The evolution of employee empowerment

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 6, NO. 2, MAY 1993 143

The Evolution of Employee Empowerment Lawrence S. Behnke, R. Marshall Hamlin, and Bill C. Smoak

Abstract-This paper presents the evolution of employee involvement programs into empowered Self-Directed Work Teams (SDWTs) to drive continuous improvement methodologies. With the primary goal of increased manufacturing performance and customer satisfaction, SDWTs are responsible for the day-to-day operations and directions of existing Wafer Fabs at Harris Semiconductor in Palm Bay, Florida.

The SDWTs were formed to improve key Fab performance indices such as throughput yield (TPY), cycle time, performance-to-schedule and reduction of costs. The specific methodologies which will be discussed are: e 0

e e

e

0

e

e

e 0

Designing in quality. Developing and building the “team” philosophy. Forming work teams. Analyzing skills. Training work-in-process management, activity planning and work scheduling. Developing and implementing gainsharing. The results described in this paper will include, but are not limited to, the following: 10% improvement in TPY over 7 quarters. 70% reduction in cycle time over 7 quarters. 30% improvement in die yield over 7 quarters. 7.3% budget savings realized from gainshare program during first 2 quarters of implementation.

INTRODUCTION HE EVOLUTION of empowered Self Directed Work T Teams (SDWTs) at Harris Semiconductor is a process

which began in early calendar year 1989 and continues today. This paper describes the process in a chronological fashion. To more fully understand the scope and depth of the SDWT evolution, one must first understand the state of the manufacturing activities at the inception of the program. Several important programs based on continuous and significant improvement were important contributors to the SDWT transition. These are briefly described.

Three phases of development are discussed that define how the evolution has taken place. In phase I , the initial designing of the activity, management commitment, facilitator role and the actual formation of the teams are discussed. In phase 11, team rules, measurements, goal setting, conflict management, communication and skills assessment are described. Phase I11 identifies issues such as team structure changes, support requirements, job class structures, performance appraisals and other compensation.

Manuscript received October 15, 1992. The authors are with Hams Corporation, Semiconductor Sector, P . 0

Box 883, Melbourne, FL 32901. IEEE Log Number 92077 15.

In the final section, a success story is described which exemplifies the status of the SDWTs at Harris Semicon- ductor. Also in this section, key metrics are reviewed showing the magnitude of improvement in the overall Fab operations while SDWTs evolved.

Manufacturing Methodologies It is important to discuss what manufacturing meth-

odologies were in use at Harris during the initialization of SDWTs. Harris management had committed the organization to the implementation and use of many improvement techniques which became fundamental to SDWT development. The following will give an overview of these methods and the resultant employee skills.

The use of Statistical Process Control (SPC) at Hams Semiconductor began in 1982. This activity was implemented in manufacturing areas with the goal being control monitoring and variability reduction. All levels of employees are trained on SPC with the focus on the individual use level. For example, Engineers are trained on the- ory, chart construction, variability analysis and designed experiments (DOX). Operators are trained on plotting, chart maintenance, out of control condition recognition and action plans. SPC charts are used at specific unit operations where monitoring the state of the process is critical to product performance and yield. As SPC implementation matured, the use of out of control action plans or OCAP’s became widespread. The OCAP’s allowed line personnel to become more proficient at process and product dispositioning, thus providing more autonomy on a day-to-day basis from engineering support. At the time of the SDWT formation, the use of SPC was part of the manufacturing culture.

Like SPC, Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) was initiated in 1982. This system was implemented with total shop floor control in mind. The CAM implementation at Hams consists of many different attributes, work in process (WIP) tracking, resource management, engineering data collection and analysis and communication. All employees are trained in the online use of the CAM system to accomplish tasks such as inquiries, report generation and data logging. WIP is concerned with inventory management, activity planning, work scheduling and yield monitoring. Many of the metrics concerning WIP, yield, movements, inventory etc., are determined using this aspect of the CAM system. The SDWTs require this information to ensure their autonomy and continued success. In a similar way, the resource management part of the system allows a user to track the status of, and measure

0894-6507/93$03.00 0 1993 IEEE

144 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 6, NO. 2, MAY 1993

over time, key resources in the activity such as equipment. The scheduling of activities such as preventative maintenance, chemical changes and process qualifications allows the user to plan for such occurrences. The engineering data collection and analysis aspect of the system has similar attributes as it allows for the programmed collection of critical process data during manufacturing. This data is available off line to be used for analysis by support groups in statistical analysis software.

Good communications is fundamental to any organized activity and the CAM system has contributed to this requirement. The availability of an electronic mail system has gone a long way to facilitate employee to employee and team to team communication. This system is used in a variety of ways such as team to team shift passdowns, activity reports and time scheduling.

Employee involvement teams (EIT) is another meth- odology that was emphasized. This activity was primarily focused on specific problems and thus individual teams had a finite life. The process employed a facilitator who would train and coach the group on team problem solving activities such as goal setting, the problem solving process, conducting meetings and group dynamics. The success of these teams was frequent and of high impact. Even though participation in this activity was voluntary, a large fraction of employees chose to get involved. The results showed that employees would take ownership of solutions of their own design. Many of the skills learned in EITs were directly applicable to the SDWT. This is evident in the observation that employees who were members of successful EITs easily transitioned to SDWT’s.

Just-in-Time (JIT) inventory management is a tech- nique that was implemented similarly to EITs. This activity consisted o the designation of JIT teams which were formed to address a specific process area and had a life- time of several months. The procedures used consisted of training in JIT methods, the study of the target process and then the application of the methods. The results included cycle time and inventory reduction and yield improvement. Often, there were fundamental changes in how the target area scheduled and performed work. This allowed employees to recognize how work moved through their areas and what contributed to its impediment.

Total productive maintenance (TPM) is an activity which is focused on increasing product quality and equipment effectiveness by reducing the 6 big equipment losses. This process is implemented with the formation of small group activity teams (SGAT’s) whose goals are to improve the effectiveness of selected critical equipment. Concepts such as measurement of overall effectiveness (6 big losses), autonomous maintenance, preventative maintenance, maintenance skill training, and maintenance pre- vention are implemented. The SGAT’s are made up of a cross section of skill sets so that all facets of production can be addressed. Although TPM came in the later stages of SDWT development, it is an outstanding complement to the process. This will continue to be an improvement conduit for the SDWT.

