Upload
norbert-gloser
View
777
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
LSS BB certification project
Citation preview
Lean Six Sigma Project:CMP Oxide Film ThicknessUniformity Improvementy p
FINAL REPORTOctober 2008
Norbert GloserQimonda Operational Excellence
Qimonda confidential
ContentsD A I CM
1) Introduction to CMP Basics2) DMAIC Phase Summary) y
• Define Phase• Measure Phase
A l Ph• Analyze Phase• Improve Phase• Control Phase
3) Project Summary4) Appendix
• DMAIC Tool Summary• Tollgate Approvals• Control Plan• Transition Plan• Glossary
CMP Basic 1:What is CMP? D A I CM
Functional principle of CMP
The process uses an abrasive and corrosive slurry in conjunction with acorrosive slurry in conjunction with a polishing pad. Pad and wafer are pressed together by a dynamic polishing head and held in placedynamic polishing head and held in place by a plastic retaining ring. The dynamic polishing head is rotated with different axes of rotation. This removes material and tends to even out any irregular topography, making the y g p g p y, gwafer flat or planar.
CMP Basic 2: How does the 4-Zone Polishing Head work? D A I CM
• Each Polishing Head has 4 zones to control Uniformity through varying air pressures:CAP: Center Air Pressure (0mm 30mm)– CAP: Center Air Pressure (0mm - 30mm)
– RAP: Ripple Air Pressure (31mm - 64mm)– OAP: Outer Air Pressure (65mm - 84mm)– EAP: Edge Air Pressure (85mm – 100mm)
• The Polishing Chamber Pressure (PCP) is used to adjust the overall polishing pressure of the head and normally held constant.
DMAIC MethodologyD A I CM
DEFINE P j t d t i tDEFINE: Project scope, purpose and customer requirements
MEASURE: Baseline of underlying processS y g p
ANALYZE: Collect data for trend, root causes, key input drivers
IMPROVE: Current process by improving input variation (DOE)
CONTROL: Inputs discovered in previous steps
CMP Oxide Film ThicknessUniformity Improvement D A I CM
Business Case: Opportunity:The non-uniformity of the a CMP Oxide process contributes extensively to the yield loss at the Qimonda Richmond 200mm Plant (QR2). The device yield loss (non-functional chips) is 2.3%.The reduction of CMP non-uniformity at this step will results in $4 1 Mi S i
yQimonda not satisfied with 80nm technology yield from QR2. Opportunity exists to improve QR2 80nm yield by improving uniformity in the AA module.The CMP AA Oxide process is a main contributor to the these yield detractors.
$4.1 Mio. Savings per year.
Goal:Reduce AA Post Oxide within wafer range (lot average) from550A to 320A by September 2008 (based on comparison to
Scope:In scope: AA Oxide uniformity, Ebara FREX toolset
550A to 320A by September 2008 (based on comparison to Qimonda Richmond 300m – QR3 bench mark) on T80 product. Not in scope: 110nm, AA defectivity, other CMP processes, AMAT
MIRRA toolset
Roadmap: Core Team:
Role NameRole Name6S BB Norbert Gloser QR2 CMP PE Mark CollinsQR2 CMP PE Kam HettiaratchiQR3 CMP PE Andreas FischerQR2 CMP EE Nishant ChadhaPI Han Park
Project SelectionVOC and financial return D A I CM
ROCE
EBIT TAX Capital EBIT TAX Capital employed
CostRevenue
ASP Volume
TtM Prod. Qual. Fab Output
WSPW Financial return:- Approx. 4.1 Mio revenue per year
A tiCT R&D time
lineFab Yield Wafer Yield
AA divots
Assumptions:- increase in YBS3 of 2.3%(additional 11 512MB chips per wafer)
- ASP of $1.65/chip- 5000 WSPW
CMP AAuniformity
- Yield improvement on all 80nm products
Project DefinitionD A I CM
• Problem Statement:• What: Yield loss due to high AA Post
• Metrics:• Primary Metric:What: Yield loss due to high AA Post
Oxide within Wafer Range
• Where: CMP AA TEOS in QR2
• When: Since QR2 T80 start up
Primary Metric: • AA Post Oxide within Wafer Range
• Secondary Metrics: • When: Since QR2 T80 start-up
• Problem indicator: Yield loss, Physical Failure Analysis, QR3 benchmark results
• Yield
• Consequential Metrics:• Cycle Time, Cost of Ownership (CoO)y , p ( )
• Objective Statement:• Currently: OxRgMean = 544A
