The portrayal of discovery in science and technology is frequently idealized. Scientists are seen as pursuing a well-defined path until a breakthrough is reached. Sometimes it does happen that way. More often it does not. However it may seem, the path to success is rarely discerned at the beginning. The story of the development of copper wiring described in this issue is a useful corrective to the notion that scientific, or even technological, achievements can be unfurled on demand.
The challenges facing an industrial research organization arise in large part from this unpredictable aspect of invention. In the case of a new material or a new application of an old material - such as copper - little was obvious in the beginning. The one thing that practically everyone agreed on was that copper had no place in
a semiconductor line, because it was known to "poison" silicon
devices. Yet, everyone also knew that copper was a better conductor than aluminum - the metal it is now replacing - and was less likely to suffer from electromigration, the electronic version of erosion caused by the flow of electrons rather than water.
Those virtues alone were enough to inspire people to look for a way - against the odds, I might add - to incorporate copper wiring into silicon chips. It required knowledge that no single individual possessed. But the needed expertise, ranging from electroplating technology and metallurgy to device physics, etching and a deep understanding of the entire semiconductor manufacturing process did exist in IBM. Much of the basic scientific knowledge had been developed in Research over many years in the course of doing what Research has always done best; namely, exploring the frontiers of technology in order to extend them.
But what makes the copper story stand out, beyond the fact of its eminent success, is that it drew upon - and drew together - so many individuals within the company, who worked as a team without divisional boundaries toward a goal that many thought was unachievable. In the face of uncertainty and risk, they remained committed to an objective they believed in. In the end, they created more than a chip technology. For those of us supporting them from the sidelines they reaffirmed the value of investing in people willing to challenge conventional wisdom - the
secret, if there is one - of obtaining unconventional results.
Paul M. Horn
senior vice president
Research