Another activity that is important to the success of the SDWTs is the production specialist and specialized employee education (SEE) programs. In 1987 it was recognized that the tasks in the manufacturing areas were evolving at a rate which required a higher skilled employee. With the increasing complexity level of equipment and product, and considering the skill demands of methodologies like SPC, JIT and CAM, it is easy to see that a highly educated worker is required. With the production specialist program, Hams is addressing these issues by hiring more qualified candidates. This candidate must possess a 2 year technical degree and therefore al- ready have many of the basic skills that are required to contribute in the workplace described. Upon entering the workforce, the candidate is trained in most facets of the operations including wafer processing, basic equipment maintenance and process/product dispositioning. In the SEE program, employees volunteer to attend a year long program where half time is spent in their production area and the other half in the classroom. This program is ad- ministered by the local community college and is designed to teach basic advanced education skills. Both of these activities result in employees who are better pre- pared to participate in the SDWT and ensure its’ success.

PHASE I With the cornerstones of SPC, JIT, EIT and other con-

tinuous improvement methods in place, an organization is ripe for the evolution into Self Directed Work Teams (SDWTs). By merely having these methods in place but not permitting or forcing these philosophies to the worker level, an organization may be cheating itself of the enor- mous benefits of these programs.

Designing in Quality One of the most important items that must be evident

to all employees involved in this process is management commitment. Without commitment from management there is little chance that any pockets of SDWTs will sur- vive in the long run. The higher the level of commitment, the higher the level of success. In Harris Semiconductor’s case, the level of commitment began with the Sector Pres- ident. Over time, this commitment spread throughout all management levels down to the line supervisor. This spread of commitment was not a quick process, but was one filled with frustration and anxiety at some levels. This should not sound too surprising considering it is the same cultural change that had to take place with the production line personnel.

The commitment from Hams started with an organi- zational design program that came to be known as “Qual- ity by Design” or QBD. This was a socio-technical class that examined the way Hams Semiconductor did business. The goal of the program was to have teams of exempt and non-exempt employees flow chart their operations to see how work moved through the factory from a product flow as well as a communication standpoint and

BEHNKE er al.: THE EVOLUTION OF EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT 145

make recommendations to improve these flows throughout the company. The idea was to remove non-valued efforts and design in quality to all operations. These flows became known as the Social track and the Technical track.

Before the inception of SDWTs, Hams Semiconduc- tor’s manufacturing areas were set up as traditional top heavy organizations. For each area there was an Engi- neering Manager, Production Manager and Maintenance Manager. These persons reported to a Fab Director who reported to the Plant Manager who reported to a Vice President and so on and so forth. Reporting to the Engi- neering Manager were all the Process Engineers. Each engineer had at least one process technician. The Produc- tion Supervisors on each shift reported to a General Pro- duction Supervisor who reported to the Production Man- ager. All of the maintenance technicians reported to the Maintenance Manager.

As confusing as it is to explain this organization, it is easy to see how confusing it would be to understand directions. It is similar to the “grapevine effect.” A direction started at one place and traveling through a myriad of persons, rarely is understood the same as it was intended. It was no wonder that line personnel rarely understood what effect their day-to-day efforts had to do with the overall results of the organization. This communication path could be considered the social track of an organization. The further the decision making point is from where the work is performed, the more of a chance a disconnect in directions will occur. For instance, assume the main direction from upper management is delivery. Dur- ing the passing down of this order through a long management communication chain, it is possible the line personnel might perceive that quantity overrides quality and a disconnect occurs. The idea here is to remove some of the levels of decision making to shorten the track between top management and the point where the work is actually performed: the line worker. By shortening this loop, the chance of concise goals and measurements being understood by all members of the organization is greatly improved.

Another way to look at an organization is by the technical track. The technical flow is how product moves through an area from start to finish. In this flow there are a series of suppliers and customers. For instance, in a photoresist area, the coat operator is the supplier to the alignment operator or in other terms, the alignment operator is the customer of the coat operator. Just like the real world, all customers have certain expectations of the things they are supplied. Quality, delivery and cost are usually the main expectations. For an organization to provide good customer service, it is first important to deter- mine what the customer wants. Once this determination is concrete, the organization must set its goal to supply these needs. This goal could be considered the “mission” or “vision” of the company.

By having a concise mission and looking at the entire organization from the technical and social aspects, it is possible to “trim the fat” and make the organization much

more flexible to all customer’s needs. The technical and social flows must be examined for value points and non- value points. The more non-value points that can be elim- inated in both the technical and social flows, the more efficient and flexible these flows will become.

The production teams were initially formed by looking at the technical and social tracks with the customer/supplier concept or company mission in mind. Team size was also an issue. If a team was too large, the generation of ideas could be stifled; if too small, the absence of ideas could become a problem. Generally, each production team was designed with 5-10 members. In addition, management made a conscious decision to take engineering and maintenance technicians out of their “buttonholed” positions and have them become members of the production teams. These technicians no longer reported through a particular Engineer or Maintenance Supervisor, but instead reported to production just like their new teammates. These ideas enabled a good mix of personalities and skills without hampering new ideas.

By looking at the technical flow of an area and keeping the social aspects of these areas in mind, natural breaks became evident. For example, in a normal Wafer Fab area the boundaries might be diffusion, photo masking, photo etch, implant, and thin films. Assuming a 24 hour a day 3 shift operation, you would end up with 15 production SDWTs (5 teams on 3 shifts). Once the broad boundaries of what constituted a SDWT were defined, it was time to begin having regular group meetings with all members of each team. Needless to say, most line personnel were not receptive to all of these new ideas. It became evident that the SDWTs needed a coach or facilitator (or mediator in some cases) to manage this transition process.

Role of the Facilitator

Before QBD came along, most line supervisors directed the duties of their subordinates on a day-to-day and sometimes hour-to-hour basis. The line personnel had very little chance to show off their talents since most Supervisors and Engineers thought line people did not have the education to make decisions in the complicated world of semiconductors. The whole idea of SDWTs is for the line personnel to make all of the day-to-day decisions in their areas of responsibility. Clearly, the line Supervisors needed to go through a transition themselves. They needed to become leaders and coaches instead of directors.

