APPLIED

Co$t
Information
Exchange
For Your
Application
&
Use of Cost

MODELING
Modeling

Volume 10, Issue 2

Equipment Performance Metrics,

Inside
Their Relationship and Hierarchy

Dr. Vallabh H. Dhudshia, PhD.

Quality and Reliability Consultant

Introduction
Equipment Performance The semiconductor manufacturing equipment industry has
Metrics ................................1 developed a variety of equipment performance metrics to
satisfy equipment suppliers’ and users’ requirements (see
Calendar of Events.............2 Reference 1). Most of these performance metrics are simple
to understand. However, their relationship with each other
WWK Names Yarbrough and their hierarchy are not clear. The purpose of this paper
Southwest Sales Agent .......5 is to describe the make-up of the following six most widely
used equipment performance metrics, to define their
Cost of Ownership: A Tool relationship with each other, and to show their hierarchy.
for ESH Improvements......8
1. Reliability
Wright Williams & Kelly 2. Maintainability
Re-Opens Texas Offices...13 3. Availability
4. Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE)
New Fellow Category 5. Life Cycle Cost (LCC)
Targets IEEE Members...14 6. Cost of Ownership (COO)
S.Y. Technology Definition of the Performance Metrics
Engineering and
Construction Co. Licenses A. Reliability
WWK Software Suite ......14 Reliability is one of the basic equipment performance
characteristics that has been in use since the 1940's. It is a
life longevity measure of the failure-free operation period
of any equipment. Formally, it is the probability of
Winter 2004 equipment performing its intended functions for a specified
time under the stated operational conditions. One of the
[Continued on Page 3]
ISSN 1094-9739
2

Editorial Calendar of Events

Board
Dr. Scott Mason, PE
Chair of Graduate Studies
March
Department of Industrial Engineering 17-19 SEMICON China
University of Arkansas Shanghai, China
22-23 1st International Workshop in Nano Bio-
Dr. Frank Chance Packaging
President Atlanta, GA
FabTime, Inc. 24-26 9th International Symposium & Exhibition
on Advanced Packaging Materials
Dr. Vallabh H. Dhudshia Atlanta, GA
Author
Hi-Tech Equipment Reliability
April
Mr. Michael Wright 20-22 SEMICON Europa, hall B2 - booth #662
Chief Operating Officer Exhibiting with veonis Technologies
Entegris, Inc.
Munich, Germany
Mr. David L. Bouldin
SiTD Project Manager May
Texas Instruments Incorporated 4-6 ASMC
Boston, MA
Publisher June
Published quarterly by: 1-4 IEEE 54th Electronic Components &
Technology Conference
Wright Williams & Kelly, Inc. Las Vegas, NV
6200 Stoneridge Mall Road 9-12 SEMI FPD Expo Taiwan
3rd Floor Taipei, Taiwan
Pleasanton, CA 94588 21-24 Photomask Europa
Dresden, Germany
Phone 925-399-6246
Fax 925-396-6174 July
E-mail [email protected] 9-10 How to Successfully Manage New Product
Introductions – SEMICON West
Available at: 14 Understanding and Using Cost of
http://www.wwk.com Ownership – SEMICON West
Select “Newsletter” 12-14 SEMICON West, North Hall – booth #5658
San Francisco, CA

