Chapter D6

Microwave Application and Product Seminars (µAPS)

IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium

Guidelines and Procedures Manual


Prepared by Lisa Critchlow

Reviewed by Vijay Nair

Table of Contents

1.      Purpose and Duties

2.      Suggested Organizational Structure

3.      Timeline of Events

4.      Description of Events

5.      Problems Encountered

6.      Suggestions and Recommendations

7.      Conclusions

8.      IMS Recent Reports

8.1.   IMS2003

8.2.   IMS2004

8.3.   IMS2005

8.4.   IMS2007

8.5.   IMS2008

8.6.   IMS2011

8.7.   IMS2012

8.8.   IMS2015

1. Purpose and Duties

The purpose of the µAPS committee is to organize the technical presentations for µAPS.  The µAPS program provides a forum for exhibitors to present technical information related to commercially available state-of-the-art products of interest to the microwave community.  Typical classifications include but are not limited to: 

2. Suggested Organizational Structure


Vice chairperson

Horizon House Contact (responsible for mailings, etc.)

Three (3) technical volunteers to review the submitted abstracts and accept or reject them

Six (6) – Eight (8) volunteers to physically proctor the sessions

3. Timeline of Events

Timeline of Events



1.      Call for Abstracts                         

Same as IMS Technical Papers

2.      Receipt of Abstracts                    

Same as IMS Technical Papers

3.      Review of Abstracts and Confirmation that Submitter is an Exhibitor

Same as IMS Technical Papers

4.      Acceptance / Rejection based on content, number of submissions, number of available time slots, etc.


5.      Final Schedule Determination

Early January

6.      Notification to Submitters of Acceptance/Rejection and their assigned time slot

Mid January

7.      Housekeeping:  Room reservations, sign arrangements, projection equipment request form, gifts for volunteers, etc.

As needed

8.      Submission of Final Program Information for Printing

Late January

9.      Arrange for proctor volunteers and organize schedules

March - April

10.  Reminder E-Mail to Presenters giving date and location


11.  Preparation of hard copy hand-out detailing changes, cancellations, etc.


4. Description of Events

1.      Call for Abstracts – this is an email notification sent by Microwave Journal to the exhibitor list.  It is an invitation to submit abstracts for inclusion in the µAPS program.  See (ch_T_invitation.doc) for the text.

2.      Receipt of Abstracts – exhibitors email their submissions.  Assign each abstract a number for tracking purposed.  Log each one into a Word Document for tracking purposes – this document will later be used to plan the final schedule.  Make and communicate any decisions on whether or not to grant deadline extensions, etc.   See

3.      Review of Abstracts and Confirmation that the Submitter is an Exhibitor – examine each to be sure the requested information is complete enough for review.   Obtain a list of exhibitors from Microwave Journal coordinator and check to be sure the company is an exhibitor.

4.      Acceptance / Rejection based on content, number of submissions, number of available time slots, confirmation that submitter is an exhibitor, etc.   NOTE:  There is some feeling that since the exhibitors are paying money to participate in the IMS, every effort should be extended to accommodate their request for time on the program.  However, there are a finite number of slots available.  Historically, the µAPS program runs concurrently with the exhibit hours, and with each session being approximately 20 minutes each, there is a maximum number of slots available.  Should the number of applicants exceed the number of slots, there will need to be more rigorous selection criteria applied to the submitted abstracts. 

5.      Final Schedule Determination – based on the abstracts received and their content, determine the appropriate session categories.  Group the  abstracts into their category and layout the final schedule.  See (ch_T_2002MicroAPSAbstracts.xls) for example.

6.      Notification to Submitters of Acceptance/Rejection and their assigned time slot – send email notification to submitters.  See (ch_T_sampleacceptanceletter.doc)

7.      Housekeeping – keep in touch with the IMS local arrangements committee and Horizon House to make sure things like room reservations, sign arrangements, projection equipment request form, gifts for volunteers, tables for literature, etc. are taken care of.

8.      Submission of Final Program Information for Printing – send Excel spreadsheet with program information to Microwave Journal to be printed in program.

9.      Arrange for Proctor Volunteers and Organize Schedules – make final arrangements on time slots for the volunteers acting as session proctors.  See (ch_T_proctorschedule.doc)

10.  Reminder E-Mail to Presenters giving date and location – about a month before the conference, send out reminder email notifications to the presenters.

11.  Preparation of hard copy hand-out detailing changes, cancellations, etc. – prepare a handout with any last minute changes to have in the room See (ch_T_MicroAPSChanges.doc) for example.

5. Problems Encountered

1.      Confusion on the submittal requirements for µAPS vs. other technical programs/workshops.

2.      Many delays in getting abstracts on time – most ended up getting submitted after the official deadline.

3.      Wide disparity in quality of abstracts received.

4.      Wide disparity in attendance for each session – in some cases, there were only a couple people in the audience, in some cases, there were as many as 30. 

5.      In one case, an individual was not happy with their assigned category, but it was too late to do anything to change it.  In the past, I believe the session categories were pre-determined and the submitters were asked to identify which category they wanted to be included in…this might be a better approach?