At the outset of the SDWT transition, the Supervisors were given different titles that represented the philosoph- ical difference between the old system and the new system. The new titles fell into two categories. One of the titles was “Coordinator. ” A Coordinator was different from a Supervisor in that this person was to coordinate the product flow throughout the entire shift and also be a spokesperson for SDWT development. For some time, even with the title change, the Coordinator still acted as a Supervisor. As the SDWT concept took root, the supervisory skills transformed into more of a coordination of

146 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 6. NO. 2, MAY 1993

SDWT efforts. The other title for Supervisors was “Fa- cilitator. ’’ The original Facilitators were Supervisors that had displayed strong people skills. These people were taken out of their positions as Supervisors and given ex- tensive training classes on how to deal with teams of employees. Most of these persons had excellent knowledge of the work flow of their areas and their people. Their training largely consisted of sharpening their people skills in areas such as conflict management, goal setting, motivational and leadership skills. These Facilitators became the champions of the SDWT movement. Without their efforts, the program may well have failed.

SDWT Formation With the role of the facilitator in place, the production

SDWTs were ready to begin having regularly scheduled meetings. At the first meetings, most, of the questions were: What are we supposed to do? How do we do it? Why are we doing this? At this stage it was important for the SDWTs to quickly be able to answer these crucial questions so that some sort of “buy-in” by team members would develop. One method for quick buy-in was for each SDWT to go through a brainstorming exercise to pick a team name. This also provided some identity to each SDWT. It was easy to tell which SDWTs had some inter- est in the program and which ones thought it was just another “program of the week.” Some of the names generated were: EPI 1, PHOTO3, MIDNIGHT MAGIC, THE SPINNERS. Can you guess who bought in and who didn’t? Next, each SDWT was asked to brainstorm a list of all of their intemal and extemal customers and also what they perceived as their product. They were then asked to compile a list of things that they, as customers, expected from their suppliers. These lists were the initial measurements each SDWT graded themselves upon. After these exercises, the Facilitators pointed out that the SDWTs had answered their own initial questions. Im- proving customer service (Quality, Delivery, Cost) was WHY we were doing teams. Providing excellent customer service was WHAT they were supposed to do. With the support of the Facilitator and area management the SDWTs would figure out HOW to make this happen. All the SDWTs were asked to develop their own “mission statement” which would deal with the WHY, WHAT and HOW. The Facilitators coached the teams to make sure their individual mission statements were tied into the overall company mission.

Managing Chaos With a broad understanding of what was trying to be

accomplished, the SDWTs started looking into how to transition towards becoming self-managed. Several issues needed to work in concert. The issues of “knocking down the walls” and building a real team were evident, First off, team members needed to be able to talk to one another and offer and deal with constructive criticism. This issue of group dynamics is without a doubt one of the most ongoing issues with SDWTs.

One of the main walls within the teams was the differing skills of the persons on the team. With these skills, also many times came differing job titles. There were members who were regular operators, some production specialists with 2 year technical degrees, some engineering technicians and even maintenance techs. With each of these titles there were soine levels of conceit. For instance, maintenance techs felt it beneath themselves to have to work on product. Engineering techs were not much different. Many felt they didn’t have to abide by the same rules as the line personnel. Although some of these groups felt “above” others, it was important to meld these groups together in each team so that there would be an adequate skill base to build upon. This would become a major issue in the next phase of SDWT development.

PHASE I1 With the initial formation of SDWTs complete, the next

phase mainly consisted of strengthening these structures, focusing on achieving goals and reducing conflict.

Code of Conduct One of the effective methods used to reduce conflict

was to have each SDWT decide a “code of conduct.” This code consisted of agreed upon manners in which each member would relate to one another in team meetings as well as on the production line. The idea here was to remove as much bickering as possible in the day-to-day rou- tines. Most SDWTs used somewhat of a golden rule approach. Each member was to try and treat other members like they wanted to be treated themselves. This meant treating others with respect and dignity. As in most of this empowerment process, some SDWTs performed better than others. The more successful ones shunned conceit and welcomed open, honest ideas and opinions. It also became the manner in which each SDWT dealt with other teams within their manufacturing area and eventually the entire plant. Some members, that had not bought into the process yet and violated the code of conduct, received their own dose of peer pressure.

At this point, peer pressure became a viable means to deal with non-team players. A concerted disappointment with one member’s actions by his or her teammates was a much better motivator than a supervisor. Due to the rad- ical nature of the SDWT cultural change and the relatively quick pace that it was taking place, Human Resources was not synchronized with the process. Therefore, they were not willing to allow disciplinary actions at this time based on a person being a non-team player. The code of conduct and peer pressure, overseen by the Facilitators, became the tool to fix this gap.

Team Leader In addition to these ideas, many SDWT members were

being sent to team training classes. In the early stages, most SDWTs had a team leader. This person was sent to hours of training classes to teach them how to deal with

BEHNKE et al.: THE EVOLUTION OF EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT 147

group dynamics and group decision making. SDWT members also attended training classes on team dynamics, conflict resolution and problem solving skills. The team leader was to be a working member of the SDWT. Their responsibilities were to coordinate the day-to-day activities of the SDWT as well as act as an interface with shift Coordinators and other SDWT’s. During team meetings, the leader was to make sure the group remained focused on the tasks at hand to prevent discussions wandering off track. The leader was also supposed to help resolve con- flicts within the SDWT and call in support for any activities that couldn’t be handled by the team.

In most cases, the initial team leaders were selected by management. Many times these were persons who had al- ready displayed good informal leadership skills from a management perspective. Unfortunately, some SDWT members did not always agree with management’s choices. Another problem with the team leader concept was that the position became, in effect, an untrained supervisor that lacked authority to administer company policies.

These were all issues that had to be dealt with by the Facilitators throughout the transition process. Some of the really good team leaders made it through the transition. Others made it impossible for the SDWT to be effective and were sometimes voted out by the team members. Some of the basic ideas of the team leader role (and in some cases, the leaders themselves) thwarted development of the SDWT as a whole. It soon became evident during the evolution process that for some SDWTs, the leader role was not appropriate. This prompted the beginning of a Star Concept of team management. This concept will be explained in phase 111.

