Planning Report 08-2 

Economic Analysis of 

NIST’s Low-k Materials 

Characterization 

Research 

Prepared by:
 

RTI International
 

for
 

National Institute of 

Standards & Technology 

October 2008 
October 2008 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k 

Materials Characterization 

Research 

Final Report 

Prepared for 

Gregory C. Tassey 

National Institute for Standards and Technology 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1060 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1060 

Prepared by 

Brent R. Rowe 

Michael P. Gallaher 

Dorota S. Temple 

Alex V. Rogozhin 

RTI International 

3040 Cornwallis Road 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

RTI Project Number 0209878.000 

 

RTI Project Number 

0209878.000 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k 

Materials Characterization 

Research 

Final Report 

October 2008 

Prepared for 

Gregory C. Tassey 

National Institute for Standards and Technology 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1060 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1060 

Prepared by 

Brent R. Rowe 

Michael P. Gallaher 

Dorota S. Temple 

Alex V. Rogozhin 

RTI International 

3040 Cornwallis Road 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 

Contents 

Chapter Page 

Executive Summary	 ES-1 

1 Introduction 1-1
 

1.1 Need for NIST’s Involvement .......................................................1-3
 

1.2 Study Scope and Goals ...............................................................1-5
 

1.2.1	 Study Limitations .............................................................1-6
 

1.2.2	 Key Study Objectives ......................................................1-7
 

1.3 Report Organization .....................................................................1-7
 

2 Low-k Materials: Technical Overview and NIST’s 

Involvement 2-1
 

2.1 Low-k Materials History ................................................................2-2
 

2.2 SEMATECH and NIST Involvement ............................................2-7
 

2.3 New NIST Materials Characterization Techniques ......................2-9

 3 Quantitative Analysis	 3-1
 

3.1 Establishing the Period of Analysis ..............................................3-1
 

3.2 Affected Stakeholders ..................................................................3-2
 

3.3 The Counterfactual Scenario .......................................................3-5
 

3.4 NIST Research costs ...................................................................3-8
 

3.5 Quantitative private Sector Benefits .............................................3-9
 

3.6 Qualitative Benefits ....................................................................3-11
 

3.6.1	 Accelerated the Availability of Low-k Data ....................3-11
 

3.6.2	 Enabled Innovative Research .......................................3-11
 

3.6.3	 Provided New Materials Characterization
 

Techniques....................................................................3-12
 

4 Measures of Economic Return	 4-1
 

4.1 Extrapolating Benefits ..................................................................4-1
 

4.2 Description of Evaluation Metrics .................................................4-3
 

iii 
 

4.3 Evaluation Analysis: Base Case and Extrapolated Cases ...........4-5
 

5	 Conclusion 5-1
 

5.1 Observations for NIST ..................................................................5-3
 

6	 References 6-1
 

Appendices
 

A NIST Publications Related to Low-k Research ............................A-1 

B Interview Guide ............................................................................B-1 

iv 
Figures 

Number Page

 2-1 IC Architecture Introduced by IBM.........................................................2-4 

2-2 Spin-on versus Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) Techniques ...........2-6
 

3-1	 Primary and Secondary Knowledge Flows of NIST Low-k 

Research ................................................................................................3-6
 

v 
Tables 

Number Page 

3-1 NIST’s Annual Low-k Materials Analyses Reported to 

SEMATECH ...........................................................................................3-2 

3-3 Market Coverage of Relevant Stakeholders Participating in 

3-4 NIST Research Costs Relating to Low-k Characterization 

3-2 Stakeholders’ Sales and Employment Data, by Company ....................3-4
 

Interviews...............................................................................................3-5
 

($2008)...................................................................................................3-9

 3-5 Private-Sector R&D Cost-Savings Benefits: Base Case ($2008) ........3-10

 3-6 Non-Author Citations to Primary Relevant Publications, by Year ........3-14
 

4-1 NIST Research Costs and Private-Sector R&D Benefits: Base 

Case ($2008) .........................................................................................4-2
 

4-2 NIST Research Costs and Private-Sector R&D Benefits: Base 

Case and Extrapolated Cases ($2008) ..................................................4-3
 

4-3 R&D Benefits Estimates by Stakeholder Group ($2008) .......................4-3
 

4-4 Evaluation Metrics: Base Case and Extrapolated Cases ......................4-5
 

vi 
 

 

Executive Summary 

Throughout the 1980s, the semiconductor industry worked to increase 

the speed and performance of their integrated circuits (IC) and 

microprocessors by squeezing more and more transistors into a single 

device. This has been achieved by scaling down the physical dimensions 

of the transistor elements as well as the distance between them. Today, 

over one billion transistors are integrated into a single microprocessor. 

As the size of transistor components and the distances between them 

are reduced, an increasingly smaller, densely packed, and highly 

complex network of conducting wires—referred to as the “interconnect” 

structure—is also required. Consequently, the material used to insulate 

interconnect wires has become increasingly important. Although the 

industry began to focus on finding a replacement for the standard 

insulating material, silicon dioxide, finding a suitable material that could 

improve the interconnect delay proved very challenging. In particular, the 

industry was unable to quantitatively and critically compare different 

candidate materials. The industry lacked full confidence in the data from 

existing characterization standard test methods, and as such, analyses 

lacked precision and were prone to inaccuracy. 

In response to industry concerns, SEMATECH1

 initiated a research 

program aimed at improving the quality of porous materials 

characterization. NIST worked under a contract for SEMATECH, and 

between 1998 and 2006, NIST performed characterization analyses of 

approximately 180 materials. NIST’s contribution also included the 

development of a variety of novel techniques for materials 

1

 SEMATECH is an industry association funded mainly by U.S. and international 

semiconductor manufacturing companies to conduct research and coordinate 

information sharing when appropriate. 

ES-1 
 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

characterization and the creation of objective high quality data in much 

large quantity and at a much lower cost than other research groups 

would have provided collectively. 

ES.1 STUDY SCOPE AND GOALS 

The NIST Program Office sponsored this economic evaluation to assess 

the impact of NIST research conducted between 1998 and 2006. During 

this time period, a team of NIST researchers led by Wen-li Wu, Eric Lin, 

Barry Bauer, and Christopher Soles, all from the Polymers Division of the 

Materials Science & Engineering Laboratory (MSEL), conducted 

research into low-k materials characterization. The primary focus of this 

economic impact study is on both the contracted research that NIST 

conducted for SEMATECH and NIST’s internally funded supplemental 

research. 

From 1998 through 2006, NIST supplemented SEMATECH’s funding 

with their internal resources, including from the NIST Office of 

Microelectronics Programs and MSEL. 

Benefits from NIST research activities include 

•	 cost savings that accrued to industry over time in terms of 

reduced R&D spending on low-k materials characterization, 

•	 reduced low-k materials’ adoption costs, and 

•	 reduced production expenses. 

In addition to analyzing the net benefits of NIST’s investments, RTI’s 

analysis is intended to provide information to the semiconductor industry 

to support their strategic planning process. Analyzing past impacts and 

future needs can help the industry and supporting bodies such as 

SEMATECH focus attention and investment dollars on emerging 

measurement issues.

 ES.1.1 Key Study Objectives 

This study quantified the net benefits of industry’s use of NIST’s 

materials characterization data and qualitatively analyzed the industry’s 

adoption of X-ray technology for low-k materials analysis. To accomplish 

these goals, RTI 

•	 described NIST’s involvement in low-k materials research (and 

quantified the costs), 

ES-2 
 

Executive Summary 

•	 estimated the industry’s use of low-k materials characterization 

data and adoption of X-ray porosimetry for low-k materials 

analysis between 1998 and 2006, and 

•	 quantified the benefits of NIST’s low-k materials characterization 

work in terms of R&D cost savings and qualitatively evaluated 

the impact on quality. 

ES.2 LOW-K MATERIALS: TECHNICAL OVERVIEW 

AND NIST’S INVOLVEMENT 

Developing new materials and new material characterization techniques 

is one of the key ways in which the semiconductor industry has 

continued to improve their products and processes. The transition that 

the industry made from using aluminum to copper for interconnect wiring 

represented one of the most extensive materials transitions that the 

industry has undertaken (and continues to undertake with less complex 

semiconductor devices). Developing better materials to insulate these 

interconnect wires represents another complex challenge that the 

industry has been working to address since the early 1990s. 

During the late 1990s, materials companies developed and tested new 

low-k materials suitable for semiconductor processing using two main 

approaches: chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and spin-on dielectric 

techniques. Suppliers of materials of each type touted the benefits of 

their materials to customers, but without objective comparison data, 

manufacturers found themselves in the position of needing to 

characterize dozens of materials before considering adoption of a single 

new material. 

Analysis of each material was very time-consuming and complex, often 

requiring manufacturers to outsource analysis work since they did not 

have the required equipment or skills in-house. The stakes were high: 

the use of materials based on the CVD process, with which the industry 

was very familiar, would require significant restructuring of the 

manufacturing processes of a fab; furthermore, the use of spin-on 

technology represented a monumental change that could require a 

company to invest tens of millions of dollars integrating the required new 

processes into their existing fabs. 

ES.2.1 NIST’s Involvement 

In order to jumpstart the materials characterization process (and hence 

accelerate adoption of low-k materials) and to prevent extensive 

duplication of effort by manufacturers and materials and equipment 

ES-3 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

suppliers, in 1998 SEMATECH issued a request for proposals to conduct 

objective materials characterization of six or seven core properties of 

low-k materials. Many organizations and universities submitted 

proposals, and ultimately SEMATECH chose NIST to perform key 

materials characterization analyses based on several factors: (1) their 

ability to quantify five of the properties requested by SEMATECH, more 

than any other proposing organization; (2) their cost-effectiveness; and 

(3) their willingness to adapt processes based on feedback from 

SEMATECH. 

Between 1998 and 2006, NIST analyzed approximately 180 materials 

developed to decrease the dielectric constant of the insulating material. 

NIST received each material blindly (i.e., without any knowledge of the 

material’s creator or properties) and performed unbiased characterization 

analyses. During the course of its research, NIST also developed several 

new materials characterization techniques, including X-ray porosimetry, 

many of which were adopted by industry. 

ES.3 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 

RTI estimated the net economic benefits accruing to industry from 

NIST’s investment in low-k materials characterization research. RTI 

focused specifically on the research conducted by NIST under contract 

for SEMATECH and the additional investments that NIST made to 

supplement this research. Key contributions analyzed included the 

following: 

•	 development of objective materials characterization data on 

approximately 180 low-k materials, and 

•	 development of a variety of new characterization techniques for 

the analysis of low-k materials. 

RTI’s quantitative analysis focused on the period from 1998 to 2006. 

NIST’s costs were incurred during the entire period between 1998 and 

2006, when NIST scientists conducted materials characterization 

research on approximately 180 materials. After each candidate material 

was characterized, NIST prepared a report for SEMATECH that provided 

data on materials properties and a brief discussion of the results. 

SEMATECH combined these data with data from other organizations 

funded to perform materials characterization and periodically distributed 

summary tables to its members. 

ES-4 
 

Executive Summary 

The benefits of NIST’s work from generating new characterization data 

began to accrue immediately after the data were first distributed by 

SEMATECH, beginning in mid-1998, and continued throughout the 

duration of the study period, which ended in 2006. Although benefits 

stemming from NIST’s research likely continued to accrue after 2006, 

and some percentage will continue into the future, stakeholders could not 

quantify benefits beyond R&D cost savings related to the centralized 

R&D materials’ characterization work that NIST performed through 2006. 

Additional quantitative analysis related to the benefits of using NIST’s 

new characterization methods and the impact of NIST’s research on 

preproduction and production activities was not possible. Relevant 

information was not documented by industry in “real-time” when NIST 

research and results were being utilized, and as such, more complex 

benefits could not be estimated by industry members. 

ES.3.1 Affected Stakeholders 

NIST’s work affected the entire semiconductor supply chain by 

significantly improving the ability to analyze the porosity of materials and 

by providing high quality materials characterization data very quickly to 

help with screening, both of which resulted in significant cost savings. 

Impacted stakeholder groups included the following: 

•	 Materials Suppliers: Developers and manufacturers of low-k 

materials using either a spin-on technique, CVD, or another 

method. 

•	 Equipment Suppliers: Makers of CVD, spin-on, and X-ray 

equipment. 

•	 Device Manufacturers: Manufacturers of ICs. Device 

manufacturers were the most affected group as they could not 

integrate suitable low-k materials into their processes without 

extensive characterization testing. 

Figure ES-1 conceptualizes the knowledge flows associated with the 

impact of NIST’s research on low-k materials characterization. The figure 

shows how NIST disseminated information on both materials data and 

new characterization techniques. 

