TEXPO2025

Overview 

This award recognizes novel use or development of Computer Aided Design (CAD) tools or design methods leading to the improved manufacture and application of sophisticated microsystem prototypes relevant to Canadian industry, ideally evidenced by an industrial collaborator. The award will be made to the competitor who demonstrates a novel design technology advancement with the most potential for substantive improvements to microsystems manufacture and deployment. Examples include:  

• New algorithms or techniques to improve tool/task quality of results or runtimes.  

• Design abstractions, languages or integration of design environments enabling multi-technology domain or multi-disciplinary development and prototyping.  

• Enhancements to “Design for …” methodologies such as manufacturability, security.  

• Novel use of cloud-based infrastructure to accelerate use of existing tools or flows.  

• The award is open to graduate students of a Canadian university.  

Winners are strongly encouraged to use prize funds to support education or training related to microsystems R&D and may be applied to the cost of attending a conference or workshop or visiting a lab or other technical facility inside or outside of Canada.  

Judging Criteria 

The judging panel will consist of three representatives from Canadian industry, academia, and non-for-profit organizations. The judges assess each competitor and select the demonstration that best meets the following criteria:  

Criterion 1: Technical Excellence (20 points) 

• Success in demonstration of the technology. Did it work/is the technique practical?  

• Novel application of CAD software or techniques.  

• Level of difficulty attempted; creativity/perseverance in overcoming problems during development.  

• Did it result in a manufactured prototype?  

• Exhibitor’s grasp of the technical aspects of the project.  

• Clear understanding of the importance of this project, i.e., why is this problem important?  

Criterion 2: Application to Industry (20 points) 

• Was there an industrial collaborator? What value does this offer to the industrial collaborator? Is it a significant or incremental solution? How does it compare to existing solutions?  

• What was the nature of the interaction/participation between the company and the researcher, e.g., on-site work or design reviews? What was the extent of investment by the industrial collaborator, e.g., time invested or students trained/hired?  

• Does the infrastructure exist to take it to a commercial scale?  

• How will it impact/improve the manufacture or application of micro/nano-systems in Canada? (e.g., cost, reliability, time to market)  

• How easy would it be to use this from a user’s (compared to the developer’s) point of view?  

Criterion 3: Presentation Excellence and Visual Effectiveness (10 Points) 

• Explanation of the background information or theory in a form understandable to one’s peers.  

• Clarity of explanation of key technical points.  

• Fluency in explanation, interplay between those making the presentation.  

• Humour, flair, originality.  

• Smooth recovery from an unexpected problem.  

• Quality and effectiveness of visual/written materials.  

Note 

Where projects have been undertaken by a team and over a period of time, the presenter must clearly differentiate what the current contribution is, including their own contribution. 

Overview 

This award recognizes research conducted by women that is relevant to and advances the field of microsystems research in Canada. It has produced substantive results that are publishable, has commercial potential, or has been supported by an industrial collaborator. Interdisciplinary work or novel work carried out in university-based labs or cleanrooms are also eligible.  

The award is open to female graduate students of a Canadian university.  

Winners are strongly encouraged to use prize funds to support education or training related to micro-nanosystems R&D and may be applied to the cost of attending a conference or workshop or visiting a lab or other technical facility inside or outside of Canada.  

Judging Criteria 

The judging panel will consist of three representatives from Canadian industry and academia and non-for-profit organizations. The judges assess each competitor and select the demonstration that best meets the following criteria:  

Criterion 1: Technical Excellence (20 points) 

• Success in demonstration of the technology. Did it work/is the technique practical?  

• Originality of design or novelty of technique or novel application of CAD software or design techniques.  

• Level of difficulty attempted; creativity/perseverance in overcoming problems during development. Did it result in a manufactured prototype?  

• Exhibitor’s grasp of the technical aspects of the project; understanding of tradeoffs (cost, power size) and worst/best-case design considerations.  

• Clear understanding of the importance of this project, i.e., why is this problem important?  

Criterion 2: Relevance and contribution to microsystems research in Canada (20 points) 

• Was the microsystems project concept innovative?  Is it a significant or incremental solution? How does it compare to existing solutions?   

• Would this attract an industrial sponsor? Is the commercial application practical in terms of manufacturing, form factor, and economics?   

• Was the role of packaging and/or integration considered while designing the component? 

• How will it impact/improve the manufacture or application of micro/nano-systems in Canada? (e.g., cost, reliability, time to market)  

• If a university lab facility was used, were lab capabilities effectively used? Was consideration given to potential use of toolsets from multiple labs, or a combination of hands-on fabrication and lab services? Were the research objectives pursued by custom fabrication such that they could not have been readily achieved otherwise.  

Criterion 3: Presentation Excellence and Visual Effectiveness (10 Points) 

• Explanation of the background information or theory in a form understandable to one’s peers.  

• Clarity of explanation of key technical points.  

• Fluency in explanation, interplay between those making the presentation.  