Skills Matrix For any SDWTs to effectively achieve area goals, they

first had to understand the responsibilities of their group. Early in the QBD process, it was envisioned that a self- managed team should have certain responsibilities. These responsibilities consisted of meeting quality and quantity goals, dispositioning product in their area, assuring proper equipment calibrations (i.e., daily SPC checks), perform- ing preventative and minor maintenance of their equipment, utilizing modern manufacturing techniques (such as JIT, SPC, CAM), providing inputs on area improvements, training and providing inputs on personnel issues. These were the basics on HOW the teams would accomplish their goals. By taking a quick glance at these responsibilities it is somewhat obvious that there are some basic skill groups. For instance, meeting quality and quantity goals and area improvements might be considered operational skills. Dispositioning of product and uti- lization of SPC might be considered technical skills as would equipment calibration and preventative and minor maintenance. Inputs on personnel issues and training might be considered administrative skills.

Taking into account the background of the members of each SDWT as mentioned earlier, and considering their

skill base, the plan was to meld the ex-technicians, production specialists and operators into a working unit that would share their knowledge and skills across the entire group. This became known as the Skills Matrix. Each SDWT generated specific skills inventories for their respective areas to monitor present skill levels and prioritize training efforts towards self-management. These skills were categorized into functional areas: Operational, Ad- ministrative, Process and Equipment. In some cases, the process and equipment skills were lumped together and called simply technical skills. Each functional skill area was classified into three progressive levels of competency to be used as a tool to measure improvement towards team goals. The goals were to improve the overall effectiveness of the SDWT by increasing all members skills in these areas. The area Facilitators used these levels, along with positive interaction, to monitor and provide “real time” feedback to the SDWTs. Eventually, the SDWTs recognized where they were weak and where they were strong. This helped them focus their resources to improve their weaknesses. Fig. 1 is an example of a skills matrix. Fig. 2 shows the corresponding levels of operational skills.

The administrative and technical skills had similar levels with increasing complexity at each level. As SDWTs matured and refined their skills, the more and more com- plex each level became. This had to be a fluid and dynamic process since some SDWTs basically started in the second or third levels depending on the background of their members. Again, the idea was to make the SDWTs become self-directed without the need for support on a day-to-day basis. The more the SDWT could control, the better chance they had in making continuous and significant improvement on the major goals of their entire manufacturing area.

Focusing on Major Goals

In a broad sense, the major goal for the different manufacturing areas within Hams Semiconductor is customer satisfaction. For the Wafer Fabs this equates to improving quality, reducing costs, and improving delivery. These major goals were the most important for the SDWTs to understand and focus upon. Before this could happen though, the SDWTs had to know what they did on a day- to-day basis that affected quality, cost and delivery. With- out improvement in these indices, one might suggest that SDWTs are merely a “smoke and mirrors” enhancement of employee involvement teams.

Zkroughput Yield: Throughput yield (TPY) is one of the most important indices in that it affects both cost and delivery. TPY is also a major quality measurement. The higher the TPY of a product, the lower cost of producing that product becomes and the better the delivery of that product to the customer. To the SDWTs this was explained as simply reduction of wafer scraps. The formula for calculating TPY is:

TPY = outs/(outs + losses)

148 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 6, NO. 2, MAY 1993

hu.

Fig. 2. Corresponding levels of operational skills.

By reducing the wafer scraps in an area, the TPY is increased and in-turn, fewer wafers need to be processed to achieve the same shipment level. This was a measurement that was easily affected by each SDWT and also readily understood by each team member. First off, each SDWT was taught how to manually calculate TPY. Even though there were automated reports that showed what the TPY was each day, it was felt that if the teams calculated it by themselves it would increase their understanding of the relationship between ships and scraps. This would also aid in their ability to recognize the effect their daily performance had on this quality measurement and would help them to set goals to improve it.

Die Yield: The unified yield number of UNYN is another quality index that was important for the SDWTs to understand. UNYN is basically weighted die yield per wafer averaged across all wafers shipped out of a Fab. Although it was a little harder for the SDWTs to understand how they could affect UNYN, it was important that they understood how die yields affected cost and delivery. Many of the ideas that were stressed were handling methods and cleanroom improvements to reduce the number of defects on each wafer. It was explained that the fewer the number of defects on a wafer meant the greater number of die that would be acceptable farther down the manufacturing chain. This explanation caused many SDWTs to generate projects to improve these yields.

Delivery: The other main indices the SDWTs needed to grasp were linearity and delivery to customer requests. In each of the Wafer Fabs at Hams Semiconductor there are schedules. Each schedule is comprised of numerous products. These products are referred as line items. A customer might request 100 wafers of product A, 200 of product B and 50 of Product C. By delivering 350 wafers of product A, chances are there are three unsatisfied customers. One customer has too many parts and the other two have no parts. The idea here is to deliver the correct number of parts for each line item. This is considered wafer mix with the ideal goal being 100%. Linearity is a subset of mix. If there is a four week timeframe in which

a schedule is to be completed, the goal would be to ship 25% each week. These are measurements that gauge the productivity of a SDWT or area. These were also measurements the SDWTs could easily understand, affect and track.

Communication By wrapping all of this together, the SDWTs had the

main structures to influence the outcome of their respective areas. They had a skills matrix with a clear idea of where they needed to improve and they had an understanding of the major measurements which would affect the overall performance of the company. They were primed for improvement but needed more building blocks. One block that would become a cornerstone of the entire process was communication.

Although the SDWTs may have understood their major skill and performance goals, without good communication systems they would not have been able to work together to improve on a global basis. It might have also caused unnecessary work, in that different SDWTs might end up working on similar projects without knowing the results of each others efforts. This was extremely important on SDWTs that worked in the same area but on different shifts. Without a strong communication system, conflict could arise quickly.

One of the benefits of the CAM system is that it included an electronic mail system. Before SDWT’s, the electronic mail was used mainly by area Supervisors, En- gineers and Technicians. The line personnel did not have personal mail accounts. Instead, there were area specific mail accounts which could be used but were difficult to maintain since no one person had ownership of that account. Once the teams were formed and the need for improved communication was realized, each SDWT, or in some cases, each member was given a personal mail account to manage. Access to this system alone made a tremendous improvement on the communication between teams and within the factory. SDWTs made up distribu- tion lists that would send information to all necessary personnel. The more the SDWTs used this system, the more informed everyone became. The electronic mail allowed each team to publish the minutes of their meetings so that other groups would be aware of what projects all the SDWTs were working on. It also was a good method for each SDWT to compile their accomplishments over pe- riods of time. As some SDWTs matured, they used this system to publish a monthly report to area management and copy the other production teams within their functional area. These monthly reports outlined the progress, problems and plans the SDWT had for that period of time.