ES-5 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Figure ES-1. Primary and Secondary Knowledge Flows of NIST Low-k Research 

Table ES-1 provides estimates of market coverage of data collected 

during interviews. The “market” for each stakeholder group was defined 

from expert and stakeholder estimates of the sales of low-k materials by 

materials suppliers; sales of X-ray, CVD, and spin-on equipment by 

equipment suppliers; and research on and planned use of low-k 

materials by device manufacturers. Secondary information and expert 

interviews were used to verify market sizes for each stakeholder group. 

ES-6 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-1. Market Coverage of Relevant Stakeholders Participating in Interviews 

Stakeholder Group Number of Firms Approximated Market Share Represented 

Materials Suppliers 5 80% 

Equipment Suppliers 

X-ray equipment 2 90% 

CVD and spin-on equipment 2 95% 

Device Manufacturers 4 80% 

ES.3.2 Counterfactual Scenario 

RTI sought to determine whether the publicly funded research 

(1) provided a unique capability—a result otherwise not possible or 

unlikely to occur (e.g., because private entities would not have been able 

to see a sufficiently positive private return on investment)—or 

(2) accelerated development and deployment of low-k materials. 

This study focused on how firms would have acted without knowledge 

flows from NIST. According to interviews with industry stakeholders, 

NIST provided two key contributions: (1) materials characterization data 

and (2) new low-k materials characterization techniques (e.g., X-ray 

porosimetry). Without these, stakeholders in all three groups indicated 

that costs would have increased; however, the materials characterization 

data NIST provided was perceived to be the main contribution. Although 

some NIST-developed characterization techniques have been used by 

industry, interviews suggest that competing techniques made NIST’s 

main discovery, X-ray porosimetry, less important. 

Broadly, RTI’s analysis concluded that NIST’s work led to the following 

categories of industry cost savings: 

1. reduced R&D costs, 

2. reduced low-k adoption costs, and 

3. reduced production costs. 

However, industry stakeholders indicated that the main benefit of NIST’s 

work was a reduction in the costs of industry R&D. The use of NIST’s 

research also likely accelerated the development of low-k materials, but 

industry representatives were not comfortable saying that NIST’s work 

accelerated the deployment or adoption of any low-k materials. As such, 

quantified benefits in this study were focused on R&D cost savings 

related to the NIST data. 

ES-7 
 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

ES.4 ECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS 

SEMATECH paid NIST to conduct low-k materials analysis between 

1998 and 2006, and NIST supplemented this funding out of its own 

budget to conduct additional work developing characterization 

techniques and advanced processes. NIST’s materials characterization 

data were transferred to SEMATECH at a rate of approximately 15 to 20 

material samples per year. Through targeted industry interviews, RTI 

estimated the level and timing of the use of these data and the effect 

they had on industry companies in terms of reduced R&D costs—that is, 

cost savings from avoided or duplicative research. SEMATECH indicated 

that approximately 10 semiconductor device manufacturers working on 

low-k materials research received SEMATECH’s periodic summaries of 

characterization results. 

With reference to NIST’s data, materials suppliers, equipment suppliers, 

and device manufacturers were able to focus on comparing a handful of 

low-k materials and testing integration issues as opposed to developing 

basic materials characterization information, a very labor-intensive, timeconsuming process at which few firms were expert. Without NIST, at 

least a dozen firms would have replicated some portion of NIST’s data 

characterization research for at least 2 to 3 years; however, because of 

the technical complexity and cost involved, most would not have 

performed even half the number that NIST did. Using information 

collected during interviews on the exact timing of cost savings (the 

alternative spending that would have occurred) RTI developed benefits 

estimates. 

RTI also developed extrapolated benefits estimates that provide a more 

comprehensive view of the impact of NIST’s research in terms of 

industry-wide R&D cost savings. In order to provide estimates of the total 

industry benefits, RTI extrapolated from the base case figures. Based on 

explicit company impact estimates and information on total market sizes 

by stakeholder group provided during interviews, RTI developed the 

market share represented by base case estimates. RTI then developed 

fully extrapolated benefits estimates. 

Table ES-2 presents NIST costs, base case benefits, and extrapolated 

benefits estimates. Fully extrapolated benefits equaled approximately 

$30 million, or a net present value (NPV) of approximately $24 million. 

Evaluation metrics are in Table ES-3. Based on data collected explicitly 

during interviews (base case), NIST’s research resulted in net benefits of 

ES-8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

approximately $5 million with an NPV of almost $4 million. The benefitto-cost ratio (BCR) is 2.54. The fully extrapolated case provides more 

probable metrics by which to gauge the cost-savings impact of NIST’s 

investments. The full extrapolation resulted in calculated net benefits of 

over $27 million and an NPV of approximately $21 million. The BCR was 

9.25. 

Table ES-2. NIST Research Costs and Private-Sector R&D Benefits: Base Case and 

Extrapolated Case ($2008) 

Real Cost-Savings 

Real Cost-Savings Benefits: Fully 

Year Real Cost Benefits Extrapolated 

1998 $37,500 $241,764 $967,056 

1999 $396,000 $883,148 $3,100,133 

2000 $390,000 $1,049,211 $3,874,158 

2001 $490,500 $1,369,407 $5,181,765 

2002 $596,000 $1,494,860 $5,612,297 

2003 $519,000 $1,250,607 $4,573,384 

2004 $406,000 $1,095,317 $3,786,942 

2005 $406,000 $883,441 $3,149,187 

2006 $101,500 $125,000 $250,000 

Total $3,342,500 $8,392,755 $30,494,923 

NPV $2,555,799 $6,486,258 $23,650,492 

Table ES-3. Evaluation Metrics: Base Case and Extrapolated Case 

Metric Value Based on Interview Data 

Value Based on Full 

Extrapolation of Benefits 

Costs ($2008) $3,342,500 $3,342,500 

Benefits ($2008) $8,392,755 $30,494,923 

Net Benefits ($2008) $5,050,255 $27,152,423 

Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 2.54 9.25 

Net Present Value ($2008) $3,930,459 $21,094,692 

ES-9 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

ES-5 SUMMARY REMARKS 

RTI’s calculated benefits may be considered conservative for several 

reasons and thus may understate the social benefits associated with 

NIST’s research in low-k. First, R&D cost savings are just one of the 

benefits that resulted from NIST’s knowledge flow chain (see 

Figure ES-1). NIST’s research likely had a significant impact on the cost 

to adopt low-k materials and possibly enabled faster time to market of 

ICs with low-k materials, such as Applied Materials’ Black Diamond, 

resulting in lower production costs to meet performance requirements for 

IC manufacturers. 

In addition to the reported R&D cost savings or costs avoided that RTI 

estimated based on information provided during interviews with company 

representatives, RTI formulated additional qualitative information 

relevant to the social benefits associated with NIST’s research. Broadly, 

NIST’s work had the following impacts: 

1. accelerated the availability of robust low-k materials 

characterization data (product acceleration benefit), 

2. freed up R&D resources for other innovation activities (quality 

improvement benefit), and 

3. provided new low-k materials characterization processes (cost 

savings and quality improvement benefit). 

Although not quantified, NIST’s identification and use of X-ray 

porosimetry resulted in higher quality data than would have otherwise 

been possible; however, interviews suggest that industry adoption of the 

X-ray technique was limited. Although X-ray porosimetry provides higher 

quality data than alternate techniques, X-ray reflectivity in its current form 

is a costly procedure as compared to such alternate techniques. Without 

NIST’s involvement, interviews suggested that the use of X-ray for low-k 

materials analysis today would be even lower, and the value of NIST’s 

data would have been reduced. Further, X-ray porosimetry is also the 

most likely technique to be considered in future production environments. 

Two changes in NIST’s activities were suggested by several participants. 

First, several manufacturers commented that they had hoped that NIST 

would continue to conduct materials characterization research in a “turn 

the crank” fashion beyond 2007. Second, both manufacturers and 

equipment suppliers mentioned that NIST could have done more to help 

with the transfer of its X-ray porosimetry technique out of the lab and into 

the market as a product. 

ES-10 
1 Introduction 

This report documents and quantifies the net economic benefits accruing 

from the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) 

investments in low-k materials characterization research during the late 

1990s and early 2000s. 

Throughout the 1980s, the semiconductor industry worked to increase 

the speed and performance of their integrated circuits (IC) 

microprocessors by squeezing more and more transistors into a single 

device. This has been achieved by scaling down the physical dimensions 

of the transistor elements as well as the distance between them. Today 

there are well over one billion transistors integrated into a single 

microprocessor. 

As the size of transistor components and the distances between them 

are reduced, an increasingly smaller, densely packed, and highly 

complex network of conducting wires—referred to as the “interconnect” 

structure—is also required. With over one billion transistors now 

squeezed into the area of a few square centimeters, the length of the 

copper wiring used to integrate these transistors into a functional device 

is measured in miles. 

As a result of the incredible scaling of device components, the speed and 

the performance of microprocessors are no longer dictated by the speed 

of individual transistor elements. Rather, the device performance is 

increasingly dictated by how fast current can be moved into and out of 

the transistor elements through the interconnect structure. Thus, the 

speed of today’s semiconductor devices is largely based on two 

important material properties: the electrical resistance (R) of the metal 

used in the conduction lines and the capacitance (C)—a measure of how 

much electrical charge can be stored in a material under a given voltage 

1-1 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

or potential—of the material used to isolate and insulate the individual 

conduction lines. 

In the early 1990s, the interconnect delay was identified as a major 

barrier to improving the speed of devices. As a result, the semiconductor 

industry embarked on a major effort to improve the interconnect delay by 

reducing the capacitance and the resistance of the materials used in the 

interconnect structure. Lowering the capacitance could be approached in 

two main ways: either altering the physical dimensions, or geometry, of a 

device, or reducing the dielectric constant (k) of the insulating material 

itself. In terms of materials development, the industry focused their 

attention on developing two types of new materials: (1) better conductors 

to be used as wires in the interconnect structure and (2) insulator 

materials to isolate the conduction lines. As a result of its lower 

resistance, copper was identified as a replacement for the industry 

standard aluminum, which had been used for interconnect wires. In the 

mid-1990s IBM identified the process by which copper could be 

integrated into the semiconductor fabrication processes. 

Throughout the 1990s, the standard insulating material used by the 

semiconductor industry was silicon dioxide. The deposition and 

fabrication technology for silicon dioxide was very mature and reliable. 

However, finding a suitable material with a lower dielectric constant than 

silicon dioxide proved to be more challenging than identifying copper as 

a replacement for aluminum for interconnect wires. In addition to 

achieving a low dielectric constant, the successful candidate material 

needed to satisfy a stringent list of properties, including (1) a high 

modulus to withstand the abrasive polishing process, (2) a low coefficient 

of thermal expansion to minimize potentially fatal thermal mismatch 

stress with the silicon and other materials in the integrated circuit, and (3) 

the thermal resistance to withstand temperatures in excess of 400°C. 

Through a series of international conferences and industrial consortiums, 

the community identified that the search for suitable low-k material to 

replace silicon dioxide was a high priority for the semiconductor industry. 

Dozens of companies and academic research institutions, mainly in the 

United States, initiated research programs aimed at developing low 

dielectric constant (low-k) materials. Although it was not exactly clear 

which type of material would ultimately succeed in replacing silicon 

1-2 
 

 

 

Chapter 1 — Introduction 

dioxide, it was generally agreed that such low-k materials needed to be 

either naturally porous or artificially made porous.2 

By the late 1990s, the race to identify suitable porous materials to 

replace silicon dioxide was well underway. Materials suppliers to the 

semiconductor industry and academic research groups began 

developing a wide range of porous materials for consideration. However, 

this process quickly revealed a weakness within the community—the 

inability to quantitatively and critically compare different candidate 

materials. The industry lacked full confidence in the data from existing 

characterization standard test methods, and as such, analyses lacked 

precision and were prone to inaccuracy. The economic impact of this 

situation was R&D inefficiency; materials characterization work was slow 

and duplicative, and without standards in place, research results could 

not easily be shared. 

In response to industry concerns, SEMATECH3

 decided to initiate a 

research program aimed at improving the quality of porous materials 

characterization. After realizing that it lacked the technical capabilities to 

analyze the characteristics of pores, SEMATECH released a request for 

proposals (RFP) to conduct analysis of seven materials properties that 

seemed to be the most promising at the time. NIST was awarded one of 

several contracts and subsequently provided technical capabilities to 

SEMATECH—NIST developed new characterization techniques and 

provided data on low-k materials. 

1.1 NEED FOR NIST’S INVOLVEMENT 

In interviews with RTI, SEMATECH representatives indicated three key 

reasons why NIST was uniquely qualified to support this initiative: 

•	 NIST’s rare technical capabilities: NIST was one of the only 

applying organizations that had developed a capability to 

analyze thin films on the wafer (as opposed to analyzing the bulk 

material). The SEMATECH RFP stipulated that the 

measurements be taken on-wafer since properties of a material 

in thin film form may be different from those in bulk form. Taking 

measurements this way would ensure suitability for both R&D 

and production environments. 