APPLIED Co$t MODELING ©2004 WWK

Winter 2004
3

[Continued from Page 1] equipment downtime can be attributed to

most popular metrics of reliability, used in equipment, equipment supplier, or
the semiconductor manufacturing industry, equipment users, the uptime calculations
is Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), vary accordingly. The following three kinds
which is given by of uptime calculation are used in
semiconductor manufacturing: (i) equipment
MTBF = (total operational hours)/(number of failures dependent; (ii) supplier dependent; and (iii)
during the same operational period) operational.
B. Maintainability Equipment dependent uptime includes the
There is no direct relationship between effect of downtime caused by scheduled and
reliability and maintainability. Reliability unscheduled maintenance inherent with the
deals with the operational life longevity and equipment (design) and it is given by:
failures of equipment, while maintainability
deals with restoring the equipment operation Equipment Dependent Uptime, % = (equipment
and the time it takes to restore it. However, uptime x 100)/(equipment uptime + DTE )
both disciplines are complementary and they
support high-level equipment performance Where:
metrics described in the following sections.
DTE = Equipment Dependent Downtimes =
Formally, maintainability is the probability (unscheduled repair time + unscheduled and
scheduled time to change consumables and chemicals
that the equipment will be restored to a + product test time + preventive maintenance time)
specific operational condition (able to
perform all of its intended functions) within Equipment uptime includes productive,
a specified period of time, when the engineering, and standby times. It does not
maintenance is performed by personnel include non-scheduled time such as holidays,
having specified skill levels and using shutdowns, nonworking shifts, etc.
prescribed procedures, resources, and tools.
Maintenance can be either unscheduled or Supplier dependent uptime includes effects
scheduled. One of the most popular of all equipment dependent downtimes
measures of maintainability is Mean Time (DTE) and maintenance delays caused by
To Repair (MTTR), given by: the equipment supplier. It is given by:
MTTR = (total repair time)/(number of repair events) Supplier Dependent Uptime, % = (equipment uptime
x 100)/(equipment uptime + DTE + supplier caused
Repair time includes diagnosis, corrective maintenance delays)
actions, and verification tests, but not
maintenance delays. Operational uptime includes effects of all
downtime caused by scheduled and
C. Availability unscheduled maintenance inherent with the
Availability is a joint measure of reliability equipment, maintenance delays caused by
and maintainability. It is defined as the the equipment supplier and user, and any
probability that equipment will be in a other downtime caused by the equipment
condition to perform its intended functions user (such as facility-related downtime). It is
when required. Percentage uptime is one of given by:
most widely used metrics for availability in
semiconductor manufacturing. Since

ISSN 1094-9739
4

Operational Uptime, % = (equipment uptime x equipment dependent uptime and so forth.

100)/(equipment uptime + equipment downtime)
2. Performance Efficiency
D. Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE) The performance efficiency is based on
OEE is the most recent high-level equipment losses incurred from idling, minor stops, and
performance metric. It was developed as an equipment speed losses. It is given by:
equipment effectiveness metric in Japan to
measure the effectiveness of a Performance Efficiency = (theoretical CT)/( actual
manufacturing technique called Total CT) = (actual PPH)/(theoretical PPH)
Productive Maintenance (TPM). Originally,
it was called Overall Equipment Where:
Effectiveness. The Semiconductor
Equipment and Materials International CT = Process Time
(SEMI) Metrics Committee changed it to PPH = Throughput Rate in Parts (Units) Per Hour
Overall Equipment Efficiency. SEMI and
the American Institute of Total Productive 3. Quality Rate
Maintenance (AITPM) are currently the The quality rate is a measure of output
major sponsors of the OEE metric in the quality and is given by:
USA.
Quality Rate = (total part produced – number of
rejects)/(total parts produced)
OEE is an all-inclusive metric of equipment
productivity, i.e., it is based on reliability Where:
(MTBF), maintainability (MTTR),
utilization (availability), throughput, and Rejects are defined as any produced part that
yield. All the above factors are grouped into does not meet the production criteria.
the following three sub-metrics of
equipment efficiency. 4. Simple OEE
There is a simple and quick way to calculate
1. Availability OEE without going into elaborate
2. Performance efficiency calculations of the above three sub-metrics.
3. Rate of quality
Simple OEE, % = [(number of good units produced
The three sub-metrics and OEE are in ‘t’ calendar hours)/ (t x theoretical PPH)] x 100
mathematically related as follows:
Note that this value gives only rough
OEE, % = Availability x Performance Efficiency x estimate for the OEE. It does not give any
Rate of Quality x 100 indication of improvement activities
direction. There are many other ways to
Now let us look at each OEE sub-metric in calculate OEE depending upon the use of
more detail. the measured values. See Reference 3 for
some of the most popular ways to calculate
1. Availability OEE for semiconductor industry.
We have already defined availability in the
previous section. We can use any uptime This metric is best applied to bottleneck
metric in this equation depending upon tools since it penalizes standby time.
which OEE we are calculating. For example, [Continued on Page 6]
equipment dependent OEE calculations use

APPLIED Co$t MODELING ©2004 WWK

Winter 2004
5

Wright Williams & Kelly Names Yarbrough Southwest Sales Agent

Next Step in Global Expansion of Sales and Service

December 17, 2003 (Pleasanton, CA) –Wright Williams & Kelly (WWK), a cost & productivity
management software and consulting services company, announced today the naming of
Yarbrough Southwest as its sales agent covering the Southwestern US. This appointment
represents the next step in WWK’s strategic vision to provide increased sales and service support
in close proximity to all of its customers, world-wide.

