are mechanical engineering, right? The tensile strength of this thing. The warpage. How do you connect the chips together? How do you make sure there's overlay and alignment? This is a whole new era that's going to really drive this industry forward. But there's also, there's a huge trend also. You hear Intel inside, right? We build chips for PCs and data centers. Well, guess where the world is going to, right? They're like, while I appreciate your chip, Mr. Kvan, but I'm going to be using the chip for a car application, for EV application. I'm going to use the chip for a graphics application. I'm going to use it for a wireless application, right? So I want to be able to get that chip that's customized to my needs. That's where you hear the name of companies like NVIDIA, Apple, AMD, Qualcomm. What do they do? They design their chips, and they're going to come and say, hey, Mr. TSMC, Mr. Kvan, go produce this for me. So that's a whole new era, right? And this is what Intel hasn't done, but Intel is getting into that space as well. So with that, folks, I want to sincerely thank everybody for your time. It was really honor and very, very relevant questions. Hopefully, this was useful for you. And with that, I'm going to turn it back over to Dr. Sun here. Thank you. Well, Kvan, it's great to have you back to our campus. And let's give Kvan a big round of applause, okay? So thank you for coming today's talk. And I want to thank the College of Engineering team for preparing this outstanding talk series, okay? So have a great day.


Hello, hello, hello everybody, what's going on with your faces today? Yeah, I was gonna do a little studio I was gonna do a little studio tour real quick. I only got to like 20 minutes But how are you? Have you been? You look good. Did you did you sleep well? Have you eaten? It's my dog's birthday in a week. So I have to go to Belgium and come back in time for his birthday We famously forget his birthday So we're we're trying very hard not to forget his birthday this year. You hear that Sawyer?  Is this the robo? vacuum We've been waiting for and the streaming Consolidation Melee is about to begin All right, and then we've got Sarah tongue Sarah Tom Sarah Sarah Sarah Tom Tom Tom I'm gonna get rid of for consideration The Beatles have a new song. Thanks to machine learning. Is this a good idea? We'll talk about it And tomorrow Nate Langston is here to tell us why the UK is sticking its big nose into the AI conversation all out of more coming up next Paley Glendale is we never give him credit for leading leading the twitch stream chow Stuff good for you On this episode of DTNS have chips hit rock bottom. Is this the robot vacuum you I'm not gonna make that a question the robot vacuum you been waiting for and The streaming consolidation may Streaming TV streaming TV No, all right. I want to watch this Beatles documentary thing. Hey color radio Georgia Tom long time Jay Yeah, hey Adam Yes, that is very hard. I'm so sorry to hear that on a lighter note. Did you watch the Apple event? BTS yet. I Didn't know BTS was part of the Apple event. I know you meant behind the scenes Yeah, no, I did. I watched some of it. It's pretty interesting Mr. Electroglide Nice of you to chat All right. Well, we got some YouTube folks showing up. Anyway, that's good It's very quiet on the twitch side What shall been up to I'm just streaming a little before I before I have to go do our production meeting and Yeah, it's gonna do DTNS gonna be fun conversation just around we're young we're gonna talk about the Beatles song too Ah Oh, hey cliff singer. Okay, so we have a we have a quorum now with three people on YouTube and cliff singer on twitch So I'm gonna do this It's time for a little studio tour My my volume will be echoey But I did this before that's the laptop I'm using And it's I keep the screen up over there and I'm usually have discord on it in There is my embarrassing Shelf of gear, there's my book hat. This is what I use. This is my my road caster Where else can we go? What if we? Lights Yes, Joe hood if you see this I have not mailed that to Marty yet I've got rug some books This is an old TV stand those are all the things from my 50th birthday party I was planning in 2020 that I still have bunch cables cameras extra boom mic for when I have guests a little area for them to sit and You know the back the back of stuff. There's the There's the background from afar. There's all my hats So, you know apologies that the the audio is not as As crazy good perhaps, but yeah, there you go I'm gonna switch this camera back to the regular camera now Aha It's kind of fun that you can do that. I can do it again if you want to see anything in particular But yeah, it's it's not a huge room. That's uh, that's the full studio tour. It's honestly not that impressive I didn't want to show my mess of my rats nest of cables down here Yeah, I've had a probably probably equivalent to the apple behind the scenes, right? I'm embarrassed about my cables. I'll be honest. I don't want to show those to people But I have my you know uninterruptible power supply and my switch and all this like down here to the left Just probably some of the more interesting technology, but you're just gonna all scream fire hazard probably if I show you that so Yeah That's really all I wanted to do Is do a little little quick office tour for everybody? Yeah, that's my my feeling mr. Electroglide never throw away what you can repurpose as a bookshelf or a table or storage I could I could open up the closet one of these days It's very what what's all in there? I have been cleaning it a little so it's not as as ridiculous as it used to be Thanks everybody for showing up and going on the tour with me Well, these these are the cables that are inactive used to cliff singer I also have a drawer's full of other cables that I Probably might need someday Yeah, nah, I'm I am when it comes to cable management, I am not OCD Unless you mean overly cable Euretic, yeah, no that doesn't work Yeah, let me just grab cables This is just a bunch of cables that were in the top drawer of my cable