2

 The most effective insulating media is a vacuum that has a k = 1, whereas fully dense 

silicon dioxide has a dielectric constant of k ~ 4.2. It is extremely difficult to find a fully 

dense material with a dielectric constant less than 4.2 that satisfies all the other 

materials property requirements for an interconnect material. However, adding pores to 

a silicon dioxide-like material was found to be an effective way to further reduce k. 3

 SEMATECH is an industry association funded mainly by U.S. and international 

semiconductor manufacturing companies to conduct research and coordinate 

information sharing when appropriate. 

1-3 
 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

•	 NIST’s broad research capabilities: NIST offered to conduct 

multiple analyses (i.e., provide results on several different key 

materials properties), whereas other organizations proposed to 

analyze only one or two materials properties for more money 

than NIST proposed to analyze several. NIST proposed to 

develop an integrated measurement platform based on X-ray 

techniques and neutron scattering to analyze pores, ion beam 

techniques to determine chemical composition, and thermal 

property analyses such as stability and thermal expansion 

coefficient analysis. 

•	 NIST’s adaptability: Finally, NIST researchers were capable of 

modifying analysis techniques and procedures to evaluate the 

materials properties in the format requested by SEMATECH. 

In addition to NIST’s involvement, SEMATECH also worked with several 

other organizations, including the University of Texas at Austin, the 

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (MIT), the University of Minnesota, and the State University 

of New York (SUNY) at Albany. The University of Texas group 

conducted analysis of the dielectric constant, thermal stability, adhesion, 

mechanical properties, thermal conductivity, and chemical signature. The 

University of Michigan focused on porosity analysis, using positron 

annihilation lifetime spectroscopy (PALS) to provide porosity information 

to compare with NIST’s X-ray results. SEMATECH also performed some 

internal materials characterization itself, including trace metal analysis 

and analysis of film thickness, adhesion, and roughness (Wetzel et al, 

2001). 

Between 1998 and 2006, NIST performed characterization analyses of 

approximately 180 materials. The data generated by NIST were provided 

to SEMATECH, which disseminated summary data to their member 

companies and the suppliers who submitted candidate materials for 

evaluation. NIST provided a broad scope of materials characterization 

research. Without NIST’s extensive capabilities and relative research 

cost-effectiveness, SEMATECH would have been unable to coordinate 

the breath of materials research. Further, a number of individual 

organizations would have conducted separate analyses of the same 

materials. 

The objective nature of the research conducted by NIST, SEMATECH, 

and SEMATECH’s other research partners is particularly important. 

Without their involvement, much of the materials characterization data 

would likely have been developed by materials suppliers who (a) had an 

interest in developing data that showed the suitability of their particular 

material for the semiconductor manufacturing process and (b) did not 

1-4 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 

share standard test methods that would allow for a rational comparison 

of the materials performance from different companies. The objective, 

standard comparison of candidate materials among different suppliers 

was critical for identifying the best replacement for silicon dioxide. 

During this process, NIST also developed a variety of novel techniques 

for materials characterization, many which were subsequently adopted 

by the industry. Without NIST, SEMATECH would have had difficulty 

finding another organization to develop the techniques and produce the 

quantity of high quality data that NIST provided at even close to the 

same cost, and the industry as a whole would have suffered.

 1.2 STUDY SCOPE AND GOALS 

The NIST Program Office sponsored this economic evaluation as a 

retrospective investment analysis. NIST is interested in the impact that 

advances in measurement infratechnologies, generic technologies, and 

associated standards have had on the semiconductor industry. This 

study focused on NIST’s research on low-k materials characterization, 

the impact of which was quantified in terms of R&D cost savings. 

This analysis specifically focuses on the impact of NIST research 

conducted between 1998 and 2006. During this time period, a team of 

NIST researchers led by Wen-li Wu, Eric Lin, Barry Bauer, and 

Christopher Soles, all from the Polymers Division of the Materials 

Science & Engineering Laboratory (MSEL), conducted research into lowk materials characterization. The primary focus of this economic impact 

study is on both the contracted research that NIST conducted for 

SEMATECH and NIST’s supplemental research investment. 

NIST contributed a substantial fraction of their own internal resources to 

develop the measurement technologies. The Polymers Division’s initial 

efforts were funded through the NIST Office of Microelectronics 

Programs, an internal organization whose mission is to facilitate 

metrology development for the semiconductor industry. From 1998 

through 2006, NIST supplemented SEMATECH’s funding with their 

internal resources, including from the NIST Office of Microelectronics 

Programs and MSEL. 

Benefits from NIST research activities include 

•	 cost savings that accrued to the industry over time in terms of 

reduced R&D spending on low-k materials characterization, 

1-5 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

1.2.1
 

• reduced low-k materials’ adoption costs, and 

• reduced production expenses. 

The direct costs of NIST’s research activities primarily include NIST labor 

(i.e., conducting research, writing papers and presenting at conferences) 

to develop new characterization techniques and data—with some 

associated equipment and materials costs. 

In addition to analyzing the net benefits of NIST’s investments, RTI’s 

analysis is intended to provide information to the semiconductor industry 

to support their strategic planning process. Analyzing past impacts and 

future needs can help the industry and supporting bodies such as 

SEMATECH focus attention and investment dollars on emerging 

measurement issues. 

Study Limitations 

This analysis focuses mainly on the R&D cost savings resulting from 

NIST’s research. However, there is significant uncertainty behind the 

quantitative results for several reasons. 

First, because NIST’s research results were aggregated with that of 

other researchers working for SEMATECH, industry stakeholders 

interviewed for RTI’s study found it very difficult to discern the impact of 

NIST’s research separately from the impact of other SEMATECH-funded 

characterization activities. 

Second, the benefit estimates presented in this report are likely 

underestimates because additional benefits identified by interview 

participants were unable to be accurately quantified. This report provides 

a qualitative analysis of these benefits, the existence of which implies 

that the total benefit of NIST’s work is likely much greater than the 

estimates reported in this study would suggest. 

One set of benefits that could not be quantified involved NIST’s 

development of several new characterization techniques. For example, 

X-ray porosimetry (XRP), a technique first identified and described by 

NIST researchers, is viewed by the industry as an important tool for 

porosity analysis. Results from porosity analysis using this technique are 

in many ways superior to competing technologies, such as ellipsometric 

porosimetry (EP); however, adoption of X-ray equipment for pore 

analysis has been very slow largely because EP became a more costeffective option. According to industry representatives, NIST helped with 

1-6 
 

Chapter 1 — Introduction 

the development of both XRP and EP; however, the industry was not 

able to trace the impact of NIST’s work on the development of EP. 

NIST’s work also had, and will continue to have, an impact on the 

availability and high quality of semiconductor devices and likely helped 

reduce the costs and speed up the timing of low-k materials adoption. 

The magnitude of these benefits is likely to be quite large, but largely 

unquantifiable. 

1.2.2 Key Study Objectives 

This study quantified the net benefits of the semiconductor industry’s use 

of NIST’s materials characterization data and qualitatively analyzed the 

industry’s adoption of X-ray technology for low-k materials analysis. To 

accomplish these goals, RTI 

•	 described NIST’s involvement in low-k materials research (and 

quantified the costs), 

•	 estimated the industry’s use of low-k materials characterization 

data and adoption of X-ray porosimetry for low-k materials 

analysis between 1998 and 2006, and 

•	 quantified the benefits of NIST’s low-k materials characterization 

work in terms of R&D cost savings and qualitatively evaluated 

the impact on quality. 

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION 

The remainder of this report is organized as follows: 

•	 Chapter 2 offers a technical review of the role of low-k materials 

in the semiconductor manufacturing process and NIST’s related 

research program. 

•	 Chapter 3 describes the methodology that RTI employed to 

assess the net economic benefits associated with NIST’s 

investments in low-k materials characterization. 

•	 Chapter 4 discusses the findings from the evaluation analysis 

and provides a discussion of qualitative benefits. 

•	 Chapter 5 concludes this report with a summary of findings. 

1-7 

 

 

 2

Low-k Materials: 

Technical Overview 

and NIST’s 

 Involvement 

Developing new materials and new material characterization techniques 

is one of the key ways in which the semiconductor industry has 

continued to improve their products and processes. The transition that 

the industry made from using aluminum to copper for the interconnect 

wiring represented one of the most extensive materials transitions that 

the industry has undertaken (and continues to undertake with less 

complex semiconductor devices). Developing better materials to insulate 

these interconnect wires represents another complex challenge that the 

industry has been working to address since the early 1990s. 

ICs, the building blocks of semiconductor components, are composed of 

individual semiconductor devices (e.g., transistors), which are connected 

by metal wires, often referred to as wire lines, lines, or interconnects. 

These interconnects are separated by insulating material, called 

dielectrics, to prevent signals (and electric charge) from separate wires 

from bleeding over to neighboring lines (i.e., “cross talk”). The impact on 

performance of the dielectric insulator includes not only the ability to 

provide electric insulation and reduce cross-talk, but it also influences the 

speed at which information is transferred through the interconnected 

semiconductor device. This directly impacts the clock speed of the 

microprocessor. 

A widely used metric of performance in an interconnect system is its 

interconnect delay, which represents a measure of the time-delay for 

signal propagation. The delay is directly related to the product R x C, 

where R denotes the resistance of the interconnect line and C denotes 

the effective capacitance between adjacent lines. 

2-1 
 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

R and C are dependent on a number of factors, which can be grouped 

into two main categories: geometrical (physical) properties and material 

properties. Geometrical properties include: thickness of the lines, width 

of the lines, closeness of the lines (i.e., horizontal and vertical distances 

between adjacent lines), and length of the lines. Material properties 

include the resistivity of the metal used for wires and the dielectric 

constant (k) of the interconnect insulating material (i.e., the dielectric). 

Each of the geometrical and material properties listed above can impact 

either C or R, and hence affect the delay. For example, longer wires 

cause a proportional increase in resistance as well as an increase in 

capacitance, and hence increase the delay significantly. Materials with 

lower dielectric constants are essential to improving IC performance and 

meeting industry goals. This chapter provides a brief historical summary 

of the past low-k materials research efforts, and a description of NIST’s 

and SEMATECH’s involvement in low-k materials characterization. 

2.1 LOW-K MATERIALS HISTORY 

Throughout the 1980s, the semiconductor industry primarily focused on 

improvements related to the speed of an individual transistor and 

enhanced performance through scaling—improving the performance of 

an IC by squeezing more transistors (logic elements) into a single 

device. But by the early 1990s, the distances between device 

components were becoming incredibly small, and the relative effect of 

the interconnect delay became a greater portion of the overall signal 

propagation delay and at some point could no longer be neglected. 

Companies realized the need to improve the interconnect delay by 

making changes to the materials used for wires and the materials used 

to insulate the wires. 

As feature sizes of the elements in IC chips continued to decrease, both 

line widths and the spacing between the conduction lines also shrank. 

This scaling, or the integration of more and more transistor elements, 

also meant that the total length of the interconnect wires was increasing 

exponentially and that each microprocessor soon contained several 

miles of conduction lines. The total resistance (R) of the interconnect 

structure became a significant factor affecting chip performance. 

At the same time, the capacitance (C) between the wires was increasing 

proportionally to the decreasing spacing between the wires. The result 

was that as the feature sizes decreased, RC delay increased 

2-2 
 

Chapter 2 — Low-k Materials: Technical Overview and NIST’s Involvement 

conspicuously. Even as the speed of transistors increased dramatically, 

the interconnect delay became a limiting factor. 

The 1994 National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (NTRS)— 

the U.S. industry’s forward-looking technology strategy document— 

stated that materials with a lower dielectric constant (“low-k materials”) 

would be needed for interconnect insulating material as the feature sizes 

of semiconductor devices, or chips, became smaller. The NTRS 

projected that within 10 years the industry should be able to achieve a 

standard dielectric constant of less than 1.5 in their production 

interconnect material (Semiconductor Industry Association, 1994). A 

dielectric constant of around 4.2 for silicon dioxide (SiO2) was the 

standard material in use in 1994 (Brown, 2003). 

SEMATECH, an industry consortium, began to work on a research 

agenda with suppliers and manufacturers that included the identification 

of the most important materials’ characteristics needed for low-k 

materials. In late 1994, at a public NTRS conference in Colorado 

Springs, Colorado, a major materials supplier announced that it had 

developed a spin-on material4

 with a k value of 2.7 (Case, 2004). The 

development of low-k materials seemed to be only a few years away. 

