Methodology to review chamber type equipment performance

1. Background · In the general practice, we review the equipment performance; uptime, efficiency, and moves base on “main frame” tool level using CIM report system. · The main frame performance review methodology cannot distinguish the “real” uptime and efficiency performance for “chamber” base tool (Refer to Figure 1). We may overestimate the uptime performance and underestimate the efficiency performance because the chamber down and PM time were not reflected in the main frame statement (Refer to Figure 2). · Current report system only provides tool level information. When individual chambers in one main frame are running different process groups, the main tool performance review methodology/report becomes redundant. From capacity point view, we need to differentiate each individual process group performance and not the main tool performance as this data did not correctly reflect each individual process group performance · Due to the limitation of existing CIM report, we are unable to get the required chamber information. Current system only provide time log information of the “main frame” and equipment moves is only available at mainframe level which is determined by the number of lots tracked in. 2. Purpose · Derive a new methodology which can indicate the chamber base tools performance.. Create a new report system based on new methodology, so we can review the chamber tools performance precisely (Refer Figure 3). 3. Approach · Re-define the equipment performance KPI (Key Performance Index) based on the chamber level (Refer to Figure 4). · Re-define the process move based on chamber capability to measure the individual process group performance. Therefore corrective action plan can be executed effectively to optimize the chamber tools performance. · Retrieve the required data from CIM based on new definitions. · Revamp the repo- t system for all the chamber base tools (ex. Etch, CVD, PVD, RTA) 4. Achieved Results . By introducing the new chamber level report system (Refer to Figure 5), we are able to tackle the chamber base tool performance more clearly and even for those same main frame but running different process chamber´s performance. · For example, our Fab has 18 Lam Poly Etch tools which have total 54 chambers to support 10 process groups. Before introducing the new methodology and report system, we had difficulty to measure each process group performance. After implemented the new chamber report system, we had derived the key improvement productivity for the critical chamber to support our business growing.