thing and yes That is a radio shack Serial cable. Yes, I might need it Thanks Ed. Yes, I will try to find a great resource to keep those all organized. Yeah, at least they're in a drawer. That's true Oh, this is a spare room. We do not have a basement in this house Adam So it's not soundproofed But the neighborhood's quiet enough and the high LPR 40s are so good at sound isolation That I don't really need soundproofing and you may have noticed I got stuff on the walls Which sort of keeps there from being a lot of echo Yeah It works it works Well, I'm gonna go get prepped for the production meeting. So hopefully I'll see y'all for DTNS in just About an hour a little little more than an hour. Okay, it's gonna be a good with today I just have a good gut feeling not that they're not all good, but There's there's some fun conversations that we're gonna have it. It's me Sarah and Justin, which is always magic. So Talk to you all in a bit. Have a good day Bye


Have a seat. Jonathan comes from the OpenStack Foundation. Probably many of you here know him. Jonathan, start by telling us where you think OpenStack is today.  And I think that if I kind of look at the phases of OpenStack, the first phase of it was really in 2010 and 2011 forming the community, reaching out to organizations outside of Rackspace and NASA, who were the two organizations that kind of kicked it off, getting involvement, getting development, getting a process for code to sort of move through the pipeline, and really, you know, kind of setting up that piece of it. And then in 2012 we actually created a nonprofit foundation because at this point there was a lot of momentum, a lot of participants, and it was clear that it should move outside of kind of being managed by Rackspace and into something that had a broad base of support and governance. And, you know, that was, I think, a lot of what went on in 2012. And that was when I would say we started to see the first traces of adoption in a serious way in enterprises and in different organizations. And like you said, you know, a lot of these are early adopters at the time, companies like Intel who's been building an OpenStack environment out for two and a half years now and doing a lot of different workloads on it. That's when they started. And as we come into 2014, what I think I see is we are at a point where we have an extremely strong base of providers, of developers who are producing technology and a growing base of users. And I think that we're in a really key spot now where it's time to get operators and cloud end users to really start to be more embedded into these processes that we put in place. Because as you say, you know, this is the time when we start to transition from early adopters and technology companies to a broader base of adoption. And there are a lot of other requirements and a lot of other input that needs to come into it. So what do you think needs to be done to drive sort of past that initial early adoption? And how does that fit with what the foundation is doing in 2014? So an interesting thing is if you look at some of the biggest users that we have, a lot of them are working with a vendor in some way but also doing a lot of it themselves. And they tie in different components from the storage side or from the networking side. And then there are pieces that they go straight to the code base for. And I think that over the long term, you know, broad-based adoption is going to happen in concert with various other companies. And those companies are taking the bits that make up OpenStack which, you know, there's a lot of technology there in a lot of different areas and they're turning it into products. And I think that is a way that traditional enterprises are used to consuming technology. At the same time, I think that one of the things that's changing inside of enterprises is that software is becoming much more of a core piece of people's business now than it ever has been before. And, you know, we have an OpenStack user that's, they are not a technology company. They're a very large retail organization. And what they sell has nothing to do with technology. But they have stores all over the place and they tie together all of their POC systems. They have large professional customers that they deal with on a regular basis. So they have advanced CRM systems. And their software is actually very important to them in doing their business, much more so than it was five years ago. And so there are a lot of organizations where that's the case now. And so the infrastructure to enable their developers to iterate rapidly, to scale, to try out new functionality is more important to more organizations than ever before. So these vendor organizations involved in OpenStack both cooperate and compete. And as a result, we've had a lot of, for instance, different distributions, proprietary extensions to OpenStack, which ends up creating challenges for hybrid interoperability and really also the ability to switch between vendors. What is the foundation doing to address the needs of users to really understand what OpenStack is? Yeah, this is a big focus in 2014. There are a couple of initiatives that we're spending a lot of our resources at the foundation on. And the foundation staff is very small. So our goal is really to basically coordinate activities within the community and get a lot of things moving in a direction and getting people involved to help actually go carry that out. But two of the key efforts that I would say are there's a process that's going on right now that's codenamed DeafCore or core definition. And it's kind of a series of steps that have been taken over the last year to get to an automated testing framework for interoperability, for downstream products that come out of OpenStack. You know, you can take the OpenStack code and do a lot of different things with it. It's very broad technology. That's part of what makes it so powerful, but it also can make it complicated. And you can end up with an OpenStack cloud that looks one way and another OpenStack cloud that looks totally different. That's