By 1997, chip manufacturers were using insulating materials with 

dielectric constants below 4.0. Fluorosilicate glass (FSG), which was 

created by adding fluorine to silicon dioxide, had a k value of around 3.6 

and required very little change in the production process for 

semiconductor manufacturers. Thus, FSG was quickly and widely 

adopted by the industry. However, very little progress had been made 

towards identifying suitable materials with a dielectric constant below 3.0, 

which would likely require less dense (i.e., more porous) materials.5 

Companies had difficulty identifying suitable materials because materials’ 

properties changed significantly when the k value was lowered below a 

certain level. Lower k materials were generally softer, mechanically 

weaker, and did not adhere well to silicon or metal wires. Further, low-k 

materials in existence did not withstand conventional processing (i.e., 

they would crack or delaminate). However, the importance of low-k 

4

See description of spin-on-based low-k materials in text box on page 2-5 and in Figure 2-2. 5

All materials are porous, but the degree of porosity can differ greatly. Some materials’ 

molecules arrange themselves in a tighter lattice structure, resulting in less porosity, 

while others have a looser lattice structure, resulting in more porosity. Materials’ 

porosity is often thought of as one of three types: (1) “micro-porous” materials have 

pores that are less than 2 nanometers (20 Å) in width; (2) “meso-porous” materials 

have pores that are between 2 and 50 nanometers (20-500 Å) in width; and (3) “macroporous” materials have pores that are greater than 50 nanometers (500 Å) in width. 

2-3 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

materials to the industry was highlighted by the 1997 edition of the 

NTRS, which suggested that low-k materials were essential for the future 

progress of the industry and stated that low-k “materials that 

simultaneously meet electrical, mechanical, and thermal [integration] 

requirements have been elusive” (Semiconductor Industry Association, 

1997, p. 99). New materials and new materials characterization 

processes were needed. 

In the years that followed, low-k materials research continued, but 

improvement in chip performance was primarily made possible because 

of technical accomplishments made in other areas. In particular, the 

transition to copper wires resulted in a significant reduction in 

interconnect delay and forestalled the need for low-k materials. 

In 1998, IBM announced a new hierarchical wiring architecture 

(Andricacos, 1998; Andricacos et al., 1998), based on the so-called 

“damascene” process which made possible fabrication of multilevel 

copper wires with a thickness of several microns and a width of less than 

a micron. Figure 2-1 shows this new architecture. The transition to 

copper, which has lower resistivity than aluminum, resulted in a reduction 

in R. 

Figure 2-1. IC Architecture Introduced by IBM 

Source: Case (2004). 

2-4 
Chapter 2 — Low-k Materials: Technical Overview and NIST’s Involvement 

Alternate Low-k Materials Processing Approaches 

Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD): CVD processes are widely used in the semiconductor industry 

to dope silicon dioxide (SiO2) into its semiconducting form used in the transistor using dopants such 

as boron or phosphorous. Therefore, there are good reasons to adapt these CVD processes to 

produce porous, insulating forms of SiO2. Rather than phosphorous and boron, gases are added to 

the CVD precursors containing silicon (Si), oxygen (O), hydrogen (H), and carbon (C) to form 

derivatives of SiO2, with some of the Si-O bonds replaced by Si-CH3 bonds. The resulting compound 

has a more open lattice structure (i.e., greater porosity). The built-in microporosity leads in turn to a 

reduced dielectric constant. This approach has the benefit of allowing manufacturers to use the same 

CVD equipment already operating in fabs, modified only by additional gas delivery lines. Thus, 

adoption of such a process requires a relatively low integration cost and gives the industry a level of 

confidence in the new process. However, the lowest k of a known CVD film is 2.2. 

Spin-On: Low-k and even ultra-low-k (k<2.2) dielectrics have also been produced by another 

technique referred to as “spin-on.” The most common spin-on approach has used a chemical mixture 

based on a porous SiO2 structure, although silsesquioxanes (e.g., hydrogen silsesquioxane [HSQ] 

and methyl silsesquioxane [MSQ]) and organic materials have also been employed. As shown in 

Figure 2-2, the resulting chemical compound is dripped onto a spinning surface and then converted at 

elevated temperatures. Companies developing spin-on dielectrics suggested that the porosity could 

be more easily added to and controlled by these types of films, and thus lower k values would be 

possible as compared to CVD-based materials. However, the additional cost to the industry of making 

such a significant change to their process would be very large (i.e., potentially in the tens of millions of 

dollars per fab) since the transition would require new equipment and significant process flow 

changes. 

See Figure 2-2 for a pictorial comparison of the steps involved in CVD and spin-on processes. 

During the late 1990s, materials companies continued to develop and 

test new low-k materials suitable for semiconductor processing using two 

main approaches: chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and spin-on 

dielectric techniques. These two techniques have very different technical 

characteristics and economic consequences as described in the text box 

above and shown in Figure 2-2. 

By 1999, low-k materials were being developed by at least 10 

companies—including Applied Materials, Shipley, Rohm & Haas, Dow 

Chemical, Dow Corning, Honeywell, and JSR Microelectronics. Each 

materials supplier touted the benefits of their materials to customers, but 

without objective comparison data, manufacturers found themselves in 

the position of needing to characterize dozens of materials before 

considering adoption of a single new material. Analysis of each material 

was very time-consuming and complex, often requiring manufacturers to 

outsource analysis work since they did not have the required equipment 

or skills in-house. The stakes were high: the use of materials based on 

the CVD process, with which the industry was very familiar, would 

2-5 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Figure 2-2. Spin-on versus Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) Techniques 

Source: Brown (2003). 

require significant restructuring of the manufacturing processes of a fab; 

furthermore, the use of spin-on technology represented a monumental 

change that could require a company to invest tens of millions of dollars 

integrating the required new processes into their existing fabs. As such, 

semiconductor manufacturers demanded the most accurate information 

possible on the low-k materials they were considering adopting. 

2-6 
 

Chapter 2 — Low-k Materials: Technical Overview and NIST’s Involvement 

2.2 SEMATECH AND NIST INVOLVEMENT 

In order to jumpstart the materials characterization process (and hence 

accelerate adoption of low-k materials) and to prevent extensive 

duplication of effort by manufacturers and materials and equipment 

suppliers, in 1998 SEMATECH issued a request for proposals to conduct 

objective materials characterization of six or seven core properties of 

low-k materials. Many organizations and universities submitted 

proposals, and ultimately SEMATECH chose NIST to perform key 

materials characterization analyses based on several factors: (1) their 

ability to quantify five of the properties requested by SEMATECH, more 

than any other proposing organization; (2) their cost-effectiveness; and 

(3) their willingness to adapt processes based on feedback from 

SEMATECH.6 Once the project began, each organization had to figure 

out how to characterize thin porous film on a substrate, and NIST 

developed their techniques very quickly. According to a former 

SEMATECH Interconnect Program Manager, NIST provided information 

faster than the other organizations involved in this research and at a 

lower cost.7 

Between 1998 and 2006, NIST analyzed approximately 180 materials 

developed to decrease the dielectric constant of the insulating material. 

NIST received each material blindly (i.e., without any knowledge of the 

material’s creator or properties) and performed unbiased characterization 

analyses. 

6

SEMATECH also outsourced the characterization of certain materials properties to other 

universities and research institutions; however, according to SEMATECH 

representatives, NIST provided the most complex characterization activities. The 

characterization work broke down as follows: (1) NIST used X-ray reflectivity and 

neutron scattering to characterize the following properties: thickness, total film density, 

density of the matrix without pores, porosity, average pore size, moisture uptake, and 

thermal expansion coefficient. NIST also analyzed the chemical composition of the film, 

which was needed to determine the above properties. (2) The University of Michigan 

used positron annihilation spectroscopy to determine average pore size and pore 

interconnection length. (3) The University of Texas at Austin characterized film 

adhesion, mechanical properties, and chemical composition by Fourier transform 

infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, moisture uptake, and thermal expansion coefficient. (4) 

SUNY-Albany used Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry (RBS) and nuclear 

reaction analysis to characterize chemical composition and porosity. See overview of 

roles in Wetzel et al. (2001). 7

There was some overlap in work performed by NIST, Michigan, Texas, and SUNY 

because SEMATECH originally was interested in examining multiple techniques to 

measure the properties of films. SEMATECH later dropped SUNY but continued with 

NIST, Michigan, and Texas. Even though NIST was part of a larger characterization 

program, NIST was the largest contributor. The J105 project, as it was known within 

SEMATECH, also included a large effort within SEMATECH labs to deposit porous 

films and integrate them into an IC fabrication flow. SEMATECH needed the materials 

characterization results to understand what film properties affected manufacturers’ 

ability to process and integrate these films. From this combined understanding, 

SEMATECH could feed information back to film suppliers concerning what properties 

needed to change and how. 

2-7
 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

NIST characterized approximately an equal number of CVD and spin-on 

materials during the 9 years in which they conducted materials 

characterization for SEMATECH. In the first year, between mid-1998 and 

mid-1999, NIST and SEMATECH worked together to coordinate the 

exact analysis procedures that would be used and how results would be 

reported. 

Thereafter, NIST’s work proceeded at a rate of approximately four to five 

materials per quarter. After each material was characterized, NIST sent 

SEMATECH a report summarizing their results. SEMATECH would then 

compile the most important data and provide comparison tables to 

member companies and the companies that supplied the materials. 

SEMATECH did not assess the “worthiness” or lack thereof of specific 

materials. 

NIST became a trusted partner for the industry as companies sought to 

identify low-k materials that would meet manufacturing requirement and 

product quality needs. Materials suppliers came to rely on NIST and 

SEMATECH to help them develop their products. Upon the release of 

each set of NIST’s characterization results to SEMATECH’s member 

companies, SEMATECH would also provide feedback to the materials 

suppliers, suggesting how they could improve their materials’ properties 

based on NIST’s results. As a result of such feedback, JSR, among 

others, decided to discontinue some of its materials development work 

and begin developing other new material types. 

As a result of NIST’s work, research efforts on many materials that were 

determined not to be ready for widespread industry adoption were 

halted. Dow Chemical’s SiLK, a spin-on dielectric, is an example of one 

such material that was in the process of being adopted by many 

manufacturers in the industry, including IBM and United Microelectronics 

Corp. (UMC), before it was determined that the integration challenges 

were prohibitive for manufacturing at the 90nm node (Goldstein, 2003). 

Although NIST and SEMATECH were not directly responsible for the 

decision by manufacturers not to adopt SiLK, NIST and SEMATECH’s 

work was important in broadly identifying the scale and nature of 

production problems that would accompany many spin-on dielectrics, 

such as SiLK.8

 In this way, NIST’s work might have helped the industry 

save hundreds of millions of dollars in new materials adoption costs. 

8

Low-k materials using spin-on technology is a relatively small market in comparison to the 

market for CVD-based low-k materials. Applied Materials’ Black Diamond material, 

2-8 
 

 

Chapter 2 — Low-k Materials: Technical Overview and NIST’s Involvement 

2.3 NEW NIST MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION 

TECHNIQUES 

NIST’s low-k materials characterization research utilized a variety of 

techniques, many of which had never been used on low-k materials 

previously. 

In particular, NIST used small angle neutron scattering (SANS), small 

angle X-ray scattering (SAXS), and X-ray reflectivity to characterize the 

porosity. In addition, NIST developed a unique ion beam scattering 

procedure, based on Rutherford Back Scattering (RBS), grazing angle 

backscattering (GBS), and forward recoil elastic scattering (FRES) to 

determine the atomic composition of the unknown materials provided by 

SEMATECH (Wetzel et al., 2001). Knowing the atomic composition of 

these unknown films was critical to extracting quantitative data regarding 

their density and porosity. 

Of the greatest significance, NIST first identified X-ray reflectivity as a 

way to accurately measure low-k materials’ pore size, absolute material 

density, and depth profile. X-ray porosimetry, the name NIST 

researchers gave to their technique, offered significant improvement over 

ellipsometer based porosimetry (EP) and PALS, which were being used 

for pore analysis but required assuming various models to extract 

physical parameters9

 and resulted in some change in materials 

properties. SANS was also used to provide critical data; however, 

because it required access to a nuclear reactor, this technique was not a 

practical solution for many organizations.10 

Many of NIST’s techniques quickly became adopted as industry 

standards. During the early 2000s, the industry significantly improved 

their characterization techniques using NIST’s data and measurement 

techniques, and in 2004 NIST published a recommended practice guide 

on X-ray porosimetry (Soles et al., 2004). Today, with the help of NIST’s 

work establishing standard practices, the industry is generally able to 

conduct the majority of materials characterization work in-house. 

based on a CVD process, became the industry standard around 2003 or 2004 and 

continues to dominate the market. 9

Using EP, in some cases the thickness and the index of refraction are correlated and 

cannot be extracted separately. Moreover, the interface and surface roughness may 

influence the measurement results. X-ray reflectivity allows for the independent 

determination of the film thickness, interface and surface roughness, index of refraction, 

and density. However, X-ray techniques were expensive to adopt and the analysis took 

longer than with EP. 10 IBM, among several non-governmental organizations, did have a nuclear reactor with 

which they used neutron methods for low-k characterization. 