“Yarbrough was selected to support our critical installed base in the Southwest based on their
unparalleled credentials,” states David W. Jimenez, WWK's President. “They combine a unique
understanding of the region’s high-tech industries and the application of our software products
and services to drive manufacturing optimization. Their dedication to both sales and service sets
them apart from other organizations.”

“We are pleased to begin representing WWK and its product line,” says Mike Dailey, President
of Yarbrough Southwest. “We see a large demand for software tools and consulting services
designed to help optimize manufacturing costs and productivity. WWK will help keep our clients
at the forefront of cost competitive operations.”

Yarbrough Southwest was founded in 1973 to serve the emerging Semiconductor and electronic
defense manufacturing industries in the Southwest. Unlike other representatives, the company
has been focused on service and sales, employing a field service staff in addition to a growing
sales staff.

By balancing the needs of the customer and the supplier Yarbrough Southwest has maintained a
steady presence in the Southwest as the market has evolved into a center for semiconductor
device manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, BioMed/Pharmaceutical and Nanotechnology.

With more than 2,800 users worldwide, Wright Williams & Kelly, Inc. is the largest privately
held operational cost management company serving technology-dependent and technology-
driven companies. WWK maintains long-term relationships with prominent industry resources
including International SEMATECH, SELETE, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials
International (SEMI), and national labs and universities. Its client base includes most of the top
10 semiconductor manufacturers and equipment and materials suppliers as well as leaders in thin
film record heads, magnetic media, flat panel displays, and solar panels.

WWK’s product line includes TWO COOL® for detailed process step level cost of ownership
(COO) and overall equipment efficiency (OEE), PRO COOL® for process flow and test cell
costing, Factory Commander® for full factory capacity analysis and activity based costing, and
Factory Explorer® for cycle time reduction and WIP planning. Additionally, WWK offers a
highly flexible product management software package that helps sales forces eliminate errors in
product configuration and quotation processes.

ISSN 1094-9739
6

[Continued from page 4]

ƒ Taxes, insurance, and interest
E. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) expenses
LCC is an older metric than OEE and is
based on equipment cost factors. It has been To overcome these deficiencies,
in use for many years to determine the SEMATECH developed a cost of ownership
optimal level of reliability that generates (COO) model which calculated the true cost
minimum LCC. It has also been used to of ownership per good unit produced in a
perform trade-off between acquisition and given time period, usually a calendar year
operational costs. (see Reference 5). SEMATECH worked
with Wright Williams & Kelly (WWK) in a
LCC is the total cost of acquiring and joint development to commercialize COO.
operating equipment over its entire life span. The commercial COO model has been
It includes all supplier and customer costs released by WWK as TWO COOL® COO
incurred from the point at which the simulation software.
decision is made to acquire the equipment,
through operational life, to eventual disposal COO depends upon the production
of the equipment. throughput rate, equipment acquisition cost,
equipment reliability, throughput yield, and
Two main elements of the LCC are: (1) equipment utilization. The basic COO is
acquisition cost and (2) operational cost. given by the following equation.
Supplier costs plus the supplier's gross profit
is referred to as acquisition costs. These are COO per unit = (FC + VC + YC)/(L x THP x Y x U)
passed to the customer in the purchase price
of the equipment costs. Where:

Since all elements of LCC do not occur in FC = Fixed costs (amortized for the period under
the same year, we need to consider one more consideration)
VC = Operating costs
factor named "time value of money" in the YC = Yield loss costs
LCC calculations. This factor converts all L= Life of equipment
costs incurred after the first year to an THP = Throughput rate
equivalent present value (worth) in the first Y= Composite yield
year. A variety of LCC models are available. U= Utilization
Reference 4 contains the most commonly
used LCC models. Hierarchy of Equipment Performance
Metrics
F. Cost of Ownership (COO)
LCC is one of the most widely used When discussing manufacturing equipment
equipment performance metrics, but it has performance, we have to deal with its
the following shortcomings. It does not metrics as described above. Since there are
include: many metrics, to most professionals working
with the equipment performance, the metrics
ƒ Effect of the production volume appear disjointed. However, nothing could be
ƒ Product scrap loss because of poor further from the truth. They all fit into a
quality output hierarchical tree structure shown in Figure 1.
ƒ Consumable cost
ƒ Waste disposal cost

APPLIED Co$t MODELING ©2004 WWK

Winter 2004
7

As shown in the figure, when we add time 5. SEMATECH, Cost of Ownership Model,
dimension to quality and safety, it becomes Technology Transfer #91020473B-GEN
reliability. Reliability and maintainability jointly SEMATECH, Inc., Austin, TX, 1992
make up availability. When production speed 6. E35-0701, Cost of Ownership for
efficiency and production defect rate are Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment
combined with availability, it becomes Metrics, SEMI International Standard,
productivity. A metric for productivity is Overall http://www.semi.org.
Equipment Efficiency (OEE). Acquisition and
operational cost comprise Life Cycle Cost
(LCC). And when scrap, waste, consumables,
tax, and insurance cost are added to LCC and the
total is normalized by the production volume,
the resulting metric is Cost of Ownership (COO).
Reference 1 describes this hierarchy in detail.

To use these metrics uniformly, the Cost of Metric

Ownership Supported by
industry needs standard definitions, (CoO) SEMI E35
terms and equations. Fortunately, the
SEMI Standards Program has
provided the industry with the Production Consumable
Scrap Cost Life Cycle Waste Costs
infrastructure and resources to do so. Volume
Cost (LCC)
Taxes, Insurance
and Interest
Noted in Figure 1 are the three main Costs
industry specifications associated
with equipment performance metrics:
(1) SEMI E10 for reliability, Acquisition
Overall
Equipment
Operations
availability and maintainability Cost
Efficiency
Cost

metrics (Reference 2), (2) SEMI E79 (OEE)

Metric
for productivity (OEE) metrics Supported by
(Reference 3), and SEMI E35 SEMI E79

(Reference 6) for cost of ownership Production Quality/Defect

Availability
(COO) metric.◄ Speed
(Uptime) Rate
Efficiency

References:
Metrics
1. Dr. Vallabh H. Dhudshia, Hi- Supported by
Tech Equipment Reliability: A Reliability Maintainability SEMI E10
(MTBF) (MTTR)
Practical Guide for Engineers
and the Engineering Managers,
Lanchester Press, Sunnyvale, CA.
1995.
2. SEMI E10-0304, Specification Safety Quality Time

for Definition and Measurement

of Equipment Reliability,
Availability, and Maintainability
(RAM), SEMI International
Figure 1: Equipment Performance Metrics and Their Hierarchy
Standard, http://www.semi.org.
3. SEMI E79-0304, Specification
for Definition and Measurement of
Equipment Productivity, SEMI International
Standard, http://www.semi.org.
4. MIL-HDBK-338, Electronic Reliability
Design Handbook, 15 October 1984.

ISSN 1094-9739
8

Cost of Ownership: A Tool for ESH Improvements

Daren L. Dance and David W. Jimenez
Wright Williams & Kelly, Inc.

Introduction
The semiconductor industry’s main use of cost of ownership (COO) is as a metric for purchasing
processing equipment. However, COO can also be used as a tool for evaluating environmental,
safety, and health (ESH) impacts of process equipment. Using COO to evaluate ESH issues has
significant benefits for the end user. It is neither complex nor hard to do. With a few significant
details about purchase conditions, operation, utilization, and technical performance, users can
determine the life-cycle cost of owning a semiconductor tool. COO was developed for wafer
fabrication tools but has been easily extended to other applications, including ESH. COO
applications now provide a metric for ESH improvement in the semiconductor industry.