fine, you know, because people have different needs. But what we want to make sure is that it's clear where those differences are, which things are going to work in one area, which things are not going to work. And so the DeafCore initiative is something that started up in November. And by the summit in May, we're going to have automated testing. We're going to have a way for publishing these tests so that it's easy for users to be able to go in and understand different solutions and, you know, how they match up to kind of a standard OpenStack installation where the differences are. And that's one initiative. Another thing that we're doing in 2014 is a series of different user engagement events to basically pull users more directly into the process. There's room for users right now in our process, but it's open source and it can be intimidating to come jump into an open source community of 2,000 developers, you know. And so there are some smaller events that we're putting together with operators and users. And we're also doing some, you know, just old-fashioned relationship building between different users. We actually had a dinner last night with several users here in the Bay Area. You know, three companies that are some of the biggest brands in the world all using OpenStack and doing it at, you know, pretty large scale. And it was interesting to see them get together. And within, you know, 10 seconds of them sitting down at the table, they were just peppering each other with questions. Oh, you know, what do you do over here? And how did you handle this? And what did you find out when you started using this project? And oh, you're looking at this. And I think that there's an incredible power available out there if we can get those people talking, communicating, get them into the community. And so we have a number of initiatives that we want to spin up around both operators and cloud consumers, you know, end users who are building applications on top of OpenStack this year. How was the OpenStack roadmap built? And how does that, how does basically user desires factor into project priorities? Yeah, that's a really good question. Especially against the come with code. Yeah. Well, so the OpenStack roadmap is built through a six month release process. And we are about midway through the current release cycle. And so with the six month cycle, we do a release, and then we have an event. It's called our design summit. The next one is in May. And at that event, developers and users and people get together and talk about, you know, what the priority is going to be for the next release. And then they go off and they build it over the course of the next six months. One of the things that we've heard, the technical leaders love getting that feedback, but doing it at the summit in a lot of cases is too late to bring in a big change, a big requirement. And so we're actually creating mid-cycle meetups, and some of these are focused just on users, where we are working with the user committee of the foundation to come up with some prioritized lists two months ahead of time that we're going to feed to the technical leadership so that those discussions can happen ahead of time.  It's definitely a code speaks kind of community, but, you know, every technical leader in OpenStack that I have talked to or that has interacted with a user is really excited to get that feedback because that's why we build software. It's for people to go out and use it, you know. And so what we at the foundation want to do is just facilitate those conversations at the right time in the cycle and to be able to, you know, have a good impact on the software. And so in terms of where OpenStack is going in this next year, what's going to be significant across Icehouse and Juno? So I think that, you know, there are a lot of new programs and technology components that have spun up around OpenStack, and those, you know, often get a lot of coverage and a lot of excitement.  And, you know, you have the database as a service and all these kinds of things. And then there's a whole roadmap of other things that are out there. But I think that what's really valuable that's happening right now is these users who are getting involved. We had, I think, over a dozen pretty major users that were code contributors in the last release. And what they are doing is they are driving it towards maturity and towards being much more operable, towards being upgradeable, you know, these kinds of things. And I think that that, to your points earlier, those are the kinds of things that bridge that divide between early adopters and kind of massive option. And in that context, as you look at OpenStack's future and you look at innovation in OpenStack, to what degree do you expect that innovation is going to be driven by OpenStack versus OpenStack seeking to essentially commoditize innovations from the rest of the ecosystem, whether it's Amazon or Google or Microsoft's innovations, let's say. That's an interesting question, you know. I think that if I think back to where we started, it was much more about trying to come up with a strong, viable option for some of the technology ideas that were already out there. But what we've seen as this community has grown is it's actually drawn in a lot of very strong technical talent from around the world in a lot of different subject areas. And more and more, you know, there are things that are being done in OpenStack that then get pulled into other, in some cases, into other proprietary companies, into other open source projects. And it's not just on the cloud side. One of the things that I think is really interesting that's happened is it's one of the largest and fastest growing open source projects ever. And we get tens of thousands of contributions. And in order to be able to handle that at the kind of scale that we're at with a distributed system like this, there is a lot of testing that we have to do and a lot of complicated dependencies in this testing. And so, you know, we've built an open source system for managing that. And that sounds kind of like, okay, that's