2-9 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

In summary, NIST’s work provided centralized, rapid, materials 

characterization data as well as new materials analysis techniques that 

became industry standards (see Appendix A for a list of significant 

papers published by NIST researchers on new techniques and the 

results of materials characterization efforts). More specifically, NIST’s 

research resulted in the following: 

•	 cost savings to IC manufacturers, materials suppliers, and 

equipment suppliers resulting from NIST’s centralized data 

analysis; 

•	 faster time to market of ICs with low-k materials, such as Applied 

Materials’ Black Diamond, that provide performance benefits to 

products and profits to materials suppliers and IC manufacturers; 

•	 cost savings to materials suppliers and IC manufacturers 

resulting from the use of X-ray reflectivity and other NISTdeveloped techniques; and 

•	 cost savings from avoided implementation of faulty or costly 

materials processes into new fabs. 

2-10 
 Quantitative 3 Analysis 

RTI estimated the net economic benefits accruing to the industry from 

NIST’s investment in low-k materials characterization research. RTI 

focused specifically on the research conducted by NIST under contract 

for SEMATECH and the additional investments that NIST made to 

supplement this research. Key contributions analyzed include the 

following: 

•	 development of objective materials characterization data on 

approximately 180 low-k materials, and 

•	 development of a variety of new characterization techniques for 

the analysis of low-k materials. 

These two contributions combined to help the semiconductor industry 

analyze and ultimately select low-k materials much more quickly and 

efficiently than would have been possible otherwise. 

This study focused on quantifying NIST’s costs and the R&D cost 

savings benefits related to the generation of new materials 

characterization data. Additional benefits, such as the impact of NIST’s 

work on materials adoption costs and production costs, as well as any 

product quality improvements, are discussed qualitatively. Describing 

NIST’s costs and the resulting qualitative and quantitative benefits is the 

focus of this chapter.

 3.1 ESTABLISHING THE PERIOD OF ANALYSIS 

RTI’s quantitative analysis focused on the period from 1998 to 2006. 

NIST’s costs were incurred between 1998 and 2006 when NIST 

scientists conducted materials characterization research on 

approximately 180 materials. After each candidate material was 

characterized, NIST prepared a report for SEMATECH that provided 

data on materials properties and a brief discussion of the results. 

3-1 
 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Table 3-1. NIST’s Annual Low-k Materials Analyses Reported to SEMATECH 

Year Number of Sample Materials’ Results Reported 

1999 20 

2000 27 

2001 29 

2002 16 

2003 16 

2004 50 

2005 21 

Total 179 

SEMATECH combined these data with data from other organizations 

funded to perform materials characterization, and periodically distributed 

summary tables to its members. Table 3-1 shows the number of samples 

NIST characterized and reported to SEMATECH each year. The benefits 

of NIST’s work generating new characterization data began to accrue 

within the industry immediately after the data were first distributed by 

SEMATECH, beginning in mid-1998, and continued throughout the 

duration of the study period, which ended in 2006. Although benefits 

stemming from NIST’s research likely continued to accrue after 2006, 

and some percentage will continue into the future, stakeholders could not 

quantify R&D cost savings benefits beyond 2006. 

3.2 AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS 

NIST’s work affected the entire industry by significantly improving the 

ability to analyze the porosity of materials and by providing high quality 

materials characterization data very quickly to help with screening, both 

of which resulted in significant cost savings. Impacted stakeholder 

groups included the following: 

•	 Materials Suppliers: Developers and manufacturers of low-k 

materials using either a spin-on technique, CVD, or another 

method. There were approximately 15 main companies involved 

in this type of materials R&D and manufacturing during our 

period of analysis, though today Applied Materials dominates the 

current market with their Black Diamond type materials. 

•	 Equipment Suppliers: Makers of CVD, spin-on, and X-ray 

equipment. During our period of analysis, two primary firms— 

Jordan Valley Semiconductor [JVS] and BEDE—were involved in 

producing X-ray equipment, and two others—Novellus and 

3-2 
 

Chapter 3 — Quantitative Analysis 

Applied Materials—dominated the market for CVD and spin-on 

equipment. Today, JVS has acquired BEDE, creating the 

dominant X-ray equipment manufacturer, and Novellus and 

Applied Materials are still the main suppliers of CVD and spin-on 

equipment. 

•	 Device Manufacturers: Manufacturers of ICs. Device 

manufacturers were the most affected group as they were trying 

to identify suitable low-k materials to integrate into their 

processes as quickly as possible. Many different types of 

semiconductor devices will likely utilize low-k materials in the 

future, but this study focused on those manufacturers who 

directly benefited from NIST’s research, including mainly the six 

largest IC manufacturers. 

Table 3-2 shows employment and sales information for the main 

companies in each stakeholder group that were or are involved in low-k 

materials research in some way. These three groups represent the 

principal supply chain for the production and use of low-k materials. 

With the assistance of Christopher Soles, Eric Lin, Barry Bauer, and 

Wen-li Wu at NIST, efforts were made to identify an individual at each 

company who could speak to the impact of NIST’s low-k research and 

who would be willing to talk with RTI about the dimensions of the 

economic impact of the data and techniques NIST developed. 

Representatives of 13 companies were willing to participate in RTI’s data 

collection efforts. These companies span all three segments of the 

supply chain: five materials suppliers, four equipment suppliers, and four 

device manufacturers. 

Table 3-3 provides estimates of market coverage of data collected during 

interviews.11 The “market” for each stakeholder group was defined by 

expert and stakeholder estimates of the sales of low-k materials by 

materials suppliers; sales of X-ray, CVD, and spin-on equipment by 

equipment suppliers; and research on and planned use of low-k 

materials by device manufacturers. Secondary information and expert 

interviews were used to verify market sizes for each stakeholder group. 

The relationship between information in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 is purposely 

not defined to prevent identification of companies that participated in 

RTI’s interviews. 

11 RTI prepared and used an interview guide to facilitate the interviews. See Appendix B. 

3-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Table 3-2. Stakeholders’ Sales and Employment Data, by Company 

Company Sales 

Company (2007 $million) Employment 

Materials Suppliers 

Air Product and Chemicals Inc. $10,038 22,100 

Applied Materialsa

 $9,735 15,328 

ASM Internationala $11,407 11,832 

Dow Chemical $53,513 45,856 

Dow Corning $4,392 9,000 

Dupont $30,653 60,000 

Honeywell $34,589 122,000 

JSR $2,876 4,576 

Novellusa

 $1,570 3,698 

Rohm and Haasb

 $8,897 15,710 

Equipment Suppliers 

X-ray Equipment Suppliers 

Jordan Valley Semiconductorc

 NAd NAd 

Technos NAe

 NAe 

CVD and Spin-on Equipment 

Suppliers 

Applied Materialsa

 $9,735 15,328 

ASM Internationala $11,407 11,832 

Novellusa

 $1,570 3,698 

Semitool $215 1,157 

Device Manufacturers 

AMD $6,013 16,420 

IBM $98,786 426,969 

Intel $38,334 86,300 

Freescale $5,622 23,200 

Spansion $2,501 9,300 

TI $13,835 30,175 

a

These companies are materials suppliers and suppliers of CVD equipment. 

b

Rohm and Haas acquired Shipley, a major chemical and materials supplier, in 1999, combining two of the largest 

materials suppliers in the industry. c

Jordan Valley Semiconductor purchased BEDE, another major X-ray equipment manufacturer, in April 2008, making 

it the dominant manufacturer of X-ray technology equipment. d

Based in Israel, Jordan Valley Semiconductor is a privately-held company, ownership of which is split among several 

large holding companies and investment groups. Financial and employment data is unavailable. e

Technos International is owned by Technos Co. Ltd. of Japan. Financial and employment data is unavailable. 

Source: Hoover’s Inc. 

3-4 
Chapter 3 — Quantitative Analysis 

Table 3-3. Market Coverage of Relevant Stakeholders Participating in Interviews 

Stakeholder Group Number of Firms Approximated Market Share Represented 

Materials Suppliers 5 80% 

Equipment Suppliers 

X-ray equipment 2 90% 

CVD and spin-on equipment 2 95% 

Device Manufacturers 4 80% 

3.3 THE COUNTERFACTUAL SCENARIO 

The counterfactual evaluation method is the appropriate method for 

evaluating a publicly funded, publicly performed research project. NIST’s 

research on low-k materials characterization clearly fits in this domain. 

The evaluation question asked when using the counterfactual evaluation 

method for this study was: What would the private sector have invested 

in the absence of the public sector’s research funding support, and how 

would the research/production outcomes differ from what actually 

occurred? The answer to this two-part question illustrates the benefits of 

the public’s investments—namely, the costs saved or avoided by the 

private sector and other benefits such as quality improvements. This 

approach also sought to determine whether the publicly funded research 

(1) provided a unique capability—a result otherwise not possible or 

unlikely to occur (e.g., because private entities would not have been able 

to see a sufficiently positive private return on investment)—or 

(2) accelerated development and deployment of low-k materials. 

Figure 3-1 conceptualizes the knowledge flows associated with the 

impact of NIST’s research on low-k materials characterization. The 

thicker lines show linkages between NIST and the direct beneficiaries. 

Thinner lines indicate where knowledge flows were less direct. The figure 

shows how NIST and other organizations performed research and 

provided the resulting data to SEMATECH who distributed this 

information to their membership, which was comprised of the largest 

device manufacturers in the industry. NIST also developed novel 

techniques for low-k materials characterization. They disseminated 

information both on their techniques—procedural information and 

accuracy analyses—and on general results from materials analysis to 

the industry through papers written by and presentations given by NIST 

technical staff. 

3-5 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Figure 3-1. Primary and Secondary Knowledge Flows of NIST Low-k Research 

This study focused on how firms would have acted without these 

knowledge flows. According to interviews with industry stakeholders, 

NIST provided two key contributions: (1) materials characterization data 

and (2) new low-k materials characterization techniques (e.g., X-ray 

porosimetry). Without these, stakeholders in all three groups indicated 

that costs would have increased. Broadly, RTI’s analysis concluded that 

NIST’s work led to the following categories of industry cost savings: 

1. reduced R&D costs, 

2. reduced low-k adoption costs, and 

3. reduced production costs. 

3-6 
 

Chapter 3 — Quantitative Analysis 

Interviews suggested that without NIST the industry would have still 

moved toward adopting low-k materials. However, without NIST’s 

involvement in low-k materials characterization, interview participants did 

not believe that the industry would have tried a radically different 

approach—for example, accelerating the use of “air gaps” in materials12 

or moving faster toward the use of 3-D architectures in chip design and 

production.13 Instead, the characterization of low-k materials would have 

been much more costly without NIST. 

Low-k characterization work would have been duplicative (spread among 

many firms), multiplying total industry costs. Further, data would likely 

have been of lower quality; NIST used characterization techniques, such 

as X-ray porosimetry, that were much more accurate than techniques 

being used by the industry at the time, resulting in higher quality data 

being available than if the industry had proceeded without NIST. 

A key assumption in the counterfactual scenario for modeling economic 

impacts was that advances in chip performance would have proceeded 

(and will continue to proceed) along the same timeline outlined in the 

industry’s Roadmap in the absence of NIST’s activities. Thus, this 

analysis holds the quality of related final products and services 

unchanged, and the impact of NIST’s contributions is primarily to lower 

the costs throughout the product life cycle as described in the impact 

categories 1 through 3 above. 

According to interviews, NIST’s primary contribution was to develop 

effective characterization techniques and to create and disseminate 

objective data that reduced the industry’s R&D cost savings. As a result 

of the highly complex nature of such work and the proprietary status of 

12 IBM has developed what they refer to as “air gap” technology to improve the insulation 

within semiconductor devices. IBM’s process involves making a chip that is essentially 

hollow inside. This requires production in a high vacuum environment and thus, some 

experts believe it will be too expensive for large-scale production. A May 2007 press 

release from IBM described their technology as follows: “This new form of insulation, 

commonly referred to as ‘air gaps’ by scientists, is a misnomer, as the gaps are actually 

a vacuum, absent of air. The technique deployed by IBM causes a vacuum to form 

between the copper wires on a computer chip, allowing electrical signals to flow faster, 

while consuming less electrical power. The self-assembly process enables the nanoscale patterning required to form the gaps; this patterning is considerably smaller than 

current lithographic techniques can achieve.” (http://www03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21473.wss) IBM has indicated plans to begin 

manufacturing servers based on this technology in 2009. 13 3-D architecture refers to using vertical dimensions and horizontal dimensions fully when 

developing chip design. 3-D ICs have the potential to eliminate signal delays and power 

consumption caused by horizontal wiring lengths — either on or between chips. As 

such, they offer the potential to lead to “dramatically improved performance at a much 

lower cost than building a new leading-edge, 45, 30 or 22 nm transistor fab,” according 

to an August 2007 article in Semiconductor Magazine 

(http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6462379.html). 

