The initial digital benchmarking survey can be segmented into four distinct sections. The first section, which includes questions 1 and 2 are designed to determine the respondent’s background and primary job function. In order to insure the validity of the survey, it is important to verify that the respondents are qualified to answer the questions. It was also designed to ensure that there was a representative mix of system makers, power converter manufacturers and semiconductor manufacturers. In addition, the last part of the survey (immediately after question 12) asks for respondent information, such as company and location. This information was used to verify that companies or alliances between companies could not skew the results.
The second part of the survey includes questions 3 through 5, these are designed to rank digital power IC companies. Questions 6 though 8 make up the third part of the survey and are designed to rank digital power converter companies. The final part of the survey, questions 9 through 12, is designed to rank the overall position of both digital power converter and digital power IC companies.
The structure of this questionnaire lends itself to a straightforward, quantitative analysis. To determine top-level mind share, each respondent was asked to list their top three companies for each category in order. A company that was listed first received 3 points, second received 2 points and third received 1 point. These points were totaled across surveys to determine leaders.
To determine rank on individual aspects of digital power, the respondents answered two types of questions. The first was a ranking question with features/functions such as Price, Interoperability, Design Tools, Pure Digital Solution and Hybrid Analog/Digital Solution ranked 1 through 5, with 5 being most important. In order for the response to be valid, the participating respondent could not use any number more than once, and could not leave any attribute unranked. Then for each company mentioned, the respondent rated the company on a scale of 0 (poor) through 10 (excellent) based on how the company performs on that feature/function. The rank and rating were then multiplied to determine how that respondent felt about that company. For example, if a respondent said “Company A” was a 10 on Price and rated Price as the most important (5), the company got a score of fifty (10 x 5 = 50) for the Price. On the other hand, if Interoperability was ranked a 3 and the company rated a 6, the company received a score of eighteen (3 x 6 = 18). Companies were then compared based on their average scores across respondents.
Prior to conducting this analysis, all “own responses” were ignored. This means that any time a representative from “Company A” mentioned “Company A” that response was removed from the data set. This was done to stop any company from “stuffing the ballot box.” The same procedure was checked for alliance/standard membership. However, since alliance/standard membership did not have a significant affect on the findings, alliance membership was not adjusted for in the final results.
The second follow-up Digital IC survey consists of 5 questions. Questions 1 and 2 are designed to determine what level of integration, and which features and functions should be included in a digital IC. Question 3 is intended to determine what type of communications protocol(s) and bus(s) should the IC be able to use. Question 4 identifies the target markets for the IC manufacturers. The final question, number 5, is based on the markets checked in question 4. In this question, the respondent ranks the desired features and functions from 1 to 5 in order of importance (5 being most important and 1 being least important). In this question, respondents were allowed to use a number more than once. In order to thoroughly evaluate the responses in this section, a number of comparisons and references will be made to Darnell’s earlier 2007 study “Digital Power Electronics: IC Product Introduction Trends”.
The final survey was a short two question survey designed to determine what percentage of the participating companies focused on standard designs vs. custom designs. Unlike the other surveys, this questionnaire allowed the participant to add their own personal opinions and comments on the percentage breakdown of custom vs. standard design in the area of digital power management.
In 2006, the Darnell Group generated the first survey designed to establish which semiconductor and power converter companies were perceived as leaders in the digital power market. Since then, significant commercial and technological strides have been made in digital power management and control. No longer considered an emerging technology, digital power now plays a significant role in the area of power conversion and power management for a growing number of applications. As the interest in digital power grows, an increasing number of semiconductor companies and power converter manufacturers are competing to determine what kind of functions and features system makers want, what will be the value-added benefit of digital over analog and what are the external demands that digital will meet more effectively than analog. Like last year, the purpose of this year’s survey is to determine “who’s in the lead in the digital power control market.”
In an established market, leadership is normally determined by market share, which implies that companies that ship the largest dollar value of products are the inherent leaders in the market. As a result of market inertia, market share leaders tend to be somewhat stable, especially over a short time period. Although the digital power industry has progressed substantially over the past several years, it is still too early to properly quantify market share statistics. So, in order to determine market leadership among the numerous semiconductor and power converter companies involved in digital power management, the Darnell Group employed the use of mind share analysis. Mind share is a measure of how companies are perceived in the market by their competitors, suppliers and customers. Once the industry matures, mind share typically translates to market share, because the better the company’s products are perceived to be, the more likely the company is to generate sales and hence market share.
The Darnell Group employed a series of benchmarking surveys to determine mind share. The initial benchmarking survey includes questions designed to determine who the leaders are in the Digital Power IC Market, the Digital Power Converter Market and the overall Digital Power Market. The survey results allow for the determination of broad leaders in the market, as well as for certain criteria in the market such as price, interoperability, design tools, pure digital solution, hybrid solutions and so on. A follow-up survey was also conducted and was designed to determine what level of integration manufacturers found most desirable in a digital IC, and included such features as parametric monitoring, feature configuration, power conversion and performance configuration. Finally, we designed a survey to determine what percentage of digital power products released were standard designs and what percentage were custom designs. A copy of each of these surveys can be found in the appendix to this report.
Survey Information and Data Collection
In conducting the series of surveys, several hundred representatives from semiconductor, power converter and systems manufacturers were contacted. The respondents included representatives from the leading server, storage, data communications, communications, power supply, dc-dc converter, power semiconductor microprocessors and distributor companies. Potential survey participants were reached through a number of Darnell Group resources, including individuals and companies receiving the PowerPulse daily newsletter, past and present attendees at the Digital Power Forum and other conferences, and from existing Darnell data bases containing semiconductor companies, power converter companies and systems makers. The representatives of these companies were invited to complete and fax the surveys back to us or to complete them online. Of the initial digital benchmarking surveys returned, 35 were completed properly and considered valid, which is a statistically valid sample for this type of survey. Of the secondary digital IC follow up surveys, 15 were returned and considered valid. Finally, we received 20 valid responses to our survey that was designed to determine what percentage of digital power products released were standard designs and what percentage were custom designs.
.gif)
.gif){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