One of the more important uses of the communication system was the shift-to-shift passdown. This passdown was a synopsis of the activities that had occurred during a SDWT’s shift. It included such information as the equipment status, product on hold, priority product and operation summaries. Before SDWTs, this information was compiled by the supervisors on the shift and reported

BEHNKE er al.: THE EVOLUTION OF EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT 149

standard practice were being observed by the SDWTs. The Coordinators were not witness to these or other behavioral discrepancies to the same level of detail because their roles had changed focus from “cop” to “coach.” Much of their awareness to problems was of 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge. Being somewhat distant from the issues and problems occurring in the work area resulted in a longer time frame between event and disciplinary action because the Coordinator was now in a catch up role. Getting first hand understanding of a particular event took time and im- pacted the Coordinators’ effectiveness in fulfilling the new role. This naturally was required before the Coordinator could begin any disciplinary proceedings.

The solution was to give the SDWTs training and coaching in the handling of problems of this nature. The SDWTs had the first hand knowledge and with the appropriate experience and training could address problems in a more real-time manner. The best and most successful approach was that of peer pressure. This required coaching on how to be tactful, diplomatic, and sensitive to the situation. Early on, peer pressure would often lead to conflict and require Coordinator intervention to smooth things out. Usually, this resulted from reactions first, and thought second. In time though, the SDWTs began to address these disciplinary issues by collecting data and facts through team discussions and gave some forethought into how to handle a situation.

Coaching of this activity was extremely important in any formal counseling activity being handled by the SDWT. Formal training in this area was generally un- available to the hourly workforce, so close scrutiny was a must. Although still in its infancy stages, this new disciplinary procedure has been appropriately used by the SDWTs to address chronic problems including attendance, tardiness, poor quality, non-performance and conflict. Seldom have these gone beyond a single level of formal counseling. Peer pressure and team attention generally have quick and positive results. No real statistics are available to compare but general impressions are that disciplinary actions are on a downward trend. SDWTs take pride in resolving these issues internally before there is a need for management intervention. In addition, there has been no compromise of company standard practice.

Individual Based vs. Team Based With this addition to the SDWTs skill set, most tradi-

tional supervisory personnel activities of discipline, time- keeping, scheduling and goal attainment were now will- ingly accepted as SDWT activities and responsibilities (all or in part). The SDWTs were beginning to assess and understand their capabilities and identify their limitations.

Many of the SDWTs’ limitations however were not directly within their control to overcome. The real problem was that management had failed to bring “SUPPORT” systems in line with the SDWT development activities. These strong “pockets” of SDWTs required TEAM BASED systems but were still locked to the traditional INDIVIDUAL BASED support. This had to be addressed

to the oncoming supervisor. Many times the line personnel were unaware of what had happened on the previous shift. This often caused confusion and many times wasted efforts. Once the SDWTs took on this task, incomplete information on problems or the area status was rarely an issue.

An offshoot of the communication system was the team presentation. The SDWT presentation was a forum in which each SDWT could present its accomplishments on projects, training or any other topic which affected a SDWT’s ability to perform its mission. These presentations were performed approximately every six months and were attended by the Fab Manager and other exempts in the area. Although these presentations started out as in- formational sessions, one of the greatest benefits of these was that the preparation itself became a tremendous team dynamics lesson. Since the SDWTs knew they were pre- senting their accomplishments to upper management, many times they devised elaborate booklets, charts and graphs to get their points across. Most SDWTs had members break off into groups to formulate different parts of their presentation. Then, they would all get together to practice their parts as a group. In the first presentations, most members were extremely nervous. But as a group, they coached each other, consoled each other and “high fived” each other throughout their entire presentation. This process became one of the first real pictures of what SDWTs would become.

With a structured system now in place, and the area Facilitators stressing the importance of using open and honest communication as a way of doing business, the SDWTs were ready to move on to the next phase in the evolution of employee empowerment.

PHASE I11 In the third phase of SDWT development the produc-

tion teams had overcome many of the obstacles encoun- tered in the first two phases. Conflict, for the most part was greatly reduced. SDWT focus was in the areas of coordination of effort, functioning as a team (no longer a collection of individuals), and mutual trust and understanding of one another as they worked together as a unit or team. This is not to say that problems were non-existent. However, problems were witnessed to be handled more by the SDWTs themselves.

Discipline One of the problem areas that was a traditional super-

visory responsibility but needed some modification to fit SDWT development was disciplinary procedures. The self management concept needed to allow for the SDWTs to have some input into disciplinary actions and procedures. The Coordinators were no longer as involved in the day- to-day activities and were not exposed to the daily problems on a regular basis. Problems, including non-performance towards established objectives and goals, non- conformance to team guidelines, or violation of company

150 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 6, NO. 2. MAY 1993

quickly. The traditional systems were those management approaches, technical support, career pathing philosophies, compensation procedures and Human Resource policies/support methods which had always been geared to the individual. The SDWTs were well along in the development curve and needed support that was “TEAM BASED. ” The support organizations were not keeping up with these needs and in many cases were not even forming a strategy on where to go or how to get there. If not cor- rected, it was felt the impact would certainly lead to frustration, slowing of the SDWT development activities or possibly even failure of the process. The management groups began addressing these issues at the Fab level, hoping to influence the whole organization.

Star Concept As mentioned earlier, one recognized problem in the

team development process was a management approach which originally led the SDWTs in the direction of team leaders. The team building process is a dynamic one and some approaches end up not being as intended, need tweaking or possibly a complete reset. The team leader concept was just such an issue requiring a reset.

As the SDWTs continued to progress, they began ad- justing their structure and make-up internally to further enhance their effectiveness. The team leader position really failed to live up to its expectations and became more of a mini-supervisor role with these individuals trying to do it all. In some cases, pay was handed out and some resentment and attitudes materialized. Involvement by the rest of the team was stifled with many members either not participating, or waiting on the leader to make decisions.