3-7 
 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

such research within private companies, the involvement of a standing 

research organization such as NIST was irreplaceable by the industry. 

Academic researchers could have provided some of the same data, as 

could other research organizations such as SEMATECH and IMEC14, but 

NIST offered the highest quality and most expedient data possible to a 

large portion of the industry. 

Quantitative estimates were calculated for the impact of NIST’s work in 

terms of R&D cost savings—i.e., on materials characterization research. 

Additional benefits, such as the impact of NIST’s work on materials 

adoption costs and production costs, as well as improvements in product 

quality, are discussed qualitatively. 

3.4 NIST RESEARCH COSTS 

Soles, Lin, and Wu at NIST estimated NIST’s costs undertaken between 

1998 and 2006 on low-k materials research. SEMATECH paid NIST to 

conduct low-k materials analysis between 1998 and 2006, and NIST 

supplemented this funding out of its own budget to conduct additional 

work developing characterization techniques and advanced processes. 

Table 3-4 shows the total spending by NIST ($3.9 million) broken out 

between SEMATECH funding ($1.2 million) and NIST internal funding 

($2.7 million). 

NIST’s materials characterization data were transferred to SEMATECH 

at a rate of approximately 15 to 20 material samples per year. Through 

targeted industry interviews, RTI estimated the level and timing of the 

use of these data and the effect they had on industry companies in terms 

of reduced R&D costs—that is, cost savings from avoided or duplicative 

research. SEMATECH indicated that approximately 10 semiconductor 

device manufacturers working on low-k materials research received their 

periodic summaries of characterization results. 

14 Interuniversity Microelectronics Centre (IMEC) is a micro- and nano-electronics research 

center located in Leuven, Belgium. 

3-8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 — Quantitative Analysis 

Table 3-4. NIST Research Costs Relating to Low-k Characterization ($2008) 

Year SEMATECH Funding NIST Internal Funding Total NIST Research Investment 

1998 $47,343 $— $47,343 

1999 $99,712 $393,864 $493,576 

2000 $116,037 $360,326 $476,363 

2001 $179,315 $407,044 $586,359 

2002 $175,696 $522,403 $698,099 

2003 $172,113 $423,399 $595,512 

2004 $224,285 $231,013 $455,298 

2005 $162,867 $277,960 $440,827 

2006 $26,802 $79,936 $106,738 

Total $1,204,170 $2,695,944 $3,900,115 

Note: Real ($2008) costs were calculated using the seasonally adjusted Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price 

Deflator (2,000 = 100), U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

http://research.stlouisfed.org/ 

fred2/data/GDPDEF.txt. 

3.5 QUANTITATIVE PRIVATE SECTOR BENEFITS 

The availability of NIST’s data enabled materials suppliers, equipment 

suppliers, and device manufacturers to focus on comparing a handful of 

low-k materials and testing integration issues as opposed to developing 

basic materials characterization information, a very labor-intensive, timeconsuming process at which few firms were expert. Without NIST, at 

least a dozen firms would have each replicated some portion of NIST’s 

data characterization research for at least 2 to 3 years; however, 

because of the technical complexity and cost involved, most would not 

have performed even half the number of materials analyses that NIST 

did. Using information collected during interviews on the exact timing of 

cost savings and the alternative spending that would have occurred, RTI 

developed benefits estimates. 

Device manufacturers were the most directly affected by NIST’s work; on 

average, RTI interviews suggest that each of the top five IC 

manufacturers would have each increased R&D spending by more than 

$2.5 million without NIST’s research between 1998 and 2006. Other 

manufacturers would have increased their spending by smaller amounts. 

As a share of R&D investment in low-k materials characterization, this 

represents almost half of all spending. 

3-9 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Materials suppliers also saved significant R&D resources. RTI interviews 

suggest that four of the largest materials suppliers would have each 

increased R&D spending by more than $1 million between 1998 and 

2006 if NIST had not conducted their research. NIST’s data provided 

high quality characterization feedback that particularly benefited 

materials suppliers conducting robust analysis of materials properties 

aimed at developing a better understanding of the properties of their 

products. 

The top two equipment suppliers would likely have spent over $1.5 

million each between 1998 and 2006 without NIST’s involvement. These 

equipment suppliers were conducting research aimed at understanding 

materials in order to support the development of equipment for producing 

ICs. Other equipment manufacturers, including suppliers of X-ray 

equipment, indicated that they likely saved some money based on 

NIST’s work, but they were unable to quantify these savings. 

Table 3-5 provides estimates of the cost savings that accrued to 

interview participants based on the characterization data that NIST 

provided. The cost savings benefits presented are only those described 

directly by interview participants. Extrapolated industry-wide benefits are 

presented and discussed in Chapter 4. Of note, interview participants 

indicated that their cost to adopt or make use of NIST’s data was 

negligible. 

Table 3-5. Private- Year Real Cost-Savings Benefits 

Sector R&D CostSavings Benefits: Base 

Case ($2008) 

1998

1999

 $241,764 

 $883,148 

2000 $1,049,211 

2001 $1,369,407 

2002 $1,494,860 

2003 $1,250,607 

2004 $1,095,317 

2005 $883,441 

2006 $125,000 

Total $8,392,755 

3-10 
 

 

Chapter 3 — Quantitative Analysis 

3.6 QUALITATIVE BENEFITS 

In addition to the reported R&D cost savings or costs avoided that RTI 

estimated based on information provided during interviews with company 

representatives, RTI formulated additional qualitative information 

relevant to the social benefits associated with NIST’s research. Broadly, 

NIST’s work had the following impacts: 

1. accelerated the availability of robust low-k materials 

characterization data (product acceleration benefit), 

2. freed up R&D resources for other innovation activities, (quality 

improvement benefit), and 

3. provided new low-k materials characterization processes (cost 

savings and quality improvement benefit). 

Quantitative analysis of these benefits was not possible. Relevant 

information on the impacts was not documented by industry in “real-time” 

when NIST research and results were being utilized, and as such, more 

complex benefits could not be estimated by industry members. 

3.6.1 Accelerated the Availability of Low-k Data 

Interview participants indicated that without NIST’s work, the overall 

characterization of low-k materials would have slowed, likely by at least 2 

or 3 years. NIST played a critical role in determining the strengths and 

weaknesses of various materials characterization techniques, which led 

directly to the rapid development of a robust set of objective 

characterization data.15 However, no interview participants were able to 

value the impact of low-k materials data being available more quickly. As 

stated above, RTI’s analysis assumed that product availability timelines 

would not have changed without NIST’s involvement; however, if 

products using low-k materials were available sooner, the economic 

impact in terms of the use of more advanced products would have been 

significant. 

3.6.2 Enabled Innovative Research 

NIST’s work enabled manufacturers to periodically focus on a handful 

(e.g., two or three) of low-k materials that met a sufficient number of 

process characteristics based on data provided by SEMATECH’s 

program, rather than analyzing a dozen or more materials at a basic 

15Over the years, other organizations and methods began to mature and became 

competitive with NIST. For example, IMEC developed EP techniques for on-wafer gas 

absorption pore characterization. However, without NIST, interviews indicated that the 

SEMATECH materials characterization efforts would likely have been delayed by 2 to 3 

years or the resulting data would have been of much lower quality. 

3-11
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

3.6.3
 

level. As such, according to several semiconductor manufacturers, 

NIST’s work enabled more innovation in R&D to occur. Without NIST, 

manufacturers would have likely focused significant attention on the 

development of new characterization techniques and the analysis of 

dozens of materials. Instead, they were able to shift resources to 

activities that involved more innovative research. 

Provided New Materials Characterization Techniques 

NIST developed a variety of novel techniques for materials 

characterization, the specific impact of which was not quantified. During 

NIST’s research, particularly in the first 2 or 3 years, NIST developed 

and modified several techniques for measuring materials properties; 

these techniques likely improved both the cost of measurement and the 

quality of products downstream from their use. NIST’s main contributions 

included using 

•	 X-ray reflectivity techniques for porosity analysis of low-k 

materials (i.e., X-ray porosimetry), and 

•	 composition techniques (ion beam scattering and recoil) for 

testing the elemental content of low-k materials. 

NIST was the first organization to apply X-ray reflectivity to low-k 

materials porosity analysis. Although they did not invent the technique, 

NIST realized that they could use X-ray reflectivity for low-k films to 

quantify porosity and test other material characteristics. JVS, an 

equipment manufacturer, came to NIST for a demonstration of NIST’s 

technique and subsequently developed an application of X-ray 

techniques for low-k materials that improved measurement speed from 2 

hours (for NIST’s process) to less than 1 minute. 

As described above, NIST’s use of X-ray reflectivity resulted in higher 

quality data than would have otherwise been possible; however, study 

interviews suggest that industry adoption of the X-ray technique was 

limited. Although X-ray porosimetry provides higher quality data than 

alternate techniques, such as EP or PALS, X-ray reflectivity in its current 

form is a costly procedure as compared to EP. As such, EP has been 

adopted by stakeholders and is used more often than X-ray porosimetry 

for analysis of materials’ pores. Yet, without NIST’s involvement, 

interviews suggested that the use of X-ray for low-k materials analysis 

today would be even lower, and the value of NIST’s data would have 

been reduced. Had EP not become a more cost-effective, relatively quick 

3-12 
Chapter 3 — Quantitative Analysis 

technique, X-ray porosimetry would likely have been adopted by more 

companies. 

X-ray porosimetry is also the most likely technique to be considered in 

future production environments. Currently, manufacturers are uncertain 

whether they will need to measure porosity within a fab, which they 

would prefer not to do because of the cost. However, as chip feature 

sizes continue to decrease, real-time porosity analysis may become 

necessary. If so, X-ray porosimetry is the most likely porosity 

characterization technique to be used in the fab. 

NIST also used composition techniques such as ion beam scattering to 

quantify the hydrogen, silicon, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen content of 

materials. Backing out the atomic composition was required because the 

samples were provided to NIST through SEMATECH without any 

compositional information. As mentioned before, all materials tests were 

conducted blind. 

Using NIST’s measurement methodologies and materials 

characterization data, many companies in the industry perfected their 

own characterization processes during the early 2000s. As discussed in 

Chapter 2, NIST also published an X-ray porosimetry recommended 

practice guide (Soles et al., 2004), which is available on NIST’s Web site 

and has also been given out at industry workshops and conferences. 

According to NIST’s records, the online version of the guide has been 

downloaded 927 times between 2006 and 2008. Unfortunately, accurate 

download statistics are not available for 2004 through 2005 because of a 

change in the NIST Web site infrastructure. NIST estimated that the Web 

page with the URL for the downloadable PDF was accessed over 5,000 

times between 2004 and 2005, but the actual number of successful 

downloads cannot be verified. Another 20 or so industry researchers 

have been mailed hard copies of the guide after submitting requests to 

NIST. 

NIST also published seven papers and one book chapter (listed in 

Appendix A) that NIST indicated were at least partially based on their 

low-k materials characterization research. These publications showed 

the usefulness of their X-ray technique for low-k materials porosimetry 

and presented information on materials characterization results from 

methods including neutron scattering and positron annihilation lifetime 

spectroscopy. Non-author citation counts, year-by-year and cumulative, 

are presented in Table 3-6. By 2007, these eight publications had been 

3-13 
 

 

 

 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Table 3-6. Non-Author Citations to Primary Relevant Publications, by Year 

Number of Papers Published 

Year (Month of Publication) Citations Cumulative Citations 

2000 2 (February, July) 1 1 

2001 2 (April, May) 12 13 

2002 2 (July, December) 21 34 

2003 1 (February) 19 53 

2004 1 (July) 31 84 

2005 25 109 

2006 32 141 

2007 18 159 

2008 4 163 

Note: Citations in 2008 are through June 21. The December 2002 publication was a book chapter. All other 

publications in this Table were in peer-reviewed journals. 

cited a total of over 160 times by other researchers in peer-reviewed 

journal articles. 

In summary, NIST’s work provided R&D and production benefits in the 

form of cost savings and quality improvements. Some R&D cost savings 

were quantified; others, such as the impact on the adoption costs for lowk materials, were not. Further, NIST’s work likely accelerated the use of 

low-k materials and improved the quality of products being developed, 

resulting in higher production yields and/or better products. 

