TSMC Executive Reveals Why 24-Hour R&D Failed and How “One Team” Helped Shape Its Chip Leadership
TSMC once tried to speed up its semiconductor research by keeping development work running around the clock. The idea sounded powerful on paper: if engineers could work in shifts 24 hours a day, the company might move faster than global rivals and close the technology gap more quickly. But according to TSMC Co-COO and Executive Vice President Y.P. Chyn, the experiment failed in just six months.
Speaking with students at National Cheng Kung University during the United Daily News Group’s “United 75, Smart Future” event series, Chyn shared a rare look into one of TSMC’s past management experiments. The program, known internally as “Night Owl,” was launched at a time when the company was under pressure to catch up in advanced process technology.
The thinking behind the project was simple: while some competitors worked standard hours, TSMC could gain an advantage by extending research and development into the night. Engineers were encouraged to take on nighttime development tasks in the hope that more hours would lead to faster breakthroughs.
But semiconductor innovation did not work that way.
Chyn explained that research and development depends on judgment, creativity, technical insight, and deep problem-solving. Simply adding more working hours does not automatically produce better results. His key takeaway was clear: R&D runs on brainpower, not labor.
That lesson became important as TSMC evolved into the world’s leading contract chipmaker. Instead of relying on longer hours, the company began focusing more heavily on how teams communicate, share responsibility, and solve problems together.
Chyn also pointed to the 40nm process generation as a major turning point in TSMC’s internal culture. At the time, the company’s traditional workflow began showing serious weaknesses. The old model was straightforward: the R&D team would develop a new manufacturing process, then hand it over to the fabrication plants for mass production. But this approach created difficulties when the technology moved from the lab into real-world manufacturing.
The challenges forced TSMC to rethink how its research teams and factory teams should work together. Over time, this shift led to what the company calls its “One Team” culture.
According to Chyn, “One Team” is not just a motivational phrase or a call for employees to be helpful. It means different departments must share the same goal and be jointly responsible for the outcome. Instead of one team finishing its part and passing the problem to another, multiple groups work together from an earlier stage.
This approach has made a significant difference in advanced chip manufacturing. When a new process technology is transferred from R&D to volume production, involving factory teams earlier helps smooth the ramp-up. Engineers in the fab can provide practical feedback before problems become expensive or time-consuming.
The same idea applies when a manufacturing issue appears. Rather than leaving a single department to investigate the problem alone, TSMC brings multiple teams together to identify the root cause. This can shorten troubleshooting time and improve production efficiency.
Chyn said this collaborative model is also essential as TSMC expands globally. The company’s overseas fabs cannot operate as completely separate organizations from Taiwan. Instead, teams in Taiwan must work closely with international sites and share responsibility for their success.
That kind of cooperation can help improve technology transfer, manufacturing consistency, and operational stability across regions. For a company building advanced semiconductor fabs outside its home base, strong internal coordination is critical.
Still, Chyn acknowledged that creating a true “One Team” culture is not easy. Departments do not automatically become aligned just because leadership tells them to collaborate. It takes time, effort, trust, and a shared understanding of responsibility.
The failure of the “Night Owl” program appears to have left TSMC with a valuable lesson: innovation cannot be forced by stretching work hours. In the semiconductor industry, where each new process node requires extreme precision and complex problem-solving, success depends more on talent, teamwork, and execution than on simply spending more time at the desk.
Today, TSMC’s rise in advanced chip manufacturing is often associated with cutting-edge technology, massive investment, and strong customer demand. But Chyn’s comments highlight another important factor behind the company’s success: an internal culture built around cross-department collaboration and shared accountability.
For TSMC, the path to technology leadership was not just about working harder. It was about learning how to work smarter, together.