interesting but not really related to cloud. But it's actually something that has been implemented inside of proprietary software development companies, inside of other open source projects, major ones. Because, you know, what really has happened is it's created this kind of center of gravity for people who want to work on hard distributed problems. And so I, you know, I think that a couple of years ago I would not necessarily have seen it as like the hotbed of innovation, but I think that it just shows you the power of a community. It's becoming more and more of that. So I think looking out to the future, I think that it'll continue to be a combination, but I think we'll definitely see some strong innovations coming out. Good. Thank you. Stay put. Ken, do you want to come up? Thank you. So Ken, you work for Selenia, which is a professional services company for OpenStack. What drives adopters to look at OpenStack professional services? Well, so, you know, I think we see a wide array of adoption out there. And I think different segments of the population come for different reasons. If you're a service provider, you're really coming probably for integration. You've probably rolled your own because you need some differentiation in your service, so you need source code control, but you do need to integrate it into things you already have there. You've got a billing system. You've got some kind of operational system and things like that. And so it's really around the technical bits of integration and things. A lot of our work, though, is actually in the enterprise. And the enterprise comes at a much different entry point. They really come in at what we call a strategy point. And most of the time when we get involved with clients in the enterprise, at least, their first thought is, do I need a cloud or how would I actually take advantage of cloud? And it's not about OpenStack. It's not about private or public clouds. It's, should I be using cloud? And if so, how would I get onto that? And there's certainly technical elements to it, but actually a lot of it's around process and governance, is if I were going to use a private cloud or a public cloud, would I make sure that I still have governance of who's running particular jobs? How do I know where my data is? How do I know my data's safe? And those kind of things.  So you get involved initially strategically. So you get involved in the deployment side as well? Absolutely. So, you know, I think it's really difficult to have someone come in and do generic cloud strategy for you because it's really easy to get disconnected from the realities of how hard it is to actually deploy this, whether you're moving to a public cloud or actually implementing a private cloud. And, you know, the answer tends to be as you're going to do both. And so there is a lot of technical issues in there and it's really difficult to just have someone come in and do a strategy and kind of walk away from it and think that magically someone's going to be able to pick that up and actually make that happen for you. So we do a lot of both architecture and integration and what we've really found is, is challenging as things can be on the technical side around implementing which is fairly well known. Most of the people actually have the problems on the operations side. It's, I've built it. I don't know how to get my actual business divisions to put their apps onto it. They don't know how to write for it. They don't know how to migrate to it. My operational people are used to having being, you know, effectively level zero support people and being able to go to a back line vendor which, you know, a lot of them don't have a vendor right now to do that too. And simply, you know, a lot of the tools that are out there that they're used to don't exist in the OpenStack. And not just in OpenStack, you can go to CloudStack or vCloud and have the same problem. Operating clouds are difficult. So what do people typically find to be most difficult when initially deploying OpenStack? You know, so I think there's two parts that are difficult for them. One is simply the scoping and overall project management of it. I think a lot of them have a wild idea of what they've seen Amazon Web Services be able to do and think they're going to be able to replicate eight years of 500 engineers at Amazon in their data center in three weeks. And so there's a scope problem and an overall goaling problem. And then there's technical issues. There's technical issues with any cloud out there. And I'll be honest with you, most of them probably boil down to networking. I think networking is probably the most difficult part for anyone. And it's also the part where you have to have the most legacy integration in. It's pretty easy to go out and buy all new virtualization pieces, buy all new storage. But at the end of the day, you probably have to integrate into the corporate network in some way, and that's where a lot of problems tend to happen also. Probably the least mature piece of OpenStack or any of the pieces out there. Probably also with the highest potential, though, to really change how enterprises do things. And so for an average organization, not necessarily an organization that's incredibly technically savvy, how does it take to basically do that kind of knowledge transfer where you can leave and the organization is able to take over comfortably installing, upgrading, maintaining that OpenStack-based cloud themselves? So I think it's depending on how much they're willing to actually change their organization and how much they actually need to change it. You talked earlier about some people actually wanting to take their initial landscape that they already have and then move actual workloads into the new cloud versus people who start up and do a net new. We really don't see a lot of people today taking that landscape that they have. Most of them are kind of boxing that landscape and saying let's put new apps out here on the new cloud, especially if the workloads fit for it. For those, if they're willing to come out and create a new