What evolved was a concept of shared responsibility where each member of the team took on a piece of the pie. This became know as the Star Concept. The SDWTs brainstormed the roles within their respective groups. These roles included: production coordinator activities, projects, SPC, meeting coordinator, etc. The SDWTs decided to appoint one or two members that would be responsible for each of these roles. Each of these roles had defined duties and activities within each SDWT and were presented at each team meeting.

Through the Star Concept, each member began participating. They knew their role and were responsible to their SDWT to insure this activity was fulfilled within the team and coordinated between other SDWTs with the same role. Many SDWTs also adopted a rotation policy, so that over time, each member would be able to fulfill each role within the team. This would also help each member become more fully educated in the management of their area. The team leader chapter was closed out and the shared responsibility philosophy became very much a part of the SDWT development going forward.

Support Teams Another twist to the shared responsibility philosophy

rested with the role of the support groups. Support groups

include personnel not on the SDWTs. These personnel usually include Management, Engineering and hourly support (clerical staff, planners, and other service groups). The jury is still out as to the appropriate timing to begin this support group integration process. Even though, in Hams Semiconductor’s case, the addition and implementation of the support teams came early in phase 111, many feel this system should be instituted earlier in the SDWT development process. Phase I11 was the point in time where the SDWT development activity had begun to flat- ten out. The SDWTs had done much to move in the direction of self-management. Now they needed the impe- tus to reach the next rung on the ladder.

The SDWTs were still in need of administrative and technical support for some of the routine day-to-day decisions and most of the non-standard, non-routine decisions. It was understood early that the SDWT braintrust was very capable. What SDWTs lacked was the appropriate training to make these decisions. This knowledge and skill base existed in the support organization.

Support group integration meant transferring these skills and knowledge into the SDWTs. Moving up the ladder of team development clearly would be difficult if this transfer failed to materialize. Several approaches to this integration were experimented with. In all cases, the support groups were formed into support teams made up of Man- agement, Coordinators, Engineers, and hourly support personnel. Often, these support personnel were on more than one team so they could lend their expertise to more than one subject matter. Some typical support team formations included: Systems, Yield, Process, Equipment, Strategic, Customer and Quality. With the support teams coming in place, the new organization structure took on a whole new appearance as shown in Fig. 3. Much like the SDWTs, each support team would establish a vision and objectives to further develop this eventual goal of autonomy for the SDWTs.

The key to all of this was working on the premise that the SDWTs were the focus of the Support Teams. Essen- tial activities were to focus on moving the SDWTs evolution towards autonomy. A successful Support Team delivered products necessary to improve the SDWTs ability to manage their own business.

Support Team development had come slowly for some teams. Groups of professionals, often very specialized and with large egos were difficult to “team.” In addition, the purpose of these teams was to transfer skills and knowledge into the SDWTs and in effect eliminate positions in the support area. This was not always easy to do. The results are encouraging and can be measured easily by their contribution to SDWT autonomy. The Support Teams are key to SDWT development.

Career Pathing Another of the INDIVIDUAL BASED systems that

needed a drastic overhaul was the career path of hourly personnel working in the SDWT environment. In the old


Fig. 3. Some typical support team formations.

career path, a caste system of sorts was present. Figura- tively, a social system existed having distinct classes of “worker” differentiated by job description, title, and salary within the hourly work force. Previous hierarchy within the old organization consisted of “workers” buck- eted into distinct categories or by specialized expertise. These included: clerical, production operator (no technical degree), production specialist (w/2yr technical degree), equipment maintenance technician, engineering technicians, and production technicians. In addition, Har- ris had an internal on the job training program for its non- technical production hourly workers which added another category. All of the specialized expertise groupings had a career path defined which consisted of 3-4 levels of mobility. These were progressions based on time in job, skills upgrade, and performance. Pay was differentiated by what specialization grouping and level was achieved. The more technical the nature of the position, the higher the salary ranged. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.

Moving between specialization grouping was difficult and poorly defined. Job descriptions were written to re- strict such movement. Job titles clearly marked the boundaries, duties, responsibilities, and salary of the workforce. As the honeybee colony occurs in three castes: queens, workers, and drones, so characterizes the workforce castes: production worker, engineering tech, and maintenance tech. Overlap of duties was atypical. Dis- tinctions between groupings were very obvious and a perceived “level of importance” existed.

In forming SDWTs, these classes within the workforce were merged. Job duties and responsibilities were also merged. Emphasis was on versatility, not specialization. Maintenance skills were folded into each member of the workforce’s job duties. Technical skills and dispositioning capability were added also. Soon, the main distinction between SDWT members was in title only. Duties, roles, and responsibilities were similar whether labeled a production operator or engineering technician. One distinction was still obvious to all: that of salary. Although each SDWT member role was more generic, pay and ability to move (career path) were not. Career paths were not changed to handle the developing SDWT process. This was breeding malcontent and required a revamping of the career path structure to accommodate SDWT activity.

The end result was a structure absent of multiple job titles and career paths. A single job class was established called a FAB TECH. Mobility was available to all and clearly defined within the job descriptions for each level

M34 M35 M36 M37

-Tech 2 -Tech3

Fig. 4. Career paths.

of FAB TECH. There was no hidden agenda in terms of movement from level to level. By meeting the requirements of the next level, advancement was possible re- gardless of “old titles.” Sometimes that might have required some additional training, schooling or technical experience but it was clearly defined. This single job class is illustrated in Fig. 5 .

Career paths were marked and provided additional incentive to increase ones technicaUmaintenance skill base, take advantage of OJT programs or go back to school. This change was generally met with approval from the workforce. The SDWT process had paved the way for this. There was some resentment from a few who felt se- cure behind the old titles they held, but this was by far the minority. This significant change reinforced the position of continuing the SDWT process and convincing the workforce of its permanency by discarding the old which no longer fit. One more obstacle to SDWT development had been addressed.

Peqormance Appraisal Concurrent with the overhaul of the employee career

path, came a complete change in the manner the SDWT members were appraised. With the SDWT members now working as units and each member having defined roles which supported the goals and objectives of the team, the INDIVIDUAL BASED system was out of sync. The performance appraisal system was built around individual contribution, not team contribution. Historically, each person was reviewed on his or her individual accomplishments. They were reviewed on a periodic basis and measured to criteria that they alone achieved. These criteria often included things such as quality, productivity, versatility and attendance.

