To the Digital Age: Research Labs, Start-up Companies, and the Rise of MOS Technology

Appendix 1: Organizational Charts

APPENDIX 1: ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS This page intentionally left blank 311 TABLE A.1 ≤ IBM RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, 1963 IBM Director of Research Assistant Director of Research Director of Mathematical Sciences Director of General Science Director of Solid State Sciences Director of Experimental Machines Director of Engineering Science Director of Experimental Systems Manager of San Jose Research Lab Manager of Watson Lab, Columbia University NOTE: The LSI program initially included members from both the Experimental Machines group (which dealt with circuits and systems) and the Solid State Sciences group. Research later reorganized so the members of the program were in one group called Solid-State Electronics. SOURCE: From IBM Organization Directory, 25 January 1963, Box TMB 106, IBM Technical History Project, IBM Archives , Somers, New York. FIGURE A.1 ≤ ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH LARGE-SCALE INTEGRATION (LSI) PROGRAM, MAY 1966. From C. Kinberg and I. Ringstrom, ‘‘Review of LSI Program, Research, Yorktown Heights, Visit on May 5, 1966,’’ Box TAR 243, IBM Technical History Project, IBM Archives, Somers, New York. 312 313 FIGURE A.2 ≤ IBM ORGANIZATION, APRIL 1966. Research was in the group headed by E. G. Fubini, while the Components Division, which had responsibility for semiconductor development and manufacturing, reported to F. T. Cary, the head of the Data Processing Group. The Data Processing Group also included the divisions responsible for the development, manufacturing, and marketing of IBM’s large computer systems. A. R. DiPietro was on the corporate staff (far right). Redrawn from Emerson W. Pugh, Lyle R. Johnson, and John H. Palmer, IBM’s 360 and Early 370 Systems (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991), 664. Used with permission. 314 Appendix 1 FIGURE A.3 ≤ LEE BOYSEL’S MOS COMPUTER DESIGN MANIFESTO, SEPTEMBER 1967 — BOYSEL’S PLAN FOR A COMPUTER BUILT OUT OF MOS TECHNOLOGY. Each block represents an MOS part. The Fairchild part number is given in the right-hand corner (‘‘P’’ indicates a part that is planned). Redrawn version of diagram provided by Lee Boysel. Robert Noyce (Fairchild) President Gordon Moore (Fairchild R&D) Executive Vice President Ted Hoff (Stanford Research Institute) Applications Research Andrew Grove (Fairchild R&D) Operations Gene Flath (Fairchild manufacturing) Manufacturing Tom Rowe (Fairchild manufacturing) Gary Hart (Fairchild manufacturing) George Staudacher (Fairchild manufacturing) George Chiu (Fairchild manufacturing) Larry Brown, technician (Fairchild R&D) Bob Holmstrom (Sprague) Ted Jenkins (Fairchild R&D) Gus Skousen (Signetics) Les Vadasz (Fairchild R&D) MOS Engineering Joel Karp (Philco Microelectronics) Dick Bohn (Sylvania) Bipolar Engineering H. T. Chua (Fairchild) Tom Innes (Sylvania) Desmond Fitzgerald (Fairchild R&D) Quality Assurance FIGURE A.4 ≤ INTEL ENGINEERING PERSONNEL AND PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, CIRCA SPRING 1969. While Fairchild was the source of a large number of Intel’s early employees, they came from both R&D and manufacturing, and a significant number of employees came from other firms. Sources: List of first fifty Intel employees provided by Intel Museum, Santa Clara, California; interviews with various Intel employees. FIGURE A.5 ≤ COGAR ORGANIZATION CHART, CIRCA SPRING 1972. Although Cogar was still a small start-up company making very little product, it had formed a very large and complex organization. In the Components Operations section there are pairs of similarly named departments (epitaxy engineering /epitaxy manufacturing, photoresist engineering/photoresist manufacturing, etc.). Each pair had one manager, with the idea that they would become two separate departments as the company grew. One can see in this chart the many functions that Cogar internalized, from the technically challenging, such as mask manufacturing or test equipment development, to the more trivial, such as library or cafeteria. The department marked ‘‘manufacturing support’’ had formerly been a research group, but as Cogar began to run short on funds and needed help in production, it was converted. Redrawn version of chart provided by Robert Meade. ...