E titl t O R 230A
• Financial Metric:• Yield gain: 2.3%
Chi t t 55 000 ( k) • Entitlement: OxRgMean = 230A(QR3 benchmark)
• Goal: OxRgMean = 320A(70% f t b h k)
• Chip output: 55,000 (per week)(Est. depending on weekly wafer starts and product mix)
T t l ROI $4 1 Mi ( ) (70% of gap to benchmark)• Total ROI: $4.1 Mio. (per year)(Est. depending on chip price)
Project TeamD A I CM
Define Phase Summary & LSS Tools used D A I CM
Summary:Used VOC to select project
Tools/methodologies used:Voice of customer (VOC)- Used VOC to select project
- Defined problem statement- Defined AA Post Oxide within Wafer
- Voice of customer (VOC)
Rang as primary metric- Defined secondary and
consequential metricsconsequential metrics- Provided currently capability and
compared it to benchmark- Set goal for primary metric based on
70% gap- Identified ROI of $4.1 Mio. Per year$ y- Selected team members
Process Map:Macro Map D A I CM
Bench Marking and Process Capability D A I CM
QR2 QR3 (benchmark)
900
1000
Mean(Range(Post Ox))
900
1000
OXRG mean 70% of gap to QR3 performance=> target: 320A
400
500
600
700
800
900
400
500
600
700
800
900
Process Capability of OXRG P7RSLTX
gRemark:320A is the goal for mean value and not the Upper Spec Limit.As there is no spec limit existing we used the goal for the capability calculation.
0
100
200
300
400
Quantiles
0
100
200
300
400
Quantiles
USL
LSL *Target *USL 320
Process Data
Potential (Within) C apability
WithinOverall
Process Capability of OXRG P7RSLTX
100.0%99.5%97.5%90.0%75.0%50.0%
maximum
quartilemedian
376.17376.17362.17302.03275.67221.50
Quantiles100.0%99.5%97.5%90.0%75.0%50.0%
maximum
quartilemedian
864.61864.61790.87698.74602.62531.53
QuantilesSample Mean 585.894Sample N 305StDev (Within) 108.412StDev (O v erall) 174.87
Z.Bench -2.45Z.LSL *Z.USL -2.45C pk -0.82
Z.Bench -1.52Z.LSL *
O v erall C apability
Less than 25.0%10.0%2.5%0.5%0.0%
quartile
minimum
199.83161.78124.5796.1796.17
Moments
25.0%10.0%2.5%0.5%0.0%
quartile
minimum
457.22410.36376.45361.14361.14
Moments
Z.USL -1.52Ppk -0.51C pm *
2%of lots meet 320A target
MeanStd DevStd Err Meanupper 95% Meanlower 95% MeanN
230.3917854.1040326.4209673
243.198217.58557
71
MeanStd DevStd Err Meanupper 95% Meanlower 95% MeanN
543.76823108.6510710.087998563.75062523.78585
116
12001050900750600450300
% < LSL *% > USL 98.03% Total 98.03
O bserv ed Performance% < LSL *% > USL 99.29% Total 99.29
Exp. Within Performance% < LSL *% > USL 93.58% Total 93.58
Exp. O v erall Performance
May-08 data
Fishbone Diagram:Uniformity = F(X) D A I CM
M t M t i l P l
C&E Diagram - AA CMP Uniformity Improvement
Measurements Material Personnel
Manual ops
Slurry
PadQual
ntsAdj ustm
e
select io nPP ID
DC
operat edM
f g
operat edPENum
ber
s Groov e
Top
Sub
tionDist ribu
n Filtrat io
Type
to ProdCorrelation
F requen zy
Alignm
L ocat
# of s
Sampl
Personnel
Incoming
Consum lifetime
Conditioner
Head
y
In-situ
Product
ddberaneMem
brRR
STI DEPTH
AA HDP
SELOX
ment
cation
f sites
mpling
NovaEP
(Yield)Funct ional
Parametr icPLY
L eica
AFM
KL A
mity(non)uniforAA CMPProduct type
Warm-up wfrs
Rework
Head rebuild
Ex-situ
Prorities
Mea sure data
Tool d ata
cYaML A
PMs
Tool capability
Automation
Process Control
Procedures
PPIDWorkload
typeHead
versionSW
Tool type
Calibrations
Schedule
ConditiT i
ZoneP
Ca rrier
Tab le
Slur ry
Ramp-
Ram
FME
entationDocumOCA
PMOP
R2R
L imitsControl
Limits
Spe c
aa
ramp
# of tools
Environment Methods Machines
Tool capabilityPPIDWorkload
P
Pareto C&E Matrix:Define X’s D A I CM
C&E ranking
36
38
40
90.00%
95.00%
100.00%
26
28
30
32
34
36
65 00%
70.00%
75.00%
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
18
20
22
24
26
Scor
e
45.00%
50.00%
55.00%
60.00%
65.00%
% c
um
8
10
12
14
16
20 00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
0
2
4
6
8
s a e R s g d g p n P H d d p s n b P s X P w e e s n r r
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
Zone Pres
sures Nova
Head ty
peR2R
Groove
sRet.