organization, make some organizational changes and perhaps break down some of the walls that they've seen between network, virtualization, servers, data center and storage people, start getting them to talk together either in a specific organization or quite truthfully hire in for that, it can be anywhere as short as a month or two. Other places, we've talked to them for years. It's much more of a change management process than it is simply a technology transfer. As you look at where OpenStack is going over the next couple of releases, do you think that professional services are going to become more important in the ecosystem or do you think that more users are going to find it easy to be able to do all the implementation they need without the use of professional services? So I think what you'll find is it depends what professional services you're talking to. So if you talk about a life cycle where you start with strategy, architecture, you actually deploy it and then you start talking about adopting where you're actually putting workloads on it and managing it, I think where you're going to find is you have value at each end and in the middle, you're going to see a valley of death. If you're just out there to implement as a professional services organization, that is going to get easier. Every single vendor out there is writing an installer and trying to get to that magical MySQL five-minute install. We're not there yet, but over time that's going to be easier and easier and it's going to be less and less value. On the other hand, the strategy and the adoption of it, being able to actually drive monetary value on this side and being able to make sure that you have the right scope and strategic objectives on this side, I think those will become more and more valuable and especially as it comes more complex where hybrid clouds become a reality, I think either end of that becomes much more valuable. And as customers go through trying to decide what are the components that go into the solution, what are the critical decision points that you think they're having to decide on, whether it's server architecture, storage architecture, other tools? So I think they have a lot of different decisions there and it's not just they can... I think a lot of people would like to take those decisions in silos, what's the best servers? And I get this a lot, what are the best servers? Give me two servers that I can go to. Can I go do Quanta or WisDrum or can I put it on Dell? And they want to silo those decisions because that's how they've made decisions before. It's a classic purchasing decision. The problem is, is Opensack's a framework and it is a solution. Everything needs to work together. And today, and I think not only today, but in the future, not every solution, you cannot pick one thing from everything and just magically make everything work. There are solutions that work together. There are solutions that don't really work together. You can't make your decisions in isolation. You need to make a holistic decision, both on the technology side, but also on how you're actually going to aim for workloads. I think a lot of people think, well, this is the new virtualization. I will go ahead and take any virtualization workload I had before and put it on there. Yeah, some of those may work, but you may not be driving the most value out of that. You really need to look at what cloud is going to drive the most value for you and think about then how do I design my cloud for that and then how do I actually move workloads onto it?  What constitutes success with OpenStack? So most of our customers, we try to start small for them with a proof of concept or a pilot, like pretty much everyone does. And usually we go in in the strategy area and highlight specific workloads that we can drive specific value from. And in most of the time, those are new workloads. And increasingly, we've found that the big data analytics are the things that actually make your TCO or your actual benefits really drive the economics for that cloud. And so we'll come in and help them with driving those KPIs that they need to figure out what that would be. A lot of times there's going to be a cost component in it, definitely. But for a lot of the people that I'm looking at, they're actually getting into new things they've not been able to do before. So I've got a top five automotive company not typically a person you probably see as an early adopter. They have a huge amount of data out there that right now, in general, they tend to use Microsoft Excel on people's spreadsheets. And it takes everything from telematics data to warranty data to data actually in sensors on race tracks when they go out and test these cars. And now they're able to actually centralize all of that from all of their different areas and even with people out driving in the field, they're able to do things they haven't been able to do before. So it's not just an economic, they're actually breaking in and doing new things with it, which, you know, in general, it's hard to express sometimes in economic terms. In about five minutes I'm going to take questions from the audience. So if you've got questions, begin thinking about them. A question for both of you. What do you think is going to be most important to broaden the appeal of open stack beyond early adopters? So I'll answer that. So I think today a lot of people look for open stack and are looking for a product, more of a product as they have imagined it before. And I think today you see kind of products on two ends from the vendors. One is I've taken the bits and really just packaged them and I'm going to give you support behind it, but really nothing more than that. It's a pretty light packaging and it's probably thrown into your distro. On the other end you have a very tightly cast solution all the way down to telling you what hardware it is. I think people want something in between there, which is they want all of the pretty installers, the great looking GUIs, they want some management tools around it, things that you would normally see in perhaps like an ERP