The organization was now working towards SDWT goals to achieve the Fab objectives. Everyone’s goals were the same. A team effort with total participation was required and sacrificing individual “goals” often was necessary to achieve the SDWT goals. In addition, buy- in and participation in the process was a must because non-players hurt the SDWT results. The SDWT activities being promoted and the individual performance evaluation methods available, were not compatible. It was important to measure performance to goals as a team and also capture the participation and involvement in some way.

The resulting appraisal was very different from the previously used format. The new performance appraisal included a peer evaluation which was weighted 50% peer/

152 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING. VOL. 6, NO. 2, MAY 1993

Fig. 5 . Fab Tech single job class.

50% Coordinator, with the idea of moving towards 100% peer evaluation as SDWTs evolved. A peer evaluation procedure was developed and used every 6 months. Each SDWT member evaluated each peer to a list of criteria which included administrative skills, attitude, participation, communication, versatility, productivity, quality, responsibility and dependability. All peer evaluations and the Coordinator evaluation (weighted 50%) were averaged and this accounted for 30% of the total evaluation. Next, Fab goals were included. Another 30% of the evaluation was measured on how well the Fab achieved its goals. After all, that is what SDWTs were all about. In- dices such as ships, cycletime, delivery and TPY were included. The exempt workforce had been evaluated against these indices for some time and it led to ownership by all of the “same goals.” Everyone was working from the same page. The SDWT goals accounted for another 30% and usually included those team specific activities such as skills matrix (team versatility), yield measures or improvements to audit results. Attendance accounted for the remaining 10%.

A working team evaluation/appraisal was now in place. This evaluation has been under continual review and modification to address changes as the SDWTs evolved. The key was that the appraisal system reinforced the team philosophy. If members had not been sold on the process yet, they were now. It affected their pocketbook.

Gainsha ring As each individual added new skills, versatility in tech-

nical and administrative areas and increased acceptance of responsibility they began asking the question, ‘‘Whats in it for me?”. There was reward in the successes teamwork was achieving. Clearly, the SDWTs were achieving significant and continuous improvement in every aspect of their business. In response, a logical natural extension of the SDWT activities was proposed and implemented in

Gainsharing is a monetary incentive program which was tailored to dovetail into the SDWT development process. Some of the original philosophies that were instrumental in the implementation of Gainsharing were: Make sure the program reinforced the proper behaviors; Make sure the goals and measurements were easy to understand; Make sure the goals and measurements could be easily affected by the participants.

A relatively simple algorithm was developed based on the major performance indices, including on-time delivery, Fab yield (TPY), and die yield (UNYN). Perfor- mance targets were based on historical performance data

199 1 -GAINSHARING.

trends from fiscal 1990-1991. All savings from improved performance in excess of these trends would be shared 50-50 between the participating employees and Harris Semiconductor on a quarterly basis. The key was building a simple formula that each participant understood and include indices felt to be controllable by the participants. Others had failed in this endeavor because they complicated the exercise to levels beyond comprehension for most of the participants.

Once the formula was set, detailed policies were designed so that the participants would clearly understand the rules and regulations of the program. Also, an inten- sive communication program was put in place so persons that were not included in the pilot program would understand that Gainsharing was not a “give away” program.

In July 1991, a PILOT Gainsharing program was put in motion. The Fab employees were now sharing in the financial rewards that came from increased Quality, Pro- ductivity, and Customer Satisfaction. This was the real motivation behind SDWTs and teamwork-Customer Sat- isfaction!

The advantages of Gainsharing in the first three quarters of the piloted program included:

Customer focus had never been more intense! Better cooperation levels in the workforce. Greater participation/involvement of the workforce. Everyone treated the business like it was theirs and felt they had control of the outcome, including dollars, as a result of their actions. The improvement slope had been accelerated. The slope was significant and continuous before Gain- sharing, but steepened after Gainsharing implementation. Everyone had a “common line of sight.” Dollars were a good compliment to improvement.

The results since Gainsharing implementation have shown a 7.3 % savings in actual budget dollars expended during quarter 1 and 2 of FY92. The main benefit of the program is that it has significantly increased the FOCUS of the participating SDWTs and Support Teams. It has also had a motivational effect which has accelerated the rate of improvement on major indices. The improvements are beginning to be measured in Customer Satisfaction.

With all of the previously mentioned systems in place, the stage was set at Harris Semiconductor. The SDWTs and Support Teams had evolved into effective working units striving towards self management. The areas that had bought into the self management concept had become Total Quality Management centers. All of this is “fine and dandy,” but one must look at the results to fully com- prehend what impact the SDWT evolution has really had on the company.

RESULTS All Fab areas at Harris Semiconductor with SDWTs

have shown outstanding improvement. Two examples are Materials Fab 4 and Wafer Fab 54.


The Materials Fab is an area that specializes in Dielec- tric Isolation (DI), Bonded Wafer and Epi technologies. It is a supplier facility that has several major customers within Harris Semiconductor. Materials Fab supplies all DI and Bonded to other Harris Fabs and supplies a ma- jority of the Epi to the entire sector. Materials Fab has 12 SDWTs across a three shift operation. There are three PR/ Diff Teams, three Epi teams, three Poly teams and three Grind/Polish teams. These SDWTs are supported by one Support Team that is sub-divided (like the Star Concept) into Planning, Process, Equipment and Strategic groups.

One of the major customers of Materials Fab is Wafer Fab 54. Wafer Fab 54 specializes in custom integrated circuits for military application and a variety of commercial products. A variety of technologies are associated with the production of these military and commercial product lines. Wafer Fab 54 supplies these products to internal customers including wafer probe, die visual, as- sembly and final test operations. There are 12 SDWTs across a three shift operation. These are aligned to tech- nology cells including frontend photoresist, backend photoresist, thin film and diffusion. These SDWTs are supported by seven Support Teams including Planning, Process I, Process 11, Customer, Strategic, Systems and Yield teams.

Several employees from both Materials Fab and Fab 54 were original participants in the Quality By Design program that began in 1989. Both of these areas started the implementation of the SDWT concept early in calendar year 1990. Although these two Fabs took different approaches during the original development process, the constant and significant improvement in their major indices is quite evident.

Materials Fab The following graphs (Figs. 6 and 7) show rates of im-

provement in DI TPY and Cycle Time since the beginning of the SDWT transition process.