3-14 
 4 Measures of
 

 Economic Return
 

RTI developed extrapolated benefits estimates that provide a more 

comprehensive view of the impact of NIST’s research on R&D cost 

savings. RTI also calculated two traditional evaluation metrics relevant to 

this study: the benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) and net present value (NPV). 

This chapter discusses the extrapolation method used and the resulting 

benefits estimates, as well as a presentation of the evaluation metrics for 

each case. 

4.1 EXTRAPOLATING BENEFITS 

Table 4-1 is a summary of the real cost data in Table 3-4 and the 

interview benefit data in Table 3-5. These benefits are only those 

estimated by the 13 companies whose representatives RTI interviewed. 

As such, the benefits in Table 4-1 are lower-bound estimates. Still, these 

conservative estimates indicate that, from a social perspective, NIST’s 

investments in low-k research were worthwhile. 

In order to provide estimates of the total industry benefits, RTI 

extrapolated from the base case figures. Based on explicit company 

impact estimates and information on total market sizes by stakeholder 

group provided during interviews, RTI developed the market share 

represented by base case estimates. RTI then developed two types of 

extrapolation estimates. 

First, RTI developed a full extrapolation of benefits. These estimates 

were calculated in the following way: if, for example, the cost-savings 

benefits to companies representing 80% of the market are $100 (base 

case), then cost-savings benefits to the industry are $100/.80 or $125 

4-1 
 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Table 4-1. NIST Research Costs and Private-Sector R&D Benefits: Base Case ($2008) 

Year Real Cost Real Cost-Savings Benefits 

1998 $37,500 $241,764 

1999 $396,000 $883,148 

2000 $390,000 $1,049,211 

2001 $490,500 $1,369,407 

2002 $596,000 $1,494,860 

2003 $519,000 $1,250,607 

2004 $406,000 $1,095,317 

2005 $406,000 $883,441 

2006 $101,500 $125,000 

Total $3,342,500 $8,392,755 

NPV $2,555,799 $6,486,258 

(fully extrapolated case). These fully extrapolated benefits are shown in 

the fourth column of Table 4-2. Total benefits equaled almost $30.5 

million, with an NPV of approximately $23.7 million. 

Second, RTI used a 50% extrapolation (i.e., the average of the benefits 

in the third and fourth columns of Table 4-2). The 50% extrapolated case 

estimates are shown in the fifth column in Table 4-2. Total benefits 

equaled close to $20 million, or an NPV of approximately $15 million. 

These estimates provide more conservative industry-level estimates than 

the full extrapolation case. 

Of note, the market coverage data provided in Table 3-3 were not used 

for extrapolation purposes. These data represent the market coverage of 

companies that participated in interviews and provided either quantitative 

or qualitative information, but not necessarily both. Market share data 

used to develop extrapolation estimates are not provided in order to 

protect company-level information that was provided during interviews. 

Table 4-3 provides benefits by stakeholder group for the fully 

extrapolated case in order to prevent revealing company-specific data. 

As can been seen, device manufacturers received the vast majority of 

the benefits with over $22 million accrued. This is as expected, since 

interviews suggest that manufacturers were spending the most time 

trying to characterize many different low-k materials and find ones that 

would be suitable to meet production needs. Industry stakeholders 

4-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4 — Measures of Economic Return 

Table 4-2. NIST Research Costs and Private-Sector R&D Benefits: Base Case and 

Extrapolated Cases ($2008) 

Real Cost-Savings Real Cost-Savings 

Real Cost-Savings Benefits: Fully Benefits: 50 Percent 

Year Real Cost Benefits Extrapolated Extrapolated 

1998 $37,500 $241,764 $967,056 $604,410 

1999 $396,000 $883,148 $3,100,133 $1,991,640 

2000 $390,000 $1,049,211 $3,874,158 $2,461,685 

2001 $490,500 $1,369,407 $5,181,765 $3,275,586 

2002 $596,000 $1,494,860 $5,612,297 $3,553,579 

2003 $519,000 $1,250,607 $4,573,384 $2,911,995 

2004 $406,000 $1,095,317 $3,786,942 $2,441,129 

2005 $406,000 $883,441 $3,149,187 $2,016,314 

2006 $101,500 $125,000 $250,000 $187,500 

Total $3,342,500 $8,392,755 $30,494,923 $19,443,839 

NPV $2,555,799 $6,486,258 $23,650,492 $15,068,375 

Table 4-3. R&D 

Benefits Estimates by 

Stakeholder Group 

Stakeholder Group 

Materials Suppliers 

Value Based on Full Extrapolation of Benefits 

$4,875,000 

($2008) Equipment Suppliers $3,451,096 

Device Manufacturers $22,168,827 

Total $30,494,923 

indicated that they would have conducted any research needed to stay 

on track with the industry Roadmap. Materials suppliers received almost 

$5 million, and equipment suppliers observed approximately $3.5 million 

in cost-savings benefits. Working in supportive roles to the device 

manufacturers, both of these groups would have made additional R&D 

investments to stay competitive. 

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION METRICS 

Three traditional evaluation metrics are routinely used to evaluate 

investments: BCR, NPV, and internal rate of return (IRR). BCR and NPV 

calculation steps are discussed below. No IRR was calculated for the 

4-3 
 

 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

base or extrapolated cases because net benefits are positive in all 

16 years.

The BCR calculated in this analysis is the ratio of the NPV of benefits to 

the NPV of costs, which accounts for differences in the timing of cash 

flows (which has implications for the real value of $1 in one time period 

versus another). 

The BCR uses the annual time series of quantified benefits derived from 

the efficiency gains. Letting Bt be the benefits accrued in year t by firms 

and letting Ct be the total costs for the project in year t by firms and 

industry consortia, then the BCR for the program is given by 

n B1(

∑ t+i) 

i

i=0 (1+ r) (BCR) = (4.1) n C(t+i

∑ ) 

i

i=0 (1+ r) 

where 

t is the first year in which benefits or costs occur, 

n is the number of years the benefits and/or costs occur, and 

r is the social discount rate. 

In this study, r was set at 7%, which is the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB)-specified level.17 Because benefits and costs occur at 

different time periods, both are expressed in present-value terms before 

the ratio is calculated. Essentially, a BCR greater than 1 indicates that 

quantified benefits outweighed the calculated costs. A BCR less than 1 

indicates that costs exceeded benefits, and a BCR equal to 1 means that 

the project broke even. 

16 The IRR metric is usually presented in investment analyses. The IRR can be interpreted 

as the percentage yield on an R&D project over the life of the project, often multiple years 

(Tassey, 2003). In mathematical terms, the IRR is the value of r that sets the NPV equal to 

zero in Equation (4-2) or results in a BCR of 1 in Equation (4-1). The IRR’s value can be 

compared with conventional rates of return for comparable or alternative investments. Riskfree capital investments such as government bonds can be expected to yield rates of return 

under 5% in real terms, while equities seldom return more than 10% over an extended 

period of time. However, in academic studies of the diffusion of new technologies, real 

rates of return of 100% or more have been found for significant advances with broad social 

benefits. It should be noted that in cases for which costs exceed benefits or if net benefits 

are all positive or all negative an IRR cannot be calculated. Also, time series with inflexion 

points prohibit the use of this measure by yielding multiple solutions (Tassey, 2003).

17See OMB Circular A-94. 

4-4 
 

Chapter 4 — Measures of Economic Return 

The NPV of the investment in a project is calculated as 

n ⎡ B1(t + i) C(t + i) ⎤ NPV = − ∑ , (4.2) ⎢ i i ⎥

i = 0 ⎣(1 + r) (1 + r) ⎦

where the terms have the same meanings as identified for 

Equation (4.1). Any project that yields a positive NPV is considered 

economically successful. Projects that show a positive NPV when 

analyzed using OMB’s 7% real discount rate are socially advantageous. 

A negative NPV would indicate that the costs to society outweigh the 

benefits, and an NPV equal to zero would indicate a breakeven point. 

4.3 EVALUATION ANALYSIS: BASE CASE AND 

EXTRAPOLATED CASES 

The data in Table 4-1 and 4-2 are the basis for the calculations of the 

evaluation metrics in Table 4-4. Based on data collected explicitly during 

interviews (base case), NIST’s research resulted in net benefits of 

approximately $5 million with an NPV of almost $4 million. The BCR is 

2.54. 

The two alternative cases provide more probable metrics by which to 

gauge the cost-savings impact of NIST’s investments. The full 

extrapolation resulted in calculated net benefits of over $27 million and 

an NPV of approximately $21 million. The BCR was 9.25. The partial 

(50%) extrapolation is a more conservative estimate of the cost-savings 

benefits accrued by the industry. The partial extrapolation net benefits 

were approximately $16 million with an NPV of over $12.5 million. The 

BCR for the partial extrapolation was 5.90. 

Table 4-4. Evaluation Metrics: Base Case and Extrapolated Cases 

Value Based on Interview Value Based on Full Value Based on 50% 

Metric Data Extrapolation of Benefits Extrapolation of Benefits 

Costs ($2008) $3,342,500 $3,342,500 $3,342,500 

Benefits ($2008) $8,392,755 $30,494,923 $19,443,839 

Net Benefits ($2008) $5,050,255 $27,152,423 $16,101,339 

Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 2.54 9.25 5.90 

Net Present Value ($2008) $3,930,459 $21,094,692 $12,512,576 

4-5 

 

5 Conclusion 

In this study, RTI quantified the impact of NIST’s low-k characterization 

program on the R&D portion of the semiconductor industry. The values 

of the evaluation metrics in Table 4-4 clearly indicate that NIST’s 

investments in low-k characterization, exemplified by the materials data 

generated and the characterization techniques developed, have had a 

significant positive social return. 

The fully extrapolated benefits calculation shows that NIST’s investments 

resulted in approximately $27 million of net benefits and an NPV of $21 

million. These calculations represent what the industry would have spent 

in the absence of NIST’s research and findings less NIST’s costs. 

Industry stakeholders indicated that they would have conducted 

extensive duplicative efforts. No single organization would have 

developed the quantity or quality of data developed by NIST. As such, 

the industry observed R&D cost savings, as well as quality 

improvements that were reported but not estimated quantitatively by 

stakeholders. 

RTI’s calculated benefits may be considered conservative for several 

reasons and thus may understate the social benefits associated with 

NIST’s research in low-k. First, R&D cost savings are just one of the 

benefits that resulted from NIST’s knowledge flow chain (see Figure 3-1). 

NIST’s research likely had a significant impact on the cost to adopt low-k 

materials. As an example, in the early 2000s, some device 

manufacturers were planning to incorporate low-k materials into new 

manufacturing facilities based on limited information on low-k materials 

and related processes; however, the data provided by NIST and others 

working with SEMATECH helped to prevent the adoption of certain 

5-1 
 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

materials. In some cases, companies changed their facility plans, 

potentially resulting in significant cost savings. 

NIST’s work likely also enabled faster time to market of ICs with low-k 

materials, such as Applied Materials’ Black Diamond, resulting in lower 

production costs to meet performance requirements for IC 

manufacturers. Without NIST’s work, manufacturers would have had to 

approach meeting such milestones (as laid out in the industry 

Roadmaps) by either spending more money on intra-company low-k 

materials characterization efforts or by other means such as accelerating 

the use of 3-D architecture techniques that are still being developed. 

Several stakeholders indicated that the data characterization work 

conducted by NIST was particularly valuable because the marginal cost 

of conducting such analyses on a smaller scale (i.e., by an individual 

company) can be prohibitively high. In particular, investment costs for 

equipment prevent some companies from conducting more robust 

analysis (e.g., with X-ray techniques). 

The discovery of several important characterization techniques by NIST 

researchers, between 1998 and 2000, also provided an unquantified 

benefit. In particular, NIST used X-ray porosimetry to develop high 

quality materials characterization data between 1998 and 2006.18 NIST 

communicated the details of their new technique through journal articles, 

conference presentations, and a NIST-sponsored recommended practice 

guide (Soles et al., 2004). Although X-ray porosimetry was not adopted 

at a high level by the semiconductor industry based largely on the 

equipment cost, stakeholders indicated that NIST’s work on X-ray 

techniques was very useful to the industry. 

Further, several stakeholders indicated that X-ray reflectivity could play a 

larger role in the future if at future technology nodes low-k materials 

porosity needs to be analyzed in situ. Although today such use is merely 

speculation, research into the use of X-ray techniques in situ could 

provide significant benefits to the industry. RTI’s analysis suggests that 

NIST might have a role in conducting such research in the future, as well 

as research aimed at reducing the cost of X-ray porosimetry. 

18 NIST’s work on X-ray techniques was based largely on previous work by NIST 

researcher Wen-li Wu (1993, 1994). 