With equipment costs increasing and concerned about cost per wafer, SEMATECH began
developing a COO model in 1990. Since then, COO standards have been published by
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI).[1] A commercial COO model,
based on these standards, has been introduced through a joint development project between
SEMATECH and Wright Williams & Kelly (WWK). SEMATECH has built on this foundation
with research into ESH cost modeling with WWK and Oregon State University.

A standardized COO model has several benefits for the manufacturer and supplier communities.
First, the model can provide a clear estimate of the COO of the process tool. The model can also
be used to evaluate the ESH impacts of different process and tool design alternatives. COO
provides an objective analysis method for evaluating decisions and provides a systematic focus
on issues that might otherwise be overlooked. Finally, the COO model provides communication
between equipment suppliers and users. Both suppliers and manufacturers can work from hard
data to support a purchase or product/process improvement plan. They can speak the same
language, comparing similar data and costs using standard software algorithms and equations.

Basic COO Algorithm

Estimating a tool’s COO is neither complex nor hard. With a few significant details, users can
determine the life-cycle cost of owning a semiconductor tool. The basic COO algorithm is
described by:

CF + CV + CY
CW = ----------------------------
L x TPT x YC x U

APPLIED Co$t MODELING ©2004 WWK

Winter 2004
9

where:
CW = Cost per wafer
CF = Fixed cost
CV = Variable cost
CY = Cost due to yield loss
L= Life time of process
TPT = Throughput
YC = Composite Yield
U= Utilization

Fixed costs include purchase, installation, and facility costs that are normally amortized over the life of
the equipment. Variable costs such as material, labor, repair, utility and overhead expenses are costs
incurred during equipment operation. Throughput is based on the time to meet a process requirement such
as depositing or etching a nominal film thickness. Composite yield is the operational yield of the tool and
may include breakage, misprocessing, and defects. Utilization is the ratio of production time compared to
total available time.

Yield loss cost is a measure of the value of wafers lost through operational losses and defects. Yield
models are used in COO models for estimating the relationship between particle and yield loss or scrap.
These models relate integrated circuit yield to circuit and process parameters such as device geometry and
particle density.

ESH at the Process Tool

Different ESH operating practices affect equipment cost, operating cost, yield costs, downtime, and repair
times. The impact of ESH on COO can be estimated by comparing the impact of ESH alternatives for
significant cost drivers. An end-of-pipe solution is one approach to improved ESH performance. This
involves adding pollution and hazard control equipment to standard tools. Another approach is based on a
systematic analysis of the tool. Components and methods are optimized, based on this analysis, for ESH
benefit.

Equipment cost includes all fixed costs such as equipment purchase, installation, ESH permits, and
facility support costs that are normally amortized over the life of the equipment. ESH-related fixed costs
include safety and hazard monitoring systems, containment hardware, and emission abatement systems.
These costs also include waste consolidation, recycling, and treatment systems.

Annual operating cost includes all of the recurring costs such as material, labor, repair, waste disposal,
utility and overhead expenses due to equipment operation. The costs of maintaining and operating ESH
support systems are part of operating costs. Other ESH-related operating costs include calibration of
monitoring equipment, periodic safety inspection, and worker health monitoring programs.

Process scrap yield or equipment yield is the operational yield of the tool. Die scrap yield is the defect-
limited yield that is recognized at wafer test or probe. Yield loss increases ESH impact due to
unproductive use of chemicals, equipment, and materials.

Downtime is the non-production time lost due to scheduled maintenance, engineering usage, standby, and
repair. Repair time is estimated from mean time between failures (MTBF) and mean time to repair
(MTTR). The reliability of ESH support systems is also part of downtime and utilization. An unreliable
hazard monitoring system can cause significant production interruptions if the system fails or initiates a
false alarm.

ISSN 1094-9739
10

The ESH impacts on these cost factors are illustrated by an analysis of point-of-use chemical generation
(POUCG) for wet chemical processes. [2] The comparison of ESH impacts between POUCG and
conventional wet chemicals is summarized in Table I.

The ESH cost impact is different for each alternative. Cost analysis of these alternatives should include
estimates for each of the ESH cost impacts. The ESH costs are in addition to a standard COO analysis.