Ring
Head re
build
Conditioning
Ramp-up
Ramp-down EP
STI DEPTH
Table
Speed
Carrier
Speed
Top
Control L
imits
Locatio
nSubPCP
OCAPsSELOXAA H
DPSlurry
FlowTyp
e
Consum lif
etime
Calibrat
ionsDist
ributio
nConditio
nerOther
Potential X
Measure Phase Summary& LSS Tools used D A I CM
Summary:Mapped material flow through AA
Tools/methodologies used:Process Flow Diagram- Mapped material flow through AA
TEOS CMP area- Collected data for current process
d b h k
- Process Flow Diagram- Data Collection- Capability Analysis
and benchmark- Goal is 70% gap: 320A- Current capability is less than 2%
- Benchmarking- C&E Fishbone
Current capability is less than 2%- Used 6M Fishbone Diagram to
identify inputs to uniformity/range
- C&E Matrix- Pareto Diagram- Potential X’s- Surveyed CMP experts to create
C&E matrix- Identified TOP5 inputs using Pareto
- Potential X s
p gDiagram
D A I CMTOP 5 inputs & proposed changes X=f(x)
C&ECategory
1st levelCategory
RootCause Score Proposed Changes Resources Capital
requiredDetermine preferable ZP
Method Recipe Zone Pressures 38Determine preferable ZP adjustments to minimize CMP non-uniformity
CMP PE / R2R NO
Machine Tool capability Head type 36 Analyze process capability between Gen I and Gen II tools CMP PE NObetween Gen I and Gen II tools
Meaurement In-situ Measurements Nova 36
Evaluate usage of Nova in-situ film thickness measurment tools on Ebara FREX 200 toolsets
Nova / CMP PE / CMP EE YES
Develop methodology to IT / Eb / CMPMethod Automation Run-2-Run 33
Develop methodology to automatically adjust tool para-meters to minimize CMP non-uniformity
IT / Ebara / CMP PE / CMP EE / R2R
YES
M t i l P d G 32 Evaluate X-Y grooved pad used CMP PE NOMaterial Pad Grooves 32 g pat QR3 CMP PE NO
Radial Profiles:12-pt. vs. 85-pt. D A I CM
Post Oxide - Radial Profiles3300
Local
3000
3100
3200 Underpolish
2800
2900
3000
thic
knes
s [A
]
Edge AirbagOuter AirbagRipple AirbagCenter Airbag Both defects“Yi ld Kill ”
2600
2700
Post
Oxi
de “Yield Killers”
2400
2500
85-pt.12-pt.
LocalOverpolish
12-pt. thickness measurement are used in production for capacity reasons
23000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Radius [mm]
p Overpolishin production for capacity reasons.
Tool capability Improvement:Head style D A I CM
800
900
Oneway Analysis of WIW OXRG By Head
Observation:Gen I head (CMP 22) has in average a 70A
500
600
700
800
WIW
OX
RG
Gen I head (CMP_22) has in average a 70Ahigher range than Gen II head (CMP_23/26)
Conclusion:Two options for improvement:
200
300
400
W
GEN I GEN II Each Pair
Two options for improvement:1. Use only Gen II tools and use Gen I only
as backup only when WIP is high(tool dedication per dispatch software and per SOP).GEN I GEN II
Head
Student's t0.05
Missing Rows 9
Quantiles
and per SOP).2. Upgrade CMP_22 to Gen II head
capability (approx $140K).(To be implemented after capitalfreeze lifted).