There is no graph for delivery to required mix because for the past 18 consecutive months (since September 1990) Materials Fab has achieved 100% to its delivery goals. This monumental achievement alone is ample evidence to the effectiveness of SDWTs.

Fab 54 The following graphs (Figs. 8 and 9) show rates of im-

provement on Fab CT and Fab UNYN-DIE since the beginning of the SDWT transition process. These reflect only a subset of the total indices package. Trends are similar for most indices monitored seeing continuous and sig-

Normalized

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1

Quarter Fig. 6. Materials Fab TPY

Normalized 2 . 0 1 . I I I 1 I I I I I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarter Fig. 7 . Materials Fab cycle time.

Normalized

I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1

Quarter Fig. 8. Fab 54 cycle time.

E in

c SDWTs I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarter Fig. 9. Fab 54 die yields.

nificant improvement. The Hughes Story

Success Stories The real proof in whether the move to SDWTs is work-

ing is not necessarily in just improvements to Fab and Company indices, but what does the customer think. This is best illustrated by the following success story.

Hams and Hughes do a variety of business including quick turn ASICS design and manufacturing. Harris has been working this business area hard but has struggled because cycle times are too long. Fab 54 has a historical cycle time on this process of 6 x theoretical and fast cycle of 4 X theoretical when expedited. Hughes Radar System

I54 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 6, NO. 2, MAY 1993

Group was in need of something far better. They needed a quick turn from tape release, mask fab through wafer fab, circuit debug, probe, prep and ship.

With Fab 54 being the primary stumbling block and longest potential cycle time, it was decided to bring the SDWTs into the discussions. After all, we had been working the SDWTs for some time and emphasis on customer focus was indeed the issue. These SDWTs were also the most knowledgeable group and it was important to get buy-in to what was needed. Furthermore, it was sug- gested to bring in Hughes representatives to detail the problem (opportunity). This was a different approach. Harris had never really brought the Fab teams into much contact with external customers.

Hughes was not accustomed to this approach but gained enthusiasm quickly. The SDWT representatives were very candid, voiced cautious optimism, and were given the authority to negotiate the cycle time. Fab Management had made a conscious effort to stay in the background and not sway the negotiations. Typically, Fab Management would have negotiated itself, given a conservative estimation quoting historical activity, a list of what-ifs and gotchas that could get in the way.

The SDWT members quoted cycle time of 2 x theoretical. Hughes, pointed out that this might be a little aggressive since this was to be 3 production lots, and 3 dif- ferenthntricate circuits. The SDWTs were even more adamant that their cycle time would be for all 3 lots. Hughes left the meeting feeling very good about the discussions and the intended cycle time, because those who were going to do the work were committed to the schedule and meeting the product quality requirements. When the meeting broke up, the Management Team had some con- cerns at the aggressive schedule the teams had set.

The SDWTs took the “bull by the horns” by handling every aspect of the endeavor. They communicated the customer requirement to the entire work force involved and got buy-in, completely planned the project and set up systems to insure that set ups were timely. They also worked out shift to shift coordination and opened dia- logues between our internal suppliers (Mask Fab and Ma- terials Fab) to keep abreast of changes, delays, etc. The SDWTs cleared process issues in advance since these were new products on a relatively untested process flow and it was important they familiarized themselves with issues that could impact a smooth effort. The most important aspect was the TOTAL INVOLVEMENT to the task at hand. The customer need was real and Harris was not going to let the customer down.

When the lots began arriving this involvement got even more intense. Delays were all but non-existent. Problems were resolved real time. Each of the three lots arrived

overtime to keep the lots moving non-stop. The SDWTs handled this with cost in mind.

The end result: the lots were delivered in cycle time of 1 . 2 ~ theoretical. This was WORLD CLASS and certainly impressed the customer!

Summary Although this paper suggests the transition to SDWTs

was a smooth and “hassle free” process, it was definitely not the case. As mentioned several times, the cultural changes alone were quite nerve racking. Changing the manner people have performed their jobs for years and years is far from an easy process. It should also be recognized that the evolution to SDWTs should not stop at the end of phase 111. The transition to SDWTs is a continual, dynamic and fluid process that should not be bound by short sighted vision. Instead, the transition must continue to strive towards total self-management by the workforce to assure customer satisfaction.

Taking into account the results presented above, and considering the difference in the work place today, as compared to five years ago, the evolution of employee empowerment into SDWTs was well worth the frustration and effort. With information, comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes improvement. But most importantly, with improvement comes pride. All of the SDWTs at Har- ris Semiconductor have pride and understand that being a participating member of a SDWT is also being a part of a “cutting edge,” Total Quality organization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Special thanks to all the SDWTs and support teams who

continue to shape the workplace at Hams Semiconductor today.

REFERENCES

[ l ] R. Harper and A. Harper, Succeeding as a SelfDirected Work Team,

[Z] K . Ishikawa, Guide to Quality Control. New York: UNIPUB, 1984. [3] L. M. Miller, American Spirit-Visions o f a New Corporate Culture.

[4] S. Nakajima, TPM Development Program. Cambridge, MA: Pro-

[5] T. Peters, Thriving on Chaos. [6] P. R. Scholtes, The Team Handbook, Joiner Associates Inc., 1988. [7] R. J . Schonberger, Japanese Manufacturing Techniques.

MW Corporation, 1989.

Warner, 1984.

ductivity Press, 1989. New York: Knopf, 1988.

New York: Free Press, 1982.

with a day or two between each other. Being staggered meant coordination was more difficult. When a problem arose, the fix was put into place so as to insure the next lot would not suffer the same fate. The Fab scheduled

Lawrence S. Behnke received the B.S. degree in Business Administration in 1975 from Michigan Technological University.

Since joining Hams Semiconductor in 1977, he has worked in a variety of management positions in manufacturing. He currently is a Production Manager (wafer fab) in the Military & Aerospace Division.


R. Marshall Hamlin, photograph and biography not available at the time of publication.

Bill C. Smoak graduated from the University of Florida in 1979 with a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, majoring in materials science.

He has been employed by Hams Semiconductor since that time, holding process engineering positions in diffision/oxidation, EPI silicon, polysil- icon deposition and polishing. Since 1987, he has had the responsibility of Engineering Manager in the materials wafer fab, and more recently engineering Project Leader of a process implementation in a CMOS wafer fab.

Documents

The evolution of employee empowerment