Table I
ESH Cost Impact Comparison
Factor POUCG Bottled Chemicals ESH Cost Impact
Equipment Costs
Chemical Generator Required Not Required Hazardous gas
monitor
Distribution System Required May be required Double containment
and leak detection
Bottled Chemical May be required Required Safety showers and
Handling spill control

Operating Costs
Chemicals and Gases Required Required Waste disposal
Bottle Handling May be Required Required Includes rinse and
disposal
Personal Protective May be Required Required Equipment and
Equipment training
Exhaust Air Required Required Air scrubbing costs

Down time
Hazardous Gas Required May be Required Failure may interrupt
Monitor production
Waste Disposal Required Required Failure may interrupt
System production
Air Scrubber Required Required Failure may interrupt
production

ESH for the Factory

Different ESH operating practices also impact the factory. ESH systems may be installed at point-of-use
or for factory-wide operation. For example, the ESH equipment mentioned in the previous section
includes a hazardous gas monitor, a waste disposal system, and an air scrubber. These might be small
units servicing one wet bench or large units servicing the factory. Each alternative has different ESH cost
impacts. At the factory level, ESH cost impacts may also be considered on equipment, operation, and
downtime costs.

ESH equipment cost impacts include purchase and installation costs. Factory-wide systems may provide
economies of scale, but require more extensive installation costs. These larger systems are often installed
in utility or other low cost spaces. Smaller units may cost more for a given capacity and may occupy
clean-room space but may be phased in as production volumes ramp to full capacity.

APPLIED Co$t MODELING ©2004 WWK

Winter 2004
11

ESH operations costs at the factory level depend more on level of automation than on equipment size.
Highly automated systems minimize labor cost but increase equipment cost. Automated waste disposal
systems minimize exposure of workers to hazardous materials. ESH supervision, training, and inspection
costs are other operation costs that need to be considered in evaluating various alternatives.

Reliability of ESH equipment must be considered at the factory level. Downtime for a factory is very
expensive. The reliability requirements of a factory-wide ESH system are much greater than for
individual processing tools. Multiple ESH systems provide for redundancy. Single tool point-of-use
scrubbers may require a central backup system to achieve suitable reliability. Methods must be provided
for scheduled system maintenance that do not impact production.

ESH Benefits of Yield Improvement

Yield improvement projects may have significant ESH benefits at both the tool and factory levels. Yield
losses increase ESH impact due to unproductive use of chemicals, equipment, and materials on products
that are never shipped. A previously published SEMATECH equipment improvement project resulted in
significant yield improvement. [3] Further analysis of this project shows the ESH benefits as well.
Operation improvements resulting from this project significantly reduced moisture and particle levels in
the tool. These improvements reduced cleaning frequency and improved die yield, both of which have
ESH impacts.

In the SEMATECH example, the average number of days between cleans was increased from 11.7 to 18.8
days. Over the course of a year, this change reduces the amount of cleaning chemicals released and the
amount of worker exposure to these chemicals by 60%. In addition, the number of particles per wafer
pass was reduced by about 73%. Since metal deposition occurs in the later part of semiconductor
processing, yield improvement at metal deposition is an effective yield improvement at each prior process
step. This is illustrated in Figure 1. Thus, the same number of good die can be shipped by processing
fewer wafers; using less chemicals and hazardous materials. These productivity improvements are also
ESH improvements.

Summary
The semiconductor industry, which leads the use of COO, can also use COO as a tool for evaluating
environmental, safety, and health (ESH) impacts of processing equipment. While COO was developed for
wafer fabrication tools, it can easily be extended to ESH applications. Different ESH operating practices
affect equipment cost, operating cost, yield costs, downtime and repair times. The impact of ESH on COO
can be estimated by comparing the impact of ESH alternatives for significant cost drivers for process
tools. At the factory level, ESH cost impacts may also be considered on equipment, operation, and
downtime costs. Yield improvement projects may have significant ESH benefits at both the tool and
factory levels. Yield losses increase ESH impact due to unproductive use of chemicals, equipment, and
materials on products that are never shipped.

References:
1. E35-0701, Cost of Ownership For Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment Metrics, SEMI
International Standard, http://www.semi.org.