system. They want to be able to see the ecosystem that's there. They want a true product and I think what we're going to start seeing, and we already see that with some of the large vendors today, we're starting to converge towards that middle and I think towards the end of this year or early next year, we're going to start seeing that. And that's the only thing that's really, in my opinion, has cut cloud stack in any of the discussions today. Let's face it, they've got a great looking GUI. Past that, things kind of fall apart on you, but they've got a great looking GUI. I think as we start getting that polish on some of the areas, especially in the products that are supported, I think that's going to start disappearing. I think that that's... I'm not going to disagree with anything Ken said there. I think that one other thing that you actually touched on, I was actually at a Gardner conference in December. And I was talking with different people and they were talking about OpenStack and their plans for it. And then one of these guys I was talking to is that he's at a very large enterprise and he said, I want to do OpenStack. Who do I hire? How do I build out that team? And he's like, this cloud thing is very different from how we've run technology before. It's not like I need you to point me to an individual. Tell me what job I hire for. So I think that that's still one of the things you mentioned earlier in your introduction that we're on the front edge of private cloud adoption. And there are companies out there who have a business need that's driving them there faster. And I don't think it's just broken down by technology or non-technology company. It's really opportunity-based. But as these other companies come along, they're having to kind of... And sometimes it's much more... It's much more trouble on the organizational front than the technology front for them. And so I think that's part of it as well is just coming up with patterns about how you build out a cloud ops team, how you structure your organization to provide technology services rather than servers for technology. And some of those kinds of things are, I think, the key pieces on the organizational side that hold back adoption of OpenStack and cloud in general. So what is the skill set of the ideal sort of OpenStack administrator OpenStack champion in an organization? Yeah, it's all over the map. It's interesting because one of the things that we started last year was a training program within the foundation to help aggregate training around the world. And we have... You can go to openstack.org slash training and find courses in something like 40 or 50 different cities around the world. There's a lot of training out there that's available. And as we go through that process and talk to people, they come from all sorts of different parts of the organization. In some cases, they're developers who couldn't use a public cloud. You know, they... For whatever business requirements, but they want that flexibility. In some cases, it's a... It's, you know, a DevOps kind of organization anyway, and so it makes sense for them to move this direction. And in some cases, it's coming from the architecture and engineering staff that's running the infrastructure right now, and they're getting a lot of inbound demand for this kind of functionality. So it really depends on how it's... If it's kind of being pushed as an organizational thing or if it's a poll from different consumers within the organization. And I think that it just... Again, that speaks to kind of the early stage of it all. There's not a... I would say that I haven't seen one standard process for how OpenStack finds its way into an org. So what skills does someone need to administer OpenStack at this stage in its maturity? Yeah, it's the organizations that I would say have been most successful have strong systems engineers and who are very comfortable in kind of looking at the internals of what they're running. You know, I think as Ken said, there are a number of products that are coming online now that are everything from distributions of the software to appliances and those smooth out some of those rough edges and make it something that's more consumable. And I think that's... We're just getting to that stage where an administrator can operate an environment like this given the right configuration. I think the other thing that you see out there is you need a network department that actually understands applications. And that can be either the biggest roadblock you have or your biggest benefit as you're putting this in. If the network people really understand applications and enabling applications, they can really smooth all of this over for you. And so I think that's a key part. And then on the adoption side, I mean, it's enough to put it in and operate it, but eventually your application people need to be able to write applications for it. And being able to go into that side of the organization also and make sure that they understand how they might be able to use this either in a test dev or a production way, we spend a lot of time over there also to make sure that they actually monetize this later. Questions from the audience? Or a new customer. So the question there was what are the use cases that you're seeing out there and then what are our favorite use cases that are out there? So I see two of them that come up consistently and this depends on who's actually championing it within the organization for you. But consistently you will see analytics or big data, you will see some kind of mobility, whether it's mobile phones or cars or something like that, and the ability to actually project applications for them. So those two come up fairly consistently and especially if you have a CTO or a Chief Innovation Officer who's leading the charge, that tends to be that new application there. However, there are other places especially if you're a SaaS provider today, it's their SaaS application and they're wanting to, in general, repatriate some amount of their real estate back from AWS or someone else and bring that in-house