5-2 
Chapter 5 — Conclusion 

5.1 OBSERVATIONS FOR NIST 

During RTI’s interviews, participants were asked to offer feedback to 

NIST. Most discussed the unique role that NIST played and cited one or 

more of the following as key factors: (1) NIST’s objectivity, (2) NIST’s 

extensive technical capabilities (including X-ray and neutron technology), 

and (3) the centralization of work at NIST. NIST was credited with 

helping the industry save significant research costs and with accelerating 

characterization research at a faster pace than would have occurred 

otherwise. 

Two changes in NIST’s research and approach were suggested by 

several participants. First, several manufacturers commented that they 

wish NIST had continued to conduct materials characterization research 

in a “turn the crank” fashion. Each manufacturer who offered this 

feedback noted that NIST had (and still has) unique capabilities in X-ray 

and neutron analysis, among others, and that some firms were unable to 

find such capabilities elsewhere or could only find them at a much higher 

cost. 

Further, both manufacturers and equipment suppliers mentioned that 

NIST could have done more to help with the transfer of its X-ray 

porosimetry technique out of the lab and into the market as a product. 

Although NIST wrote a recommended practice guide for X-ray 

porosimetry, which is published on its Web site, industry members 

indicated that in order to use NIST’s technique a company would need 

both adequate monetary resources—approximately $100,000 for 

equipment and labor—and a person with a “very high level of mechanical 

aptitude.” With such resources and skills, a company could retrofit an 

X-ray reflectivity device for porosimetry analysis in a matter of months. 

5-3 

 6 References
 

Andricacos, P.C. 1998. “Electroplated Copper Wiring on IC Chips.” 

Interface 7(1):23–25. 

Andricacos, P.C., C. Uzoh, J.O. Dukovic, J. Horkans, and H. Deligianni. 

1998. “Damascene Copper Electroplating for Chip 

Interconnections.” IBM Journal of Research and Development 

42:567–574. 

Brown, A.S. 2003. “Fast Films.” IEEE Spectrum, February, pp. 36–40. 

Case, C. 2004. “Low-k Dielectrics: Was the Roadmap Wrong?” Future 

Fab International, Section 6: Wafer Processing, 17. 

Goldstein, H. 2003. “SiLK Slips.” IEEE Spectrum, December, pp. 14–15. 

Lin, E.K., H.-J. Lee, G.W. Lynn, W.-L. Wu, and M.L. O’Neill. 2002. 

“Structural Characterization of a Porous Low-Dielectric-Constant 

Thin Film with a Non-uniform Depth Profile.” Applied Physics 

Letters 81(4):607–609. 

Semiconductor Industry Association. 1994. National Technology 

Roadmap for Semiconductors, 1994 Edition. San Jose, CA: 

Semiconductor Industry Association. 

Semiconductor Industry Association. 1997. National Technology 

Roadmap for Semiconductors: Technology Needs, 1997 Edition. 

San Jose, CA: Semiconductor Industry Association. 

Soles, C.L., H.-J. Lee, E.K. Lin, and W.-L. Wu. 2004. Pore 

Characterization in Low k Dielectric Films Using X ray 

Reflectivity: X-ray Porosimetry. NIST Recommended Practice 

Guide, Special Publication 960–1013. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. 

Tassey, G. 2003. Methods for Assessing the Economic Impact of 

Government R&D. NIST Planning Report 03-1. Gaithersburg, 

MD: NIST. 

6-1 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Wetzel, J.T., S.H. Lin, E. Mickler, J. Lee, B. Ahlburn, C. Jin, R.J. Fox III, 

M.-H. Tsai, W. Mlynko, K.A. Konning, and P.M. Winebarger. 

2001. “Evaluation of Material Property Requirements and 

Performance and Ultra-Low Dielectric Constant Insulators for 

Inlaid Copper Metallization.” IEEE International Electron Devices 

Meeting Technical Digest, December 2–5, pp. 4.1.1–4.3.3. 

Wu, W.-L. 1993. “Off-Specular Reflection from Flat Interfaces with 

Density or Compositional Fluctuations.” Journal of Chemical 

Physics 98(2):1687–1694. 

Wu, W.-L. 1994. “Off-Specular Reflection from Flat Interfaces.” Journal of 

Chemical Physics 101(5):4198–4205. 

Wu, W.-L., W.E. Wallace, E.K. Lin, G.W. Lynn, C.J. Glinka, E.T. Ryan, 

and H.-M. Ho. 2000. “Properties of Nanoporous Silica Thin Films 

Determined by High-Resolution X-ray Reflectivity and SmallAngle Neutron Scattering.” Journal of Applied Physics 

87(3):1193–1200. 

6-2 
Appendix A: 

NIST Publications Related 

to Low-k Research 

Bauer, B.J., E.K. Lin, H.J. Lee, H. Wang, and W.-L. Wu. 2001. “Structure 

and Property Characterization of Low-k Dielectric Porous Thin 

Films.” Journal of Electronic Materials 30(4):304–308. 

Bouldin, C.E., W.E. Wallace, G.W. Lynn, S.C. Roth, and W.-L. Wu. 2000. 

“Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Low-k Dielectric Films from 

Fourier Analysis of X-ray Reflectivity.” Journal of Applied Physics 

88:691–695. 

Hedden, R.C., H.-J. Lee, and B.J. Bauer. 2004. “Characterization of Pore 

Structure in a Nanoporous Low-Dielectric-Constant Thin Film by 

Neutron Porosimetry and X-ray Porosimetry.” Langmuir 20:416– 

422. 

Lee, H.J., E.K. Lin, B.J. Bauer, W.-L. Wu, B.K. Hwang, and W.D. Gray. 

2003. “Characterization of Chemical-Vapor-Deposited Low-k 

Thin Films Using X-ray Porosimetry.” Applied Physics Letters 

82(7):1084–1086. 

Lin, E.K., H. Lee, B.J. Bauer, H. Wang, J.T. Wetzel, and W.-L. Wu. 2002. 

“Structure and Property Characterization of Low-k Dielectric 

Porous Thin Films Determined by X-ray Reflectivity and SmallAngle Neutron Scattering.” In Low Dielectric Constant Materials 

for IC Applications. P.S. Ho, J. Leu, and W.W. Lee, eds., 75–93. 

New York: Springer Publishing. 

Lin, E.K., H.-J. Lee, G.W. Lynn, W.-L. Wu, and M.L. O’Neill. 2002. 

“Structural Characterization of a Porous Low-Dielectric-Constant 

Thin Film with a Non-Uniform Depth Profile.” Applied Physical 

Letters 81(4):607–609. 

A-1 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

Sun, J., D.W. Gidley, T.L. Dull, W.E. Frieze, A.F. Yee, E.T. Ryan, S. Lin, 

and J. Wetzel. 2001. “Probing Diffusion Barrier Integrity on 

Porous Silica Low-k Thin Films Using Positron Annihilation 

Lifetime Spectroscopy.” Journal of Applied Physics 89(9):5138– 

5144. 

Wu, W.-L., W.E. Wallace, E.K. Lin, G.W. Lynn, C.J. Glinka, E.T. Ryan, 

and H.M. Ho. 2000. “Properties of Nanoporous Silica Thin Films 

Determined by High-Resolution X-ray Reflectivity and SmallAngle Neutron Scattering.” Journal of Applied Physics 

87(3):1193–1200. 

A-2 
 

Appendix B: 

Interview Guide 

The Impact of NIST’s Low-k Materials 

Characterization Research 

Interview Instrument 

Thank you for your participation in this brief but important survey 

intended to collect information on the impact of NIST’s research 

developing low-k materials characterization data and new 

characterization techniques for the semiconductor industry. RTI 

International will use the results of this survey as part of a research study 

commissioned by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST). This study will provide an economic impact assessment of the 

value of NIST’s research on low-k materials in support of the U.S. 

semiconductor supply chain. 

Instructions: 

This survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your 

participation is voluntary, and your responses will be kept strictly 

confidential.

1

 You do not need to look up any information; simply provide 

answers based on your best knowledge and recollection. 

1

Nondisclosure policy: RTI has a well-established practice of dealing with confidential 

information as part of numerous projects. Any information we obtain through these 

surveys will be used solely in aggregate with other information garnered from other 

respondents. In no instance will specific individuals or organizations be identified by 

name in any reports or as part of information that is released publicly or to the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology based on our discussions. 

B-1 
Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

PART I: General Information 

1. Is your parent company based in the U.S.? 

Yes 

No 

2. Is the facility where you personally work located in the U.S.? 

Yes 

No 

3. What is your title? ________________________ 

4. What semiconductor supply chain group do you represent? [NOTE: If 

you work for a company that has activities in more than one area of 

the industry supply chain, please select only the group with which 

you are most knowledgeable. Then, please forward this survey link 

to an appropriate person for each of the other areas and ask them to 

fill out a separate questionnaire for that activity.] 

• Integrated circuit designer 

• Materials supplier 

• Equipment supplier 

• Software supplier 

•	 Front-end processing (wafer fabrication) 

•	 Back-end processing (packaging, assembly, and test) 

• Other (_______________________________) 

5. What main products does your company produce within the group 

indicated in Question 4 that uses low-k materials research 

knowledge? _______________________________ 

6. Approximately, how many employees currently work at your 

company? ___________ 

7. Estimated revenues: 

a. What were the approximate gross sales of your company in the 

most recent fiscal year? _________ 

b. Approximately what percentage of these sales is attributable to 

the group that conducts low-k materials analysis? (If you are 

responding for the entire organization, enter 100%.) _________ 

c. Approximately what percentage of these sales (using the answer 

to Question 7.b. as a reference point) is related to sales of 

semiconductor products or products to the semiconductor 

industry? _______ 

B-2 
 

 

Appendix B — Interview Guide 

PART 2: Use of SEMATECH/NIST Low-k Materials 

Characterization Data 

1. What do you know about SEMATECH’s low-k materials 

characterization data that were disseminated between 1998 and 

2006? 

______________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

2. How did you use the data SEMATECH disseminated? 

______________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

3. During what years and at what level did you use SEMATECH’s data?

 ______________________________________________________ 

4. What benefits did you observe from using SEMATECH’s data? (That 

is, how did costs for R&D, the adoption of low-k materials, and 

production costs differ based on the availability of SEMATECH’s 

materials characterization data?) The following table provides some 

broad potential benefit descriptions. 

Benefit Description Benefit Type Primary Beneficiaries 

Decreased materials 

characterization effort 

resulting from using 

NIST data 

•

•

R&D cost savings 

 Adoption (low-k 

material) cost savings 

• Materials suppliers 

• Equipment suppliers 

• Device manufacturers 

Cost savings from not 

using faulty/costly 

materials processes 

•

•

 Adoption (low-k 

material) cost savings 

 Production cost 

• Device manufacturers 

into new fabs savings 

a. R&D cost savings: _____________________ 

b. Low-k materials adoption cost savings: ____________________ 

c. Production cost savings: ______________________ 

5. Did you observe any significant adoption costs as part of this 

process?

 ______________________________________________________ 

6. What work were you doing on low-k materials characterization 

between 1995 and 2000? 

______________________________________________________ 

B-3
 
 

________ 

__________________________________________________ 

_________________________ 

 

Economic Analysis of NIST’s Low-k Materials Characterization Research 

7. What would you have done differently in the absence of this data? 

______________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

8. Are you aware that NIST was involved in developing this data? 

a. If so, what role do you believe that NIST had? 

(provide information as necessary) 

b. What portion of the benefits described above should be 

attributed to NIST’s involvement in this research? 

PART 3: Use of NIST-Identified X-ray Reflectivity (or 

Porosimetry) Technique for Analysis of Low-k 

Materials 

1. Do you use X-ray reflectivity for low-k materials characterization 

(also known as porosimetry)? ___________________________ 

a. If so, when did you start using X-ray techniques for low-k 

materials characterization? ____________________________ 

2. What do you know about NIST’s role in helping to identify X-ray 

techniques for analysis of low-k materials characteristics? 

______________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

3. If possible, please describe how you used NIST’s research on X-ray 

techniques (e.g., based on their published papers and best practice 

guides)? 

______________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

4. When did you use NIST’s research findings? 

______________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

5. What benefits did you observe from using NIST-described X-ray 

techniques? (That is, how did costs for R&D, the adoption of low-k 

materials, and production costs differ based on the use of X-ray 

reflectivity for low-k materials characterization?) 

a. R&D cost savings: _____________________ 

b. Low-k materials’ adoption cost savings: ____________________ 

c. Production cost savings: ______________________ 

B-4 
Appendix B — Interview Guide 

6. What did it cost your firm (e.g., training, new equipment costs, 

installation costs, downtime) to adopt X-ray techniques as part of 

your analysis of low-k materials? 

______________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

7. How were you conducting pore analysis of low-k materials prior to 

using X-ray techniques? 

______________________________________________________ 

8. What would you have done differently in the absence of this 

technique? 

______________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

B-5