• Humour, flair, originality.  

• Smooth recovery from an unexpected problem. 

• Quality and effectiveness of visual/written materials.  

Note 

Where projects have been undertaken by a team and over a period of time, the presenter must clearly differentiate what the current contribution is, including their own contribution 

Overview 

The Excellence in Microsystems Fabrication award recognizes outstanding research involving hands-on work at one or more fabrication laboratories in a post-secondary institution in Canada or devices fabricated using commercial foundry services through CMC. The successful competitor will have demonstrated high– quality work in use of techniques for micro-nano fabrication, including layout design, testing, packaging, and assembly.  

Priority will be given to submissions related to emerging technologies in the following categories:   

• MEMS: capacitive MEMS, piezo-MEMS, magnetic MEMS, optical MEMS, microfluidics and bio-MEMS, etc. 

• Microelectronics: use of substrates (planar CMOS, SiGe, BiCMOS, SOI, FinFET, GaN, InPh, InAlN, SiC, SiGe, flexible substrates, etc.); post-processing of custom/commercial wafers for new applications; heterogenous integration of material/ substrates; printed electronics; thin film transistors; creation of new nanostructures, 2D material etc.  

• Photonics: planar lightwave circuits (PLCs) made from Si, SiN, or other materials, III-V multi-quantum well devices, fibre-based devices, thin-film devices, Silicon Photonics, etc.  

• Quantum: superconducting devices, quantum dots, graphene, quantum sensing and communication devices, nanomechanics devices, etc. 

This award is open to graduate students of a Canadian university. Winners are strongly encouraged to use prize funds to support education or training related to micro-nanosystems R&D. Prize funds may be applied to the cost of attending a conference or workshop or visiting a lab or other technical facility inside or outside of Canada.  

Judging Criteria 

The judging panel will consist of three representatives from Canadian industry, academia, and non-for-profit organizations. The judges assess each competitor and select the demonstration that best meets the following criteria:  

Criterion 1: Technical Excellence (20 points) 

• Achieves technical success with a functional device outcome. 

• Demonstrates originality or innovation in the approach to the problem. 

• Demonstrates a disciplined approach to process design and an understanding of process integration. Practices can include but are not limited to, design of experiments, process simulation, and chip design. 

• Demonstrates understanding of the role of manufacturability aspects, such as design-for-test, design for manufacturability, metrology, yield analysis, and process control. 

• Duly considers the role of packaging and/or integration and the interaction of these processes with the fabricated components. 

• Effectively uses lab capabilities, considering potential use of toolsets from multiple labs or service providers, or a combination of hands-on fabrication, commercial fabrication and lab services. The research objectives pursued by custom fabrication could not have been readily achieved otherwise. 

Criterion 2: Relevance and contribution to the field of research (20 points) 

• The technology leads to new scientific discovery or advances the manufacturability, yield, performance, cost effectiveness relative to the state of the art. 

• Documentation of the design or fabrication process facilitates retention of knowledge and transfer of knowledge. 

• If using a lab facility at an academic institution, Lab user(s) works effectively with lab staff to maximize efficiency of the research and likelihood of success. 

• If using a commercial foundry, the technology/application shows commercial potential that leads to societal benefit. Industry collaboration in the work is viewed favourably. 

Criterion 3: Presentation Excellence and Visual Effectiveness (10 Points) 

• Explanation of the background information or theory in a form understandable to one’s peers.  

• Clarity of explanation of key technical points.  

• Fluency in explanation, interplay between those making the presentation.  

• Humour, flair, originality.  

• Smooth recovery from an unexpected problem.  

• Quality and effectiveness of visual/written materials.  

Note 

When presenting a collaborative project, the presenter must clarify individual contributions. 

Overview 

This award recognizes outstanding research and development in quantum algorithms or computing, broadly defined. This award will be made to a competitor who, through a singular project or aggregate body of work, has made significant contributions to quantum algorithms or computing. These contributions should be freely available to the community, for example through peer-reviewed publications, preprints, or code repositories. Example topics include, but are not limited to: 

• Development of near-term quantum algorithms for specific applications. 

• Discovery of novel or improvement of existing quantum error correction codes or fault-tolerant operations. 

• Research in fault-tolerant quantum algorithms, quantum complexity theory, or in resource estimates for quantum algorithms. 

• Design of quantum information protocols applicable to quantum computing, e.g. characterization, benchmarking, entanglement distribution, or networking. 

• Experimental demonstration of quantum algorithms or quantum information protocols. 

This award is open to graduate students enrolled at a Canadian university. Winners are strongly encouraged to use prize funds to support education or training related to quantum algorithms/computing. For example, the award may be applied to the cost of attending a conference or workshop or visiting a lab or other technical facility inside or outside of Canada.  

Judging Criteria 

The judging panel will consist of three representatives from Canadian industry, academia, and non-for-profit organizations. The judges assess each competitor and select the applicant that best meets the following criteria:  

Criterion 1: Technical Excellence (20 points) 

• Correctness of the quantum algorithm, protocol, or experimental implementation. 