for them. And so those are kind of the top three that I see out there today. I love the big data one myself. It drives a lot of the real key, I think, benefits of having cloud. It's also just one of my interests because it hits all of the areas there and kind of stresses any cloud that you have and actually lets you use some of the really interesting features of OpenStack that are out there. But other people will have their preferences also. I think that a lot of it is applications that run well in kind of a traditional three-tier application architecture. That's what a lot of people are deploying. In terms of things that I think are interesting, I actually have found it interesting to see some of the... They're sort of sassy, but it's the applications behind appliances like the Comcast Xfinity use case or the Sony PlayStation use case where the thing on the other end is not someone in a browser or someone sitting at a computer. They're using something that you... It actually puts a lot of load on infrastructure somewhere back behind the scenes that's powered by OpenStack, but you would never think of OpenStack as being a component of that, and I think those are always interesting. I think that leads to where you might see the next wave of big applications, the Internet of Things, where it's a thousand-ness thermometer or thermostats that are out there. I think that might be the thing that drives that kind of next wave that you see. Stand up if you've got a question and someone will come to you with a mic. Stay standing if you've got a question, actually. Thank you. For net new applications, what are the reasons that you're seeing enterprises choose OpenStack over a public cloud like Amazon or GCE? Is it, you know, fear of losing the jobs or is it regulatory compliance reasons or cost or what do you see? Yeah, I mean, so for most people today where I've seen them, especially in big data, move to a private cloud is, A, simply they know their security stance will not allow them to do that, whether it's regulatory or compliance, or it's simply that data is too proprietary for them. However, there are a large number of people that probably don't have those rules, but they don't actually have the governance in place to know if that data is actually proprietary or not. So I have more than a few clients where they just haven't gone through and looked and said, this is proprietary data and I can only use it in-house versus this is data that could go out-house, sorry, outside of house. And they really haven't gone through that exercise yet. They don't have the corporate rules around governance of what I can do outside or inside. They may be in a semi-regulated place where they have some customer proprietary data and they don't want to co-mingulate, for example, but we see a host of different reasons that people do that and most of them will default is, if I don't clearly know that I can do it, I probably will do it inside. You also see the point of because it's a batch, it's a fairly constant load and because it's a constant load, you kind of let's own the base and rent the peak and so they'll go ahead and own the base there. Someone somewhere right now is actually setting up a stack forage project for OpenStack Out-House. Thank you. All right, another question. Yeah, as OpenStack becomes more mainstream, how do you see people backing up OpenStack-based solutions as there are more focused projects in OpenStack like that's going to focus on backup recovery or what do you see people doing there? Yeah, so I'll be honest, I have not seen anyone, I haven't seen any commonality in how they're doing either backup or disaster recovery around those infrastructures. I think we're starting to see some interesting products that people are working on. I've heard about fault-tolerant versions of these of coming out. I think there's a lot of people looking at archiving solutions and such, but for that infrastructure itself, you know, I think we're waiting for, that's hopefully a feature of products that are coming to market that will have a backup. Today, almost all of that is some kind of bespoke thing that we integrate for that particular client. And, you know, depending on how large the cloud is, it may be something where we're backing up one cloud to the other, one site to another. It might be one where we're taking and backing up particular parts of it into their legacy landscape. But today, I haven't seen any commonality or best practice probably there. Another question? Yeah, right here, to your right. Is there any use case that just could not be done any other way? I'm looking for sort of indisputable advantages of OpenStack. So, in general, I wouldn't say could not be done any other way, but could not be done economically any other way. A lot of the big data fits into that. I mean, I come into a lot of the engagements thinking that it's going to be an application and like when I went to our automobile client, I was sure it was, we were going to be projecting interesting apps to the dashboard and cool, like we were doing maps and all these things. But when you went down to, you know, the numbers and what was going to prove the TCO for that cloud, it was, wow, we've got a lot of data and putting that in a public cloud or in a legacy, what they, well, the Teradata, it was a no-brainer to go to cloud for that and it was, didn't even have to have a conversation about it. So, in general, you know, I hate to keep harping on it, but it tends to be that data element. Well, it's computer science, so there are always an infinite number of ways to do everything. But I think that, you know, the, that, you know, we have some other users that are going to be speaking today and it's a good question for them for, you know, I think, you know, the points that led them to this. The thing that I think I've heard over and over and over again is it's about allowing them to move more quickly and, you know, yes, there are other ways to accomplish agility inside of IT, but, you know, OpenStack lets them do it in a way that is flexible on the deployment side, that