2. Laura Peters, “Point-of-use Generation: The Ultimate Solution for Chemical Purity, “ Semiconductor
International, Jan. 1994, pp 62-66.

3. R. W. Burghard, D. L. Dance, R. J. Markle, and T. A. Silvestri, “Reducing Tungsten-etch Equipment

Cost of Ownership Through In Situ Contamination Prevention and Reduction, “ Microcontamination, Jun.
1992, pp 33-36.

ISSN 1094-9739
12

Case 1: Point-of-Use Chemical Generation

Point-of-use chemical generation replaces the distribution of hazardous chemicals to processing
equipment in semiconductor fabrication with distribution of chemical precursors to a point-of-use
chemical generator near the processing equipment. The chemical generator may serve a cluster of similar
tools or it may be incorporated in the processing tool.

One purpose of POUCG is to improve process chemical purity, but another benefit may be improved
safety and environmental impacts. The ESH cost impacts of the two methods will be compared in the
following case. The required cost elements from Table I have been replaced with contrived costs in Table
II. These costs are realistic, but do not reflect any specific case. This case has been slightly modified to
work with TWO COOL® packaging and assembly software. Thus, we consider a packaged unit clean
rather than a wafer clean and describe the unit of activity as a packaged unit.

Table II
ESH Cost Impact Comparison
Factor POUCG Bottled Chemicals Comments
Equipment Costs
Chemical Generator $100,000 $0
Distribution System $50,000 $0
Hazardous Gas Monitor $20,000 $40,000 Note 1
Bottled Chemical $10,000 $20,000 Note 2
Handling
Operating Costs Annual Cost
Chemicals & Gases $150,000 $250,000
Bottle Handling $0 $65,000 Includes bottle rinse and
disposal
Personal Protective $0 $3,000 Equipment and training
Equipment
Waste Disposal $150,000 $150,000 Assume equal to chemical
cost
Exhaust Air $2,000 $1,000 Air scrubbing costs
Down time
Hazardous Gas Monitor 0.1% 0.2% Two systems
Waste Disposal System 0.1% 0.1%
Air Scrubber 0.1% 0.1%
Total Down Time 0.3% 0.4%

Note 1: POUCG requires 1 monitor at the point-of-use. Bottle chemicals require 1 monitor at the point-of-
use and 1 in the chemical warehouse area.

Note 2: POUCG requires 1 safety shower at the point-of-use. Bottle chemicals require 1 safety shower at
the point-of-use and 1 in the chemical warehouse area.

Note 3: Set default adhesives costs to $0.00.

APPLIED Co$t MODELING ©2004 WWK

Winter 2004
13

Case 2: Tungsten Etch Cost of Ownership

The tungsten etch COO example demonstrates the ESH and cost benefits of improved operating methods
that reduce particle contamination and reduce cleaning frequency. This case has also been modified to
work with TWO COOL® packaging and assembly software. All yield improvements will be included in
equipment yield. Table III outlines the basic cost parameters.

Table III
ESH Cost Impact Comparison
Parameter Base Case Improvement Comments
Scheduled Maintenance 35 12 Hours/week
Throughput 18 16 UPH
Equipment Cost $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Equipment Yield 96.5% 98.3% Includes Defects
Specialty Chemicals $31,000 $20,000 Cleaning Chemicals
Scheduled Maintenance 2 2 Buddy System for Safety
Technicians

Note 1: Set default adhesives costs to $0.00.

Wright Williams & Kelly Re-Opens Texas Offices

Wright Williams & Kelly (WWK), a software and consulting services company based in Pleasanton,
California, announced today it has re-entered the Texas market with new offices in the Austin and
Dallas areas. These offices will directly support WWK’s existing client base as well as be critical
assets in expanding its consulting practice.

“New business opportunities, the efficiencies of the Internet, and a company reorganization have
allowed WWK to reopen offices closed by previous management,” said Daren Dance, WWK’s Vice
President of Technology. “We are excited about the signs of growth and the opportunities that we see
in Texas and the surrounding region. These offices will allow us to strengthen our long-term
relationships with International SEMATECH and electronics companies in the area.”