• Novelty of the idea and the techniques developed. Can the ideas and techniques be reused elsewhere? 

• Depth and complexity of the idea or demonstration. Were many technically challenging problems overcome? 

• Exhibitor’s grasp of the technical aspects of the project, and any remaining open questions.  

Criterion 2: Relevance and contribution to the field of research (20 points) 

• Significance of the development within its specific subfield of quantum algorithms or computing. Does the idea solve an outstanding problem or open a new avenue of research? 

• Broadness of impact within quantum algorithms and computing. Will multiple research directions be impacted, and is the idea or demonstration of general interest? 

• Explanation of the background of the idea or demonstration. Was prior work appropriately acknowledged? 

• Clear understanding of the importance of this project, i.e., why was this research or development important? 

Criterion 3: Presentation Excellence and Visual Effectiveness (10 Points) 

• Explanation of the background information and importance of the idea or development.  

• Clarity of explanation of key technical points. 

• Fluency in explanation, interplay between those making the presentation.  

• Smooth recovery from an unexpected problem. 

• Quality and effectiveness of visual/written materials.  

Note 

Where projects have been undertaken by a team and/or over a period of time, the presenter must clearly differentiate what the current contribution is, and specify individual contributions. 

Overview

This award recognizes exemplary research using micro-nanosystems technologies in collaborative, multi-disciplinary and/or multi-technology environments. The research project is expected to be both novel and relevant to industry in Canada, ideally evidenced by an industrial collaborator. The award will be made to the competitor who demonstrates the most effective research project with a focus on heterogeneous integration. Examples include:

• A project integrating microelectronic chips fabricated using different CMOS technology nodes (e.g., 130nm and 12nm processes), or chips from distinctly different microsystems technology domains (e.g., microelectronics and photonics in either a monolithic or heterogeneous environment).
• A project integrating hardware and software components using novel techniques or architectures. Architectures may combine heterogeneous processing elements and/or accelerators, for example: FPGA, ASIP, GPU. Software components might include, for example: drivers, software stacks, application code. Projects may involve embedded/edge devices through to cloud-based installations.
• A microsystems project with two or more researchers from distinctly different research disciplines, e.g., EE/ECE, Mechanical Engineering and Biochemistry.

Submissions should be working demonstrations of prototypes which exemplify the concept of multi-technology and/or multi-disciplinary microsystems integration.

The award is open to graduate students of a Canadian university.

Winners are strongly encouraged to use prize funds to support education or training related to micro-nanosystems R&D and may be applied to the cost of attending a conference or workshop or visiting a lab or other technical facility inside or outside of Canada.

Judging Criteria

The judging panel will consist of three representatives from Canadian industry, academia, and non-for-profit organizations . The judges assess each competitor and select the demonstration that best meets the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Microsystems Integration (15 Points)

• Is there value to the integration of two or more microsystems technologies?
• Is there significant evidence of multi-disciplinary integration in a microsystems project?
• Was the microsystems project concept innovative and was its innovation dependent on integrating multi-technologies and/or on multi-disciplinary researchers?
• Did it incorporate components produced by suppliers in Canada?

Criterion 2: Technical Excellence (15 Points)

• Success in the demonstration of the technology. Did it work/is the technique practical?
• Originality of design or novelty of technique.
• Degree of excellence in taking advantage of the features of component technologies and/or of integrating component functionality.
• Level of difficulty attempted; creativity/perseverance in overcoming problems during development.
• Exhibitor’s grasp of the technical aspects of the project.
• Degree of relevance of project from a microsystems applications perspective.
• Clear understanding of the importance of this project, i.e., why is this problem important?

Criterion 3: Application to Industry (10 Points)

• Was there an industrial collaborator? What value does this offer to the industrial collaborator? Is it a significant or incremental solution? How does it compare to existing solutions?
• What was the nature of the interaction/participation between the company and the researcher, e.g., on-site work or design reviews? What was the extent of investment by the industrial collaborator, e.g., time invested or students trained/hired?
• Does the infrastructure exist to take it to a commercial scale?
• How will it impact/improve the manufacture or application of micro/nano-systems in Canada? (e.g., cost, reliability, time to market)
• Was interaction with other materials, components or the environment taken into consideration?
• How easy would it be to use this from a user’s (compared to the developer’s) point of view?

Criterion 4: Presentation Excellence and Visual Effectiveness (10 Points)

• Explanation of the background information or theory in a form understandable to one’s peers.
• Clarity of explanation of key technical points.
• Fluency in explanation, interplay between those making the presentation.
• Humour, flair, originality.
• Smooth recovery from an unexpected problem.
• Quality and effectiveness of visual/written materials.

Note
Where projects have been undertaken by a team and over a period of time, the presenter must clearly differentiate what the current contribution is, including their own contribution.