Next Meeting: Friday, March 7, 11:30-1 in CIS 101.

2/29 Meeting summary:

We started out with a brainstorming session on a processing problem that Maryam presented. Then, we reviewed action items (as indicated below.)

Renata started the quality circle session by presenting a framework for data collection on Coral based on discussions in the epi/epi2 functional area group meeting. (For reference, the functional area teams and members are listed below.) The broader proposal is to have a structure that allows for two sets of data collection/reporting; one for maintenance functions (such as PM's) and another for process monitoring and usage. The focus of this go-round is on the process monitoring/usage. The epi/2 group proposes that process collection could be divided into three categories:

The fields should be the same for all of these, but depending on the category, may be pre-filled out or enable a pull-down menu or specific comment fields. It was agree: Qual info is useful for documenting expectations for process performance; Standard info is useful for getting a handle on which processes are typically run on a tool; User info is useful for documenting novel processes.

The fields themselves should fall into the following types:

Much discussion followed, but the organizers for all the groups felt that allthe process info they had assembled so far could easily fit into this framework. Considerable time was spent discussing exactly how this would work in the lab. Given the limited understanding of the inner workings and full capabilities of Coral, the following suggestions were agreed upon:

1. Equipment should be enabled as usual. Data and info would be collected upon disable.
2. On disable, users could check a box for "qual", "standard" or "user" which would determine which fields would be required or pre-filled in. Several people said they often ran more than one "standard" process on a system (for example, different films etched in different chambers on p5000etch) and so wanted the flexibility to enter multiple "qual", "standard" or "user" runs as appropriate, without having to renable/disable a tool.
3. Input and Machine Check fields must be filled out in order to disable a tool. Output fields can be filled in by applying adjusting the history. Users other than staff should be able to adjust only their own history. It would be ideal to build in a function to nag users to enter data after the fact.
4. A field for "general comments" was strongly supported. Everyone felt that they would more likely make comments about equipment performance if asked to do so on disable. The question, then, was how to find this (could it appear in the Maintenance tab under "Comments"?)
5. Error logging was decided to be useful on some tools, such as epi, for feeding back performance information which could be useful for Maintenance.

Action items for next week:

1. Coral inputs: Each functional area team should map out its "process expectations" from this week's meeting into the framework outlined above. Try to be specific in the data fields to be collected, whether the field is required or forced, and any pull-downs, keeping in mind how users would use this.

2. Coral outputs: Each functional area team should describe how they would like to be able to access and view the data.

*Functional area groups and their members: labmembers volunteered to be the "organizers" (a role which may rotate among group members.)

• Litho Area: Aaron (organizer) J., Il Woong, Steve Z., Renata, Nahid, Maryam (Staff members: Mahnaz, Gary, Mario)
• Etch: Nahid (organizer), Tom, J., Il Woong, Renata, Maryam, Steve Z., Ray (Staff members: Nancy, Elmer, Mike)
• epi/epi2: Onur & Renata (organizers), Raja (Staff members: Maurice, Elmer)
• RTA: Raja (organizer), Tom, Serene (Staff members: Ed, Elmer)
• Furnaces: Maryam (organizer), J., Ray, Il Woong, Renata, Raja (Staff members: Nancy, Maurice, Ted, Ray)
• Metals: J. (organizer) (Staff members: Jeannie, Jim)

Action items from previous weeks:

• Process expectations: The organizer from each group should work with labmember volunteers to come up with criteria for process performance. This should include a specification of what a "standard process" is for a given tool and how the monitor is done (i.e., wafer prep, measurement method, reporting, etc.) It should be general enough to serve as a gage of equipment performance (i.e., test all critical functions, such as gas flows, pressure, temperature, whatever) but specific enough to be applicable to most users' needs. Done.
  
  
• Current trend data: Data is currently being done on a number of tools. Data will be provided to each of the volunteer groups (Mary) Done. (mostly)
  
  
• Equipment problem reports: Coral data for uptime and availability will be provided to each of the volunteer groups (Mary.) Done (PCS reports for one year provided.)

- ASML/SNF: ASML to provide specs on wafer curvature and handling. SNF to post on local server for users. (In progress -- and in parallel, ASML is collecting data from wafers in-house.)

- ASML/Mahnaz/Epi users: Test curved-wafer to handle-wafer method, where handle-wafer has a trimmed flat. (Not yet done.)

- ASML/Gary S: Gary can now retrieve wafers short of the e-chuck. (Partly done.)

- ASML/SNF: Build an alignment jig for device-wafer to handling-wafer mounting. (Not done).

- SNF: Stress gage. Paul R. will help anyone wishing to use the FSM. Investigating repair of the Flexus (Mary.) We will be acquiring a Flexus 2320 stress gage. ETA not yet determined.

- SNF: Find a way to monitor the plasma-off problem on stsetch1. (Elmer, Paul R.)

- stsetch users: Report plasma-off (and other) observations on Coral.

- Ed/Nahid: Assemble and share data from last year's REU/RET program. (Mostly done.)

- Ed/SNF: Jim McVittie did some contamination characterization experiments on stsetch1 some years ago. We need to obtain and examine these results. (Not done)

- Ed: Present stsetch2 RSM characterization results (at a future Grand Rounds?)

- Ed/J: Acquire and test cool grease. (Not done.)

- Ed/Mary: Contact other STS etch owners (at NNIN sites and elsewhere) and find out what they do for through wafer etching. (Not done)

- SpecMat:Work to resolve Nahid's request. (Not done)

- Nahid, Mario, Joey, w/input from SNF Staff: Develop an STS etch users survey to gage the user community's needs for DRIE. Survey should include questions about: substrate size requirements; substrates (SOI or not?); etch depth; minimum CD feature requirements (whether CD loss will be acceptable); contamination requirements/acceptable contamination levels; etc. (Mostly done.)