lets them work with technology or vendors that they already know, lets them customize it to their needs, it lets them put it in-house in their security posture and when you add up all of those things, then it just makes sense for these people to, you know, to go this path. And so how do users adapt their security and regulatory compliance needs for OpenStack? It's, that's another one of those things that is that it's different for, you know, a lot of the different use cases. The biggest piece of it in many cases is just being able to get it inside of their environment, inside of their network, you know, that's kind of step one. And then after that, it depends on how strict those requirements are and the kinds of things that they need to do. But, you know, it's tying it into their existing intrusion detection systems and, you know, some of this was some of the key drivers behind Neutron in the beginning to set up a framework for being able to have a more richly manageable network topology inside of your virtualized environment. And then, you know, other pieces of it tie in. There's always, you know, layers with security and you can go down to the extensions and the processor to verify the hardware and what's on this hardware. So it really varies all over the map. The interesting thing is that, you know, you can go to a lot of the different vendors that work inside of OpenStack and they have, they expose those things through OpenStack so you can take advantage of it where you need it. OpenStack actually is very rich in the points of governance that provides you. Not all the tools are great. I mean, you're in JSON for some things and perhaps it's not a nice GUI for it. But it does provide the points of governance both in Keystone as well as in your service catalog within Glantz in different areas to actually provide the similar points of governance that you may have in your legacy. It's really about, though, talking about how you're going to read you governance and move from a deny everything, to come to a person for an exception to go do something to a whitelist approach where this person has the ability to do these things. If you go outside of that, then you perhaps need some kind of human intervention. And we've had this problem, you know, other places where we had a client, for example, here in the States, a financial company, it took them somewhere around 85 to 95 days to put a new server on the floor. They went to virtualization and that was 75 days to put a new BM on the floor and they went to cloud and it was only 73 days to put a new cloud instance there. So obviously that's not a technology problem. That is a process problem and that's a lot of what this governance and security is really about. And it's been able to have the discussions about how do I do this in a sane and rational way without exposing, hopefully, too much risk to the corporation. Yeah. I wonder if you could comment on your third use case, the re-patriotization of public cloud applications. What's the dynamics involved there, the business cases and how did those work out? So I've heard, depending on which SaaS provider you're at, but almost everyone that I've talked to, they have a number for Amazon where they believe that they get above that number of a dollar spend at Amazon, that they believe they're getting diminishing returns on their service and everyone has that number and I've heard wildly different numbers about what it is but everyone knows what that number is and it appears today and when they start getting towards that number they're looking about how can I move my steady state parts of my application back on to premises and be able to do, you know, be able to service that locally, well then I actually just rent the spike or the peak out there. Now having said that, that doesn't mean that there's magic around creating a hybrid cloud that automatically auto-bursts in AWS and things. I think though everyone's looking at that today about how can I actually do that, how can I partition or architect my application to be able to do that, where it might be something as simple as, you know, I'll do batch on premise at night or during the day on site because that's a fairly relatively constant workload and by the way I have my data there and then I'll just run the online part which happens to be much more spiky and rent that part but I think it's an evolving one right now it's just one that I'm seeing. I can't necessarily say I have the perfect answer because I think it's going to be very it'll be very different depending on your application. Thank you both. We've got one more question on the left-hand side or speakers right. So a lot of what's been talked about is organizational adoption of OpenStack for private clouds. Can you give us a little bit of a view of OpenStack-based public cloud platforms apart from Rackspace and who's moving up and what are some of the choices out there today that are commercially available? So, yeah, the public clouds that are running on OpenStack, you know, Rackspace is obviously one that people know about. HP Cloud, they're here today. I think Bill is going to be speaking later, so Internet was also here today? Yeah, and Internet is here today as well.  There are companies in Asia and all over the world. This is actually getting back to some of the points we were talking about earlier. It's a common question and so one of the things that we want to do this year in the foundation is really organize and aggregate the different pieces of the OpenStack ecosystem in a way where if you're looking for an appliance, if you're looking for a public cloud, you're able to go navigate that more easily and you know, answer that question very clearly by region, by capability. Again with the DEF core process and the interoperability you're able to tell my application needs this set of APIs, they support them. So they're a lot out there but it can be kind of hard to find that and I think that's one of the things that we want to fix this year. Thanks. Alright, thank you. Great. Thank you very much. We're going to bring up our next panel