6.      Some confusion over lines of responsibility between IMS and Microwave Journal – generally, these worked out.  

7.      Some exhibitors expressed concern that the deadline for the abstract was too far removed from the date of the show itself.  In some cases, the company wanted to announce a new product, but with the deadline for abstract more than 7 months in advance of the actual show, it was too risky to pre-announce and possible alert their competitors to the new product. 


Here are also some comments by the 2001Chairperson which may be helpful:

·         Lots of fun but lots of work too, not from reviews, but mostly in e-mailing to everyone.

·         Product-oriented technical session (some technical depth) encouraged to present the underlying technology

·         Made a small committee of 3 people to review

·         Did not reject any, just suggested improvements--vendors feel like they've paid for a spot

·         Total of ~70 abstracts submitted; became about 51, mostly from combinations; a few dropped out

·         Authors didn't always listen to him

·         Had to work hard to get the submissions; all came in at the last minute, then gave a two-week extension and another group came in.

·         Harlan Howe has the vendor list and did the publicity

·         IMS website also posted it the Call for Papers

·         Restricted all submissions to e-mail (would prefer to deposit abstracts via the web)

·         Deadline ~Nov 27, then extended to mid-Dec. (lead-time driven by program inputs)

·         Runs Tues PM, all Wed, and most of Thursday

·         Some authors gave a paper similar to their IMS paper--this is OK

·         Fun from a networking perspective, but headaches is from dealing with getting authors to do things

·         Documents: Call for Papers (define formats--he just required an abstract, can be words only); everything run from e-mails. 

·         Local arrangements handled by Harlan Howe – some noise from being on the show floor instead of in a separate room

·         20-min. worked well; can adjusted for the number of papers

·         Picked 4 session chairs to MC the sessions (+ he did one session)

6. Suggestions and Recommendations

1.      Change the wording on the invitation from “Call for Papers” to “Call for Abstracts” and omit any reference to “seminar”.  Make clear the distinction between the µAPS program and the other technical programs, which require papers.  µAPS submissions are strictly abstracts and are not as rigorously juried as the IMS Technical Program papers and workshops.  There seemed to be some confusion on this point.  On several occasions, I had to send out a clarification email along the lines of:

“Joe - I'm glad you are planning to participate.  Sorry for the confusion, and I hope this clarifies things. 

·         The 30-50 word abstract is due on 12-17-01.  This deadline is driven by the need to get the abstract title and author information printed in the program along with the associated time slot which will be assigned.   Acceptance will be based on the abstract information.

·         There is no follow-up deadline for a complete technical paper, since the "papers" for this part of the program will not be published in any proceedings.  The "papers" may take the form of a technical paper, or they may simply be PowerPoint presentations.  They may include a working demonstration of the product, etc.”


2.      Review deadline dates and see if they really need to coincide with the IMS technical program dates – since no paper is actually required, should the deadlines be moved forward to allow a closer connection between abstract submittal and show?


3.      Make better use of the Website – plan to post the abstracts to the website and notify exhibitors in the “Call for Abstracts” that this is the plan.  Having just the Title and Author appear in the program is not really enough to generate interest.  Also, in some cases, publishing the abstracts may increase the quality of them - some were excellent, some were not.  Having the abstracts available on-line to review may also improve attendance at the sessions themselves.


4.      Donn Harvey implemented the idea of ribbons for the speakers and volunteer session proctors – this was very well received and should be repeated in the future.


5.      Having a separate room, but close to the show floor, seems to be the ideal arrangement – it cuts down on the noise and commotion level, but is easy to access.


6.      Last minute cancellations and “no shows” occurred in about 4 of the 54 sessions – should expectations of participation be made clearer upfront to the exhibitors?  Should there be any negative consequences for “no shows”, i.e. being given lower priority for participating in next year’s µAPS?  I have reservations about doing this, but I do think there is value in having a session slot reserved.  How to handle this administratively would be another challenge.


7.      There probably needs to be a higher level review on overall µAPS effectiveness.  Possibly a survey should be done amongst the exhibitor community to solicit their ideas on what they would like to see in future.  To me, there is a general impression that perhaps after 7 years, µAPS  is a bit “stale” with the same people presenting the same information year after year. 

7. Conclusion

There is certainly room for improvement for the µAPS sessions, because they are not as well attended as they could be.  Overall, however, I believe they are worthwhile and with the proper amount of future energy and focus, can continue to add value to the exhibitor community.


8.    IMS Recent Reports

8.1 IMS2003

MicroApps 2003 final report.doc

MicroApps Schedule rev2.xls

8.2 IMS2004



8.3 IMS2005

IMS2005 Microwave ApplicationsFinalReport.doc


8.4 IMS2007




8.5 IMS2008




8.6 IMS2011


8.7 IMS2012

IMS2012_Reports\C__DATA_raafat1_IMS files_Files_Mansour_Micr.pdf



8.8 IMS2015





IMS2015_Reports\IMS2015 MicroApps Update.pptx