Most ASIC schedules fail quietly.
Not because of one catastrophic mistake, but because they were planned as if silicon behaved like software: linear progress, easy reversals, and unlimited iteration. In reality, ASIC development is constrained by physics, manufacturing, and verification effort. Late changes are expensive, and uncertainty compounds quickly.
This article explains why ASIC schedules are often wrong, where teams systematically underestimate effort, and how to build a timeline that reflects reality rather than optimism.
A common planning mistake is to treat the ASIC schedule as a single date: tapeout in month X, silicon back in month Y.
Real projects do not behave this way.
A defensible ASIC timeline is built from phases with iteration bands and explicit risk buffers. If there is no buffer, the plan is not aggressive, it is inaccurate.
At a high level, most ASIC projects move through the following phases:
The mistake is not acknowledging these phases. The mistake is assuming each phase completes cleanly on the first pass.
Teams often track RTL completion because it is visible and measurable. Verification progress is harder to quantify, and as a result it is frequently under-scoped.
In practice, verification defines the schedule.
Every interface, operating mode, power state, and corner case expands the verification matrix. Bugs found late are not just bugs, they are schedule multipliers.
If verification is planned as a background activity, the timeline is already broken.
A more realistic approach includes:
If verification closure is vague, the schedule is guesswork.
IP is often chosen to save time, but integration is rarely instantaneous.
Interface IP, memory compilers, PLLs, SerDes, and security blocks all require configuration, constraint definition, clock and reset integration, and end-to-end validation. Each of these steps introduces iteration.
Schedule risk increases when:
Treating IP integration as a minor task is one of the most common sources of schedule slip in first ASIC projects.
Timing, power integrity, DRC, LVS, IR drop, and electromigration checks rarely pass on the first attempt.
Each signoff category introduces feedback that can affect placement, routing, buffering, and sometimes even architecture. These changes propagate back into verification and timing closure.
A realistic schedule assumes:
Once physical design begins, scope stability becomes more important than incremental feature gains.
Many schedules implicitly assume that “silicon in hand” equals “product ready.”
This is almost never true.
After silicon arrives, teams still need to perform bring-up, functional validation, characterization across voltage and temperature, yield learning, and production test tuning. This phase is essential and time-consuming, especially for first-time designs.
Ignoring this phase creates false expectations with management and customers.
A credible plan treats bring-up and characterization as first-class schedule elements, not footnotes.
A defensible ASIC schedule is explicit about uncertainty.
It does not promise a single date. It defines assumptions, highlights risks, and explains where buffers exist. If management demands one date, it should be accompanied by a probability and a risk explanation.
Practical steps include:
This approach builds credibility and reduces surprise, even when schedules shift.
If your schedule feels aggressive but fragile, the problem is usually not execution. It is alignment. Volume expectations, spec maturity, NRE tolerance, and risk appetite all influence whether an ASIC timeline is realistic.
Before committing to dates, it helps to answer a simpler question: does ASIC make sense for this product now, later, or not at all?
If you want a quick, non-sales directional answer, run the 2-minute ASIC or Not? Decision Wizard to see whether your project is ready for an ASIC timeline today and what gaps need to be closed.
👉 /asic-or-not