GEN IGEN II
Level256.492195.194
Minimum332.5238265.6953
10%383.1553306.2185
25%435.597366.73
Median488.5748433.315
75%589.5398539.445
90%845.6733
921.5
Maximum
Quantiles
Means and Std Deviations
freeze lifted).
Improvements:From: 454ATo: 386A
GEN IGEN II
Level200304
Number454.292385.894
Mean117.877119.490
Std Dev8.33526.8532
Std Err Mean437.86372.41
Lower 95%470.73399.38
Upper 95%To: 386AΔ: 68A
Analysis Phase Summary & LSS Tools used D A I CM
Summary:Identified TOP5 critical inputs (X)
Tools/methodologies used:ID critical X’s- Identified TOP5 critical inputs (X)
and performed root cause analysis (RCA) to identify input factors (x)A l i b i f DOE
- ID critical X s- Root Cause Analysis- DOE Planning
- Analysis was basis for DOEs - Performed 85-pt. measurement to
identify the “true” profile of Oxide
- Data Collection- Graphical Analysis
- Oxide Range driven by zone 4 only- Compared CMP tools with old GEN I
head to ones with new GEN II head
- ANOVA- Hypothesis Testing- Quick Improvementshead to ones with new GEN II head
=> GEN II has lower OxRg- Implemented to use GEN I tools as
- Quick Improvements
“back-up only” (EASY WIN)
New pad type DOE: Experimental Plan D A I CM
Practical Problem Statement:The current 12 pt WIW range is 375A
Factors & Levels of interest:Pad (POR XY groove)- The current 12-pt. WIW range is 375A
(4-week average) and therefore above our project target of 320A (primary effect)
- The current 13-pt. WIW range of larger than
- Pad (POR, XY-groove)- Slurry flow (100 ml/min, 250 ml/min)- Table Speed (50 rpm, 120 rpm)
C i S d (50 120 )p g g
900A is also not acceptable (secondary effect) - Carrier Speed (50 rpm, 120 rpm)
Experimental Objective Statement: Experiment & Sample SizeExperimental Objective Statement:- The objective of this experiment/DOE is to find
a new process (consumable and process settings) to achieve results comparable to the
Experiment & Sample Size- 2K Factorial Design- 4 factors
N t i t bl ki lig ) p
QR3 80nm Ebara process:- 12-pt. WIW range < 320A
- 13-pt. WIW range < 600A
- No center points, blocking or replicas- 16 runs- Run DOE on CMP_23CM (Gen II head)
New pad type: DOE Optimizer & Tolerance D A I CM
The sweet spot is at:- TS: 50rpmTS: 50rpm- CS: 51rpm
(1rpm offset to TS required)- SF: 100ml/minResults: WIW range of 285A
Settings below cause defectivity, endpoint issues & slow process speedsp p p
10% deviation from those values still allows to achieve target of 320A
New pad type: Process Optimization D A I CM
Estimated Effects and Coefficients for EP (coded units)Term Effect Coef SE Coef T PConstant 118.5 1.8 65.5 0.000
Estimated Coefficients for Oxrg12 using data inuncoded unitsTerm CoefPad 13.7 6.8 1.8 3.7 0.005
TS -42.2 -21.1 1.8 -11.5 0.000CS -16.6 -8.3 1.8 -4.5 0.001SF 11.3 5.7 1.8 3.1 0.012
Term CoefConstant -141Pad -120TS 1.6CS 4 5
R-Sq = 95.52%
CS 4.5SF 2.7Pad*TS 1.8CS*SF -0.02
Conclusions:
Formula:OxRg(12) = -141 - 120*Pad + 1.6*TS + 4.5*CS +
2.7*SF + 1.8*Pad*TS - 0.02*CS*SF
Conclusions:All main factors are significant.Two 2-way interactions are significant: Pad*TS & CS*SFThe optimum process settings are:
with (POR = -1, XY = +1)XY-grooved pad Table Speed: 50rpmCarrier Speed: 51rpm Slurry Flow: 100ml/min
Slurry flow below 100ml/min causes microscratches. Physical meaning:Th O id d ith f XY d d
yPer CMP experienced TS and CS are matched with 1rpm
off-set.
The Oxide range decreases with use of XY pad and decreasing slurry flow, carrier speed and table speed until the process speed is to slow to be manufacturable.