“I am very pleased to be able to offer our clients in the Southwest more direct access to our expert
resources,” stated David Jimenez, WWK co-founder and President. “This is just the first step in
meeting our customers’ needs for out-sourced services in manufacturing, assembly, and business cost
optimization. We will have another major announcement in that area in the next week.”

ISSN 1094-9739
14

New Fellow Category Targets Nominations from Industry

BY KATHY KOWALENKO

IEEE members working at activities besides research and development

now have a Fellow category created specifically for them. "Application
Engineer/Practitioner" will apply to nominees for IEEE Fellow who
work in such areas as process or production engineering, quality control, and systems integration.

The IEEE Board of Directors approved this and other changes last June, based on suggestions made by a
task force appointed by 2003 President Michael Adler. The task force recommended the category be
added as a way to increase Fellow nominations from industry. The new category recognizes the vast
number of members who are involved in engineering practice, as opposed to R&D.

"The Board has been concerned for several years about how few engineers from industry have been
elected to Fellow grade," says 1985 Past President Bud Eldon, who chaired the task force. "The
percentage of members working in industry is higher than those in academia, but the number of
nominations for Fellows from industry is significantly lower."

Nominations of members working in R&D–whether in industry, government, or academia–that

previously fell under the "Engineer/Scientist" category now will be classified as "Research
Engineer/Scientist." The two remaining categories, "Technical Leader" and "Educator," are unchanged.

Nominees for the new category, like nominees for the other three, will be evaluated primarily on the basis
of achievements in "bringing the realization of significant value to society." This is one of three criteria
for elevation to Fellow grade, along with being an IEEE senior member and having paid-up dues.

S.Y. Technology Engineering and Construction Co. Licenses WWK Software Suite
Creates Technology Partnership in PRC

February 2, 2004 (Pleasanton, CA) –Wright Williams &

Kelly, Inc. (WWK), a cost & productivity management
software and consulting services company, announced
today that it has licensed its full software suite to S.Y.
Technology Engineering and Construction Co., a
subsidiary of the China Electronics Engineering Design
Institute (CEEDI). The software suite covers cost of
ownership (COO), overall equipment effectiveness (OEE),
capacity analysis, product costing, profitability and return
on investment (ROI) analysis, and full factory simulation
for inventory and cycle time optimization.

“This is a major step for both S.Y. Technology and WWK,” states David W. Jimenez, WWK's President.
“The licenses for TWO COOL®, Factory Commander®, and Factory Explorer® provide S.Y.
Technology with the most advanced operational modeling tools available anywhere in the world. They
will be in a position to assist their clients in designing the most innovative factories and then optimize
their operations for lowest cost and highest productivity. The benefit to WWK is having such an
important client in mainland China who has agreed to help us expand our marketing efforts in what is
clearly the fastest growing manufacturing region in the world.”

APPLIED Co$t MODELING ©2004 WWK

Winter 2004
15

“After a careful comparison of the available solutions, we decided that the software tools from Wright
Williams & Kelly would be the best approach to support our clients and grow our engineering practice,”
says Dr. Sean Du, Vice President of S.Y. Technology and Construction Company. “The need to keep
costs low, quality high, and product flowing is essential to maintaining the impressive growth of Chinese
manufacturing. We look forward to introducing WWK’s products to our broad and diverse client base.”

S.Y. Technology and Construction Company has completed a large number of international projects for
prestigious companies such as Intel, Grace Semiconductor, AMD, Dupont, Hana Microelectronics, and
STMicroelectronics. Established in 1953, China Electronics Engineering Design Institute (CEEDI) is a
sizeable and comprehensive engineering construction enterprise registered with the State Administration
of Industry and Commerce and one of the 10 key companies of survey and design directly under the State
Council. CEEDI has more than 1100 employees located in 10 offices throughout China.

Being guided by the philosophy of scientific and technological innovation, based on a people-oriented
design concept in conformity with international practices and the flexible utilization of new techniques,
CEEDI has been well received among clients both domestic and overseas. Its services for a large number
of national key projects have well established the CEEDI brand name and won high recognition. CEEDI
is well on its way towards becoming a top ranked international engineering firm and noted in the world’s
engineering circle.

ISSN 1094-9739