New pad type split lots:Radial Profiles and Range D A I CM
Radial Profiles: OLD vs. NEW
3200
3300
1000
1100
Oneway Analysis of Range12 By Split1
OAPRAPCAP
2900
3000
3100
3200
400
500
600
700
800
900
Ran
ge12
2600
2700
2800
2900
Post
Ox
[A]
200
300
400
POR XY
Split1
Quantiles
2300
2400
2500
2600
OLD
NEW
OLD:12-pt. range: 533Amax. range: 794A
NEW:12-pt. range: 385Amax. range: 504A
PORXY
Level315.43214.08
Minimum366.895283.012
10%429.2275321.0725
25%501.785387.845
Median709.0125412.9775
75%824.48488.67
90%1005.18613.05
Maximum
PORLevel
94Number
563.400Mean
174.446Std Dev
17.993Std Err Mean
527.67Lower 95%
599.13Upper 95%
Means and Std Deviations
EAP2300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Radius [mm]
XY 52 378.785 79.771 11.062 356.58 400.99
Improvements:From: 563A
Difference in 12-pt. WIW range to DOE (378A vs. 285A) is due to fact, that split lots had to be run on MP_22CM (Gen I head) as other tools were down or used for production. Also zone pressures were not optimized on that tool (CMP 22CM)
To: 378AΔ: 185A
pressures were not optimized on that tool (CMP_22CM).The main improvement of the new process is the improved profile shape. The “hump” in the edge zone is gone, which allows to adjust the EP without either a) overpolish the outer edge (AA completely erased) or b) underpolish the inner edge (Nitride residual) – both killer defects.
New pad type overpolish: Process Window experiment D A I CM
Delta Nitride target
This process window experiment proves that the Post Oxide thick-proves that the Post Oxide thick-ness and Nitride thickness (Delta Nitride target of 40A) correlate very well with the overpolish time (PPID t 10)step 10).
The new process has a lower Oxide and Nitride removal rate, so the OP polish time has to be adjusted (frompolish time has to be adjusted (from 10 sec. with POR to 40 sec. with new process)
Zone Pressure adjustments:Semi-automatic ZP calculator D A I CM
Ran three factorial DoE for zone pressures:CAP OAP EAP i d1100
1300
1500
2
Oneway Analysis of WIW_range_12 By Split
•CAP, OAP, EAP were varied
•RAP stayed constant as reference
Automation group created a model which300
500
700
900
1100
WIW
_ran
ge_1
Automation group created a model which took into account the zone pressures and thickness variation between the zones.The model was automated and new ZP
100
300
NEW OL D
Split
Missin g Rows 1 The model was automated and new ZP values were calculated every hour.Process technicians performed ZP adjustments manually at the start of a every
g
NEWOLD
Level152.2 275
241.3 5
Minimum265.8 08381.73
10%308.2 875
440.571
25%370.5525517.9033
Median443.6 9
686.774
75%543.5 888833.2 88
90%1540.73
1205 .733
Maximu m
Quantiles
Means and Std Deviations adjustments manually at the start of a every lot.
Next steps to repeat the DoE with the new
NEWOLD
Level1443349
Number397.750567.634
Mean142.7 19175.0 06
Std Dev3.757 19.367 9
Std Err Mean390.38549.21
Lower 95%405.12586.06
Upper 95%
Improvements: Remark:improved process and fully automate the methodology once the capital freeze is lifted.
From: 568ATo: 398AΔ: 170A
This was performed with the old pad process. Results don’tinclude new XY pad process.
“Just Do It” Improvements D A I CM
1) ZP calculator through JMP (reduce Oxide range)
- Same calculator as semi-automatic web based one- Same calculator as semi-automatic web based one
- Can’t be used by technicians in Fab (only for Engineering use)
- Temporary solution, now back-up for Web calculator
2) New ramp process (eliminate KV rings – Litho holds)
- Process matches QR3 process (benchmark) and should minimize KV rings
- Showed slight uniformity improvements- Showed slight uniformity improvements
- Currently running pilot
3) New wafer maps (standardize measurements points between all parts)
- Develop similar maps for all products
- Points evenly spaced between all 4 zones (center, ripple, outer, edge)
- Only one point at 95mm radius- Only one point at 95mm radius
- Affects mainly CD80 products
Process Mapping:Detailed AA CMP process flow D A I CM
Improvement plan: Summary and “go forward” D A I CM
Added following improve-ments (easy fixes):- Improved head rebuild
(start date pulled in –see Control Phase)
- Ertalyre retaining ring(experiment failed)
Improve Phase Summary & LSS Tools used D A I CM
Summary:Ran several DOE’s to
Tools/methodologies used:Screening DOE- Ran several DOE s to
- Determine best pad type- Optimize polish parameters
- Screening DOE- Quantifying DOE- Optimizing DOE
- Analyze zone pressures- New pad type and polish parameters
improved 12 pt OxRg by 33%
- Verify critical Xs- Regression Analysis Y=F(X)=f(x)
improved 12-pt. OxRg by 33% - Created model for influence of zone
pressures on uniformity
- Automation- Pilot Trials- Process Flow Diagram
- Used model to created a semi-automated calculator to update zone pressures on a regular basis
- Process Flow Diagram- Standardization
p g- Remapped Process Flow
(added steps for ZP adjustments)
Capability analysis:Before and after D A I CM
Process Capability of OXRG P7RSLTX Process Capability of Range
Sep-08 dataMay-08 data
USL
LSL *Target *USL 320Sample Mean 585.894Sample N 305
Process Data
Z.Bench -2.45Z.LSL *
Potential (Within) C apability
WithinOverall
Process Capability of OXRG P7RSLTX
USL
LSL *Target *USL 320Sample Mean 356.58Sample N 130
Process Data
Z.Bench -0.44Z.LSL *
Potential (Within) C apability
WithinOverall
Process Capability of Range
pStDev (Within) 108.412StDev (O v erall) 174.87
Z.USL -2.45C pk -0.82
Z.Bench -1.52Z.LSL *Z.USL -1.52Ppk -0.51C pm *
O v erall C apability
pStDev (Within) 83.6199StDev (O v erall) 110.688
Z.USL -0.44C pk -0.15
Z.Bench -0.33Z.LSL *Z.USL -0.33Ppk -0.11C pm *
O v erall C apability
12001050900750600450300
% < LSL *% > USL 98.03% Total 98.03
O bserv ed Performance% < LSL *% > USL 99.29% Total 99.29
Exp. Within Performance% < LSL *% > USL 93.58% Total 93.58
Exp. O v erall Performance
700600500400300200100
% < LSL *% > USL 51.54% Total 51.54
O bserv ed Performance% < LSL *% > USL 66.91% Total 66.91
Exp. Within Performance% < LSL *% > USL 62.95% Total 62.95
Exp. O v erall Performance
% achieving goal:> 48% (and improving)
% achieving goal:< 2%
Remark:320A is the goal for mean value and not the Upper Spec Limit.As there is no spec limit existing we used the goal for the capability calculation.
Primary Metric:Film Thickness Improvement D A I CM
Start of Control Phase
C ff f
700
800
900
2
Combined effect of:- New XY process- Gen II head preference- ZP calculator
I d h d b ild
500
600
700
_ran
ge_1
2 - Improved head rebuild- “Just Do It” improvements
300
400WIW
_
GOAL: 320ATwo weeks at goal:Average WIW range: 317A
100
200
8-32
8-33
8-34
8-35
8-36
8-37
8-38
8-39
8-40
8-41
8-42
8-43
8-44
8-45
8-46
8-47
8-48
8-49
8-50
8-51
8-52
8-53
Average WIW range: 317A
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW
08FW
08FW
08F
W08
FW08
FW08
FW
08FW
08FW
08FW
08FW
08FW
08FW
08FW
08
FW
Control PlanD A I CM
Transition PlanD A I CM
Control Phase Summary & LSS Tools used D A I CM
Summary:Capability improved from 2% (May
Tools/methodologies used:Control Plan- Capability improved from 2% (May-
08) to > 48% (Sep-8)(320A is a goal not a spec limit)R h d l (O R 320A) i
- Control Plan- Poka-Yoke- SPM
- Reached goal (OxRg < 320A) in FW52/53(w/o NOVA or Run-2-Run control)
- SPC- OCAP
- Added head rebuild improvements- Created the following documents:
Control Plan (see Appendix)
- Transition Plan- Final Report
- Control Plan (see Appendix)- Transition Plan (see Appendix)- Final Reportp
- Closed Project
Project Summary:Big wins D A I CM
• Achieved goal of AA Post Oxide within Wafer Range of 320A or less
Yi ld i t f 2 3%• Yield improvement of 2.3%• Annual financial return of $ 4.1M• Improved performance to target from less than 2% to greater than 48%Improved performance to target from less than 2% to greater than 48%• Model that helps to adjust zone air pressure on a continuous basis• Optimized process with a favorable thickness profile• Methodology to select tools with better capability automatically• Better understanding of pad type and process conditions
M t d t ll ti f f fil• More accurate data collection for wafer profile• Short project time of less than 5 months (means less downtime for CMP production)
• Future NOVA implementation will drastically reduce AA CMP CTp y• Future Run-2-Run control will allow CMP technicians to focus on Mfg issues
Next Steps:Future Improvement D A I CM
1) Upgrade Generation I toolset to Generation II head type2) Fully qualify the new XY pad process (incl. new ramp)
3) Perform Zone Pressure DOE with new pad type and create semi-automatic Zone Pressure web calculator for new process (add to CMP Intra net)Zone Pressure web calculator for new process (add to CMP Intra-net)
4) Fully automate Zone Pressure control (Run-2-Run control)• Total “hands-off” operation for CMP Mfg and CMP technicians
5) Install and set-up Nova in-situ film thickness measurement system• Faster feed back if uniformity is OOC
Mi i i b f l t / f d t OOC diti• Minimize number of lots/wafers exposed to OOC condition(automatic adjustments while lots is running)
• Decrease cycle time by “eliminating” pre and post film thickness measurements in a separate stepin a separate step
AA TEOS CMPBefore, After & Future D A I CM
Any
uestions?
Th kThank you
The World’s LeadingCreative Memory CompanyCreative Memory Company
APPENDIX(tool summary & signatures, glossary)
DMAIC Tool Summary
DEFINE Tollgate
MEASURE Tollgate
ANALYZE Tollgate
IMPROVE Tollgate
CONTROL Tollgate
Glossary
6S Six Sigma
A Angstrom (10‐10m)
AA Active Area
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
ASP Average Selling Priceg g
BB Black Belt
BMG Breakthrough Management Group (BMGI ‐ Copyright BMGI. All rights reserved
C&E Cause & Effect
CAP Center Air Pressure
CMP Chemical Mechanical PolishingCMP Chemical Mechanical Polishing
CMP_XX CMP tools XX
CoO Cost of Ownership
Cpk Process CapabilityCpk Process Capability
CS Carrier Speed
CT Cycle time
Glossary
DMAIC Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control
DOE Design of Experiment
EAP Edge Air Pressure
EBIT Earnings Before Interest and Tax(es)
EE Equipment EngineeringEE Equipment Engineering
EP Endpoint
Fab Chip plant
FILMS Thin Film Deposition
GB Green Belt
G I / G II G ti I / IIGen I / Gen II Generation I / II
L6S Lean Six Sigma (same as LSS)
LSL Lower Spec Limit
LSS Lean Six Sigma
Glossary
MBB Master Black Belt
Mfg Manufacturing
MTY Metrology
OAP Outer Air Pressure
OCAP Out of Control Action PlanOCAP Out of Control Action Plan
OOC Out of Control
OP Overpolish
OxRg Oxide RangeOxRg Oxide Range
OxRg(12) 12 point Oxide Range (same as OxRg)
OxRgMean Mean Oxide Range (same as OxRg)
PCP Polishing Chamber Pressure
PE Process Engineering
PI Process Integration
POR Process of Record
Glossary
QNA Qimonda North America
QR2 Qimonda Richmond 200mm Plant
QR3 Qimonda Richmond 300mm Plant
R2R Run‐2‐Run
RAP Ripple Air PressureRAP Ripple Air Pressure
RCA Root Cause Analysis
ROCE Return On Capital Employed
ROI Return of InvestmentROI Return of Investment
RTD Real Time Dispatch
SF Slurry Flow
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPC Statistical Process Control
SPM Statistical Process Monitoring
StDev Standard Deviation
Glossary
T80 Technology 80nm
TEOS Tetraethylorthosilicate
TS Table Speed
USL Upper Spec Limit
VOC Voice of Customer
WETS Wet Clean and Etch
WIW (range) Within Wafer (range) (same as OxRg)WIW (range) Within Wafer (range) (same as OxRg)
WSPW Wafer Starts Per Week
YB Yellow Belt
YBS3 Final Wafer